Interrogation at the School of the Americas in 1983-1987

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Interrogation at the school of the Americas in 1983-1987

M.I. Samofatov

I.I. Mechnikov

Школа Америк - елітний військово-тренувальний центр, вихованці якого зіграли величезну роль в історії Латинської Америки в 2 половині XX століття та неодноразово звинувачувались у скоєнні злочинів проти прав людини. Автор статті, аналізуючи підручник з проведення допитів, що використовувався в Школі Америк, намагається відповісти на питання: чому саме навчали курсантів та чи сприяло їх навчання протиправній діяльності?

Ключові слова: Школа Америк, Латинська Америка, допит, Центральне Розвідувальне Управління, тортури.

Школа Америк - элитный военно-тренировочный центр, воспитанники которого сыграли огромную роль в истории Латинской Америки во 2 половине XX века и неоднократно обвинялись в совершении преступлений против прав человека. Автор статьи, анализируя учебник по проведению допросов, который использовался в Школе Америк, пытается ответить на вопросы: чему именно обучали курсантов и способствовало ли их обучение противоправной деятельности?

Ключевые слова: Школа Америк, Латинская Америка, допрос, Центральное Разведывательное Управление, пытки.

The School of the Americas is an elite military training center which graduates played huge role in the history of Latin America in the late XXth century. The author of the article analyses the interrogation manual which was used at the School of the Americas and tries to answer such questions: what exactly were the cadets taught and did their education make any contribute to unlawful activity?

Key words: the School of the Americas, Latin America, interrogation, Central Intelligence Agency, tortures.

The United States of America always played a highly important role in Latin America. And after World War II the US - Latin America relationships only strengthened. For the majority of people, the US politics in this region was symbolised by the School of the Americas, an elite military training center where the militaries from all Latin America were taught by the US officers [1: 15].

The School of the Americas (SOA) left a significant mark on modern Latin American history. There are a lot of dictators who came out of this center, so it got the nickname “The School of Dictators”. These dictators are [3]:

1) Argentina: Jorge Rafael Videla (1975-1981), Roberto Viola (1981), Leopoldo Galtieri (1981-1982); 2) Bolivia: Hugo Banzer Suarez (1971-1978), Guido Vildoso Calderon (1982); 3) Guatemala: Efrain Rios Montt (1982 - 1983); 4) Honduras: Juan Melgar Castro (1975 - 1978), Policarpo Paz Garcia (1980 - 1982); 5) Ecuador: Guillermo Rodriguez (1972 - 1976); 6) Panama: Omar Torrijos (1968 - 1978), Manuel Noriega (1981 - 1989); 7) Peru: Juan Velasco Alvarado (1968 - 1975).

Reputation of the SOA is spoiled because of large number of graduates who are connected with war crimes. The most important are Roberto D'Aubuisson, Luis Arce Gomez, Pablo Belmar, Miguel Krassnoff-Martchenko, Harold Pizarro, Guzman Rodriguez, and Vladimiro Lenin Montesinos Torres [4].

SOA was established in 1946 in Panama Canal Zone, Fort Amador under the name “The United States Army Caribbean School (USARCARIB)”. Then, in 1949, it was moved to Fort Gulick. In 1963, USARCARIB was reorganised and renamed the School of the Americas. In 1984, due to conflict with Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, SOA moved to the USA, Georgia, Fort Benning where it is still located. In 2001, after the series of scandals and continuous senate debats, the School of the Americas was reorganised into the Western Hemisphere Institute for National Security and Cooperation (WHINSEC). But it plays the same role as the SOA [1: 15 - 21]. SOA history is important in two senses: historical and political. In the historical sense, the history of center needs to be researched further and deeper. Only the USA and some European historians made serious researches in this direction. The most famous researchers are: William Ormsbee, Noel Hidalgo, David Pion-Berlin, Craig Arceneaux, John Fishel, Gregory Weeks, and Carlton Fox. In post-Soviet countries, SOA is still unexplored. In the political sense, existing of WHINSEC (SOA) is highly controversial question in the USA and Latin America. There are many opponents of this center who think that SOA activity leads to anti-democratisation and political instability. For example, one of Hillary Clinton's pre-election promises in the U SA presidential campaign of 2016 was closing of WHINSEC [5].

