Simply incompatible with American principles

Review of Matthew Alexander’s How to break a terrorist: The U.S. interrogators who used brains, not brutality, to take down the deadliest man in Iraq

By Judith Prueitt-Prentice

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we are happy to publish a book review by Judith Prueitt-Prentice, who has a Masters in Family Studies,  a special interest in social justice issues, and took my course in the Psychology of War and Peace in the summer of 2011.]

“Torture is counterproductive to keeping America safe and it doesn’t matter if we do it or if we pass it off to another government. The result is the same. And morally, I believe, there is an even stronger argument. Torture is simply incompatible with American principles.” (Alexander, 2008)

The ticking time bomb scenario is a familiar theme in TV and film dramas featuring terrorists. Jack Bower, the reluctant FBI agent in the popular TV series 24 hours, races against the clock to foil deadly anti-government plots. He has a choice:  follow the rules, or beat the crap out of this week’s villain to get the codes to disarm the bomb. Nine times out of ten, the bleeding cowardly terrorist coughs up the codes with seconds to spare and New York, scene of the worst terrorist attack in US history, is made safe once again. Or is it?

In How to Break a Terrorist, Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym),  a seasoned solider, police investigator, and US Army interrogator, describes how he used soft interrogation styles, including knowledge of local culture, negotiation, and compassion, rather than “old school” fear and control, to gain information in hundreds of interrogations.

It was his information, Alexander says, that led to the location of Abu Musab Al  Zarqawi, suspected of being the number two man in Al Qaida, the terrorist organization blamed for the 9/11 attacks on New York’s World Trade Center.

Alexander is openly critical of the enhanced interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration. He believes more American lives have been lost in Iraq due to the use of torture than were lost in the 9/11 attacks.

Alexander’s  book is exciting. It describes webs of intrigue, lies told on both sides, and the often sad true stories of ordinary people who choose to become terrorists in a world of terror.

Using brains instead of brutality

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Our second post for Torture Awareness Month is a book review about alternatives to torture.]

By Rachel Tochiki

In his book, How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq, Matthew Alexander, with John R. Bruning, describes his experience as interrogator in a prison in Iraq.How to Break a Terrorist book cover

How do you “break” a terrorist, i.e., get a prisoner to open up and give information under interrogation?

Alexander’s answer is to appeal to human emotion and build rapport and trust– a strategy that contrasts sharply with old-school tactics of fear and control.

In describing his process of interrogation, he explains that he is an actor, taking on whatever personality or life experiences are necessary to appeal to the prisoner.

Despite the  skepticism and disagreement of other interrogators, his strategy produced successful results, leading to the intelligence necessary to find Abu Musab al Zarqawi, one of the top priority terrorist leaders in Iraq.

Avoiding dehumanization of the enemy did not come easily for Alexander, who was often exposed to Al Qaida’s anti-America propaganda videos showing suicide bombings and beheadings. Yet his determination not to hate the enemy enabled him to reach a new level of understanding with the prisoners.

He found that many people work for Al Qaida because they need money, or are afraid of Shia militias. They see Al Qaida as a form of protection for their families. Few of the prisoners he interrogated actually believed in the ideology of Al Qaida.

He emphasizes that techniques upholding the Geneva Conventions are successful, and dismisses the need for enhanced interrogation. To obtain useful and accurate information from prisoners, fear and control are not as successful as methods of rapport and trust.

The book shows that even in times of war, soldiers need to remain humane, and Alexander emphasizes that doing so pays off.