I uploaded this icon just to reflect my feelings on this subject

[elspeth_vimes]

THIS.

Just...that. Both the NPR story and the links to other stories on the subject

Comments

[elspeth_vimes]

Well, it depends on the target.

With a terrorist group the best way would probably be tapping into their best method of communication, cultivating a source within the group, and/or planting someone. But a group like al-Qaeda does make that extremely difficult. They change cell phones consistently, and are organized in cells so that the only people who have a full idea of what's going on are the few people in charge of the whole group. Those people, of course, are probably so committed that they could never be recruited as a source, assuming an agent could get to them in the first place. And having someone join the group would almost certainly never yield a return equal to the investment.

Making this worse, if I remember right, is that the U.S. isn't used to relying on human intelligence these days, it's been mostly signals stuff for a while. They're just not as likely to think "Well, maybe if we get some sources in this area where [x] have been known to hang out a lot we'll pick up something worthwhile." And, in the wake of 9/11, the U.S. panicked. It often takes two years or more before you can ask a foreign source you're recruiting to work for you. The U.S. was sure something new was going to strike at any minute.

It's possible to see why the U.S. decided that the best option would just be to capture whoever they could and beat answers out of them. But the people they're capturing are mostly foot soldiers in the first place. They might have been involved in a major plot, but it was probably more a case of them having been in the right place at the right time, or of them having the appropriate technical skills, than of them knowing all about all the specific plans to undermine the West. Really, in that case, a protracted sort of good cop/bad cop thing is probably going to yield as much or more useful information as torture. The biggest thing torture will do for you is severely undermine your credibility in the international community. (And seriously, waterboarding was ruled to be too inhumane for use by the U.S. during the Spanish-American War.)

...That wasn't even really on topic, was it. *headdesk*

ALSO, I AM NOT AN AUTHORITY ON THIS. ...yet

[fruitsgrow]

It sorta answered my question? I was wondering more to once someone is captured, what is an effective manner to get information out of them -- but this was actually interesting. :3

[elspeth_vimes]

Yeah, I don't know as much about that part as I would like...but when you're going after general information, it's much better if the person really does want to talk to you, I think. These guys did not really have specifics, and they should have know that. (Again, knowledge disclaimer.)
I am glad the tl;dr did not alienate you too much!

[fruitsgrow]

Yeah, I imagine looking up police interviews and such might shed some light on how to get people to want to talk about it and what does and doesn't work. Since torture is about as good as asking someone uncooperative answers.

I don't see how it could. XD Not totally knowledgeable in this but it doesn't fly over my head.

[elspeth_vimes]

Exactly.

Well, I'm not all that knowledgeable either, it's easy for stuff to fly over my head. XD

[fruitsgrow]

Well. When people get into names and only reference some incidents, then it flies over my head. This is like, my govt class every day. My teacher always has amusing lectures, and the wants-to-politic-science-major kid will get really into some senator squabble that only she gets and the like. (ffff it's really annoying, actually. Because it's like, ten minutes of staring at the floor waiting for him to shut up, so I can continue to grasp more basic politics. And he's the type of person to talk to hear himself talk and doesn't listen to others. at all. So it makes his ten minute, excited spiel that much worse. sdfksdlfksl haet that kid. Too bad I sit behind him.)

[elspeth_vimes]

Ugh, I hate that. If it's something that most of the class won't know about (and let's face it, if it's about what Senator [X] thinks about Senator [Y]'s piece of legislation, that's probably the case), you talk to the teacher about it after class if you really want their take. Unless it's 1) very relevant to what's being taught and 2) possible for everyone to learn from, it doesn't need to be raised in the class itself.
...I mean, I'm pretty sure I've violated that a few times, but I do try to keep "Oh hay what about Ukraine's Orange Coalition?" to outside class.

[fruitsgrow]

Well, it's for current events. In the beginning of class, we talk about what's going on and our teacher will relate it what we are learning/have learned or will teach us a little bit about those politics. So it is relevant, but it's a class of high school seniors -- most of us don't even know these senators' names. Our teacher always has to provide backstory for us, and she never asks something he brought up in class on quizzes. So at the same time, no, it's not that relevant.

skdjflsd yes, he should take it to the end of class. Especially because it's every day and this little moment for him to show off. Not really a slip and "hey hey, I want to talk about Ukraine's Orange Coalition."