Unfortunately, there is no possibility to research the history of SOA in details because of lack of sources; usually they are marked “top secret” or available just for American historians, which could be pressured by militarians. But there are some documents that were declassified. Two reporters from `The Baltimore Sun', Ginger Thompson and Gary Cohn, made in 1995 journalist investigation in Honduras about local civil war in the 80-s. They discovered that many torturers in that war received payment from CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and many of them were graduates from SOA where they were taught how to torture prisoners (it was a part of interrogation course) [7]. This information caused scandal in the USA. After several years of debates at Congress, CIA released several documents: so-called KUBARK (cipher for CIA name) manuals which where written in 1963, and Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual which was used from 1983 to 1987 and was written in similar manner as KUBARK manuals. The goal of this article is to discover the structure of Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual and to answer these questions:

1. Which skills SOA developed in the future interrogators?

2. Were militarians taught to violate human rights, and, if yes, how exactly? In another words, what is the degree of SOA's responsibility for wrongdoings of its graduates?

There is one specific feature of the released document. Unknown and lazy CIA officer made a lot of corrections in the manual by a pen, trying to expose interrogation course in more “lawful” way. Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual is a complete manual on interrogation. Interrogation was a part of such cources: intelligence, counterintelligence, psychological operations, counterinsurgency, cources for high command staff, and several others. Interrogation course lasted for one month: first two weeks cadets listened to the lectures, and second two weeks they practiced interrogation. There are 120 pages in manual. The author of the manual is the CIA officer whose name isn't mentioned. At first, manual has a prohibition against the use of force, which was added later. The document consists of such sections: Introduction; Liaison Relationships; Interpreters; Selection of Personnel as Interrogators; Design and Management of a Facility; Arrest and Handling of Subjects; Screening of Subjects; Planning the Interrogation; Conducting the Interrogation; Non-Coercive Techniques; Coercive Techniques; Checklist for the Interrogation; Reporting.

Introduction gives us brief description of the course, expounds some technical questions, and gives definitions of basic terms which are used in the manual such as “questioner”, “intelligence”, “elicitation”, “subject”, “bonafides”, “screening”[2: A-1]. The most important are definitions of key persons - questioner and subject. Questioner is “a person trained and experienced in the art of extracting information from a subject in response to explicit requirements” [2: A-5]. Subject is “a person believed to possess information of value to the service questioning him” [2: A-6].

Introduction also decribes the cycle of intelligence which consists of collectioning, processing, dissemination, and assessment. The author notes that this cycle can be decribed as a circle because it has no beginning and no end.

The next section regards two problems: legal considerating, advantages and disadvantages of working with liaison. The author describes five factors relating to legality of questioning:

1. Does service have law enforcement powers?

2. Does service have authority to operate in home country?

3. Does “questioning” of citizens requires special approval?

4. Illegal detention always requires an approval.

5. Coercive techniques always require approval (so in text) constitute an impropriate and violate policy.

Liaison is the person who can contact with local governmental institutions, help with selection of personnel, can provide some useful information. But interrogator must be always sure about safety of all their conversations with liaison and to provide him too much information [2: B-4].

The following section explains how questioner should search and work with interpreters in cases, where their help is needed. The author admits that the use of interpreters must never be considered as satisfactory substitute for direct communication between interrogator and subject [2: C-1].

There are several difficulties in this situation [2: C-2]: 1) time of “questioning” will more than double; 2) lack of personal contact with subject; 3) extremely hard to use “questioning” techniques; 4) inability to use tonal inflections and expressions increases the possibility of misunderstanding; 5) the presence of interpreter may cause an otherwise cooperative subject to withhold information during the “questioning”; 6) increasing of security risks.

“Questioner” should search for interpreter who has similar personality as him. Also an interpreter needs to be the same nationality as an interrogator (in most cases). Sometimes, depending on the country, an interpreter has to have certain social status or be a man (women are not always acceptable by subjects) [2: C-5]. An interrogator should train an interpreter how to establish personal contact in the way that a “questioner” needs. Next sections give a list of qualifications and personal characteristics of a “questioner”. The author emphasizes that skilled interrogator can achieve huge results by understanding the emotional needs of subjects and establishing personal contact [2: D-1]. “Questioner” must have: 1) enough operational training and experience to permit quick recognition of leads; 2) familiarity with the language to be used; 3) extensive background knowledge about the subject's environment; 4) genuine understanding of the source as a person.

The following section is the “Design and Management of Facility”.This topic is very large and explains to cadets how the prisons should be built and equipped. The author writes about every detail which should help the “questioner” to create an appropriate atmosphere [2: E-1]: administrative considerations, security considerations, cell block planning, equipping of the “questioning” room. The basic idea of section is to make subject's life uncomfortable in psychological sense. Also the section gives an instruction how to train prison personnel and internal guards. The section “Arrest and Handling of Subjects” gives general recomendations for cadets. The first and the main reccomendation is to arrest the subject at the moment when he least expects this, so his mental and physical resistance will be the lowest. The early hours of the morning are the ideal time for this. The author gives apprehension against the use of violence: if to break the subject's jaw, he won't be able to answer the questions [2: F-1].

“Questioner” shouldn't participate in an arrest, because in this case subject will react quite differently [2: F-3]. Instead of this he should do screening of subject. Interrogator should know the `value' of the subject, define the subject's category and identify his personality.

There are four categories of subjects by priority [2: G-2]:

• Priority A - subjects who most likely have important scientific or technical knowledge and were directly involved in subversive acts.

• Priority B - subjects who have information of intelligence value, such as information of immediate tactical value.

• Priority C - subjects who have information to verify other information.

• Priority D - subjects who have no information of intelligence value.

Information of intelligence value can be provided by several types of people [2: G-3]: 1) travellers - only questioned, if they fall into other categories; 2) repatriates - sometimes questioned; 3) defectors, escapees and refugees - can be used as agents; 4) agents are divided into three categories: provocateurs, double agents and fabricators.

Preliminary psychological assessment of the subject allows interrogator select questioning techniques matched to the personality. It is very important not to make a mistake in this part: in this case interrogator won't establish personal contact with the subject. Basic psychological types are [2: G-6]: orderly-obstinate subject; optimistic subject; greedy, demanding subject; anxious, self-centers subject; guilt-ridden subject; subject wrecked by the success; schizoid subject; the exception; normal subject. After collecting and processing information about the subject interrogator must create a plan for questioning. Each person demands new plan. The long range goal of the plan is to destroy subject's capacity to resist and replace it with a cooperative attitude to obtain all useful information [2: H-1]. In the next section the author gives a detailed structure of the questioning. There are four phases of questioning [2: I-1]:

1. The opening: in this phase the subject is allowed to talk without interruption. Interrogator should use this time to establish rapport and determine reasons for subject's resistance. Duration of this phase depends on proffesionalism of the “questioner”.

2. The reconnaisance: this phase can be passed if the subject is cooperative. But in another case the “questioner” needs to determine the kind and degree of pressure that will be needed during the third phase.

3. The detailed questioning: interrogator should know what specific questions he wants to use. He needs to cover all elements of who, what, when, where, why, how; also he needs to know the source of subject's knowledgements. Interrogator should make subject feel that he is constantly interested in him. But he mustn't allow the subject determine the extent area of interest and level of knowledge. Interrogator should avoid asking “yes/no” questions and pushing interrogation beyond the plan. Time is working on interrogator.

4. The bargaining: interrogator should be able to offer the subject something to encourage cooperation. The subject also could ask for several things: protection from retaliation, giving new identity, moving to another region or getting a chance to work against former colleagues.

The last two themes - “Non-Coercive Techniques” and “Coercive Techniques” are dedicated to methods which interrogator could use during the process of questioning. This is the most scandalous part of the manual because of the numerous instructions which violate human rights. Even non-coercive techniques can do serious harm to the people. But critics of the SOA sometimes distortedly interpret the sense of sections. There are several tortures that are just mentioned to illustrate their inefficiency; but critics interpret them as the direct instructions for cadets [6: 7]. All non-coercive techniques are based on the principle of generating pressure inside the subject without the application of physical violence [2: J-1]. To make these methods effective, the interrogator must disrupt psychological associations of the subject and his patterns of time, space and sensory perception. Techniques are limited only by the experience and imagination of the interrogator. But he needs to be sure that his methods will work. If he thinks that the subject has the will and determination to withstand all non-coercive techniques, it is better to avoid them completely [2: J-3].

Techniques which are presented in the manual can be understood just by names: “the direct approach”, “going next door”, “nobody loves you”, “we know everything”, “news from home”, “witness”, “divide and conquer”, “unanswerable questions” and other. If it is possible, the process of questioning should be recorded on the video. Coercive techniques are needed for persons who are able to resist non-coercive; they also should be approved by the higher officers [2: K- 4]. The goal of all coercive methods is to induce psychological regression by using outside force. There are three major principles for their successful application [2: K-1]: Debility (physical weakness); Dependency; Dread (intence fear and anxiety). Basic coercive techniques that are decribed in the manual: 1) brutal detention; 2) deprivation of sensory stimuli (with the deprivation cameras); 3) physical violence (effectiveness depends on personality); 4) hypnosis and heightened suggestibility (very doubful and unreliable technique); 5) narcosis (the most wrongly interpreted technique. The author notes that there is no drug which can force a subject to divulge information that he has. More effective will be using of “placebo” technique to give the subject reason to betray himself and dependent on him people and organisations).

Having analyzed the text of Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual, we can admit the high level of education in the SOA. During education cadets got a wide range of knowledge and had a possibility to practice in the interrogation.

The USA was interested in the creation of network of loyal militarians across all Latin America, especially with the skills of collecting important intelligence information. A lot of graduates became double agents and provided vital information to their colleagues from the United States.

The negative side of such education was the brutal violations of human rights. Graduates of SOA often went beyond the instructions in manual. The defenders of this training center say that war criminals were just bad people and their education didn't lead to violence against civil society. Of course, this is partly true. But it is also true that using “light” tortures leads to ignoring human rights and has a perspective to more serious violence. There is a high proportion of war crimes among the graduates of SOA, and this fact cannot be explained only by their bad character.

References

1. Fighting the Enemy Within Terrorism [Electronic resource] / Gregory Weeks // Human Rights Review. - № 5 (1). - 2003. - P.12-27. - Access mode: https://clas-pages.uncc.edu/gregory-weeks/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2012 /04/Weeks G_2003HRRarticle.pdf

2. Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual, CIA [Electronic resource] // The National Security Archive. - 1983. - 124 p. - Access mode: http://www. nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBBB/NSAEBB 122.

3. 11 Latin American Dictators [Electronic resource] // SOA Watch. - 2012. - Access mode: http://soaw.org/about-the-soawhinsec/13-soawhinsec-graduates/840.

4. Most Notorious SOA graduates [Electronic resource] // SOA Watch. - 2012.

- Access mode: http://www.soaw.org/about-the-soawhinsec/soawhinsec- grads/ notorious-grads.

5. School of the Americas/WHINSEC Closure Included in Democratic Party Platform [Electronic resource] / Brett Wilkins // Daily KOS. - 15 July 2016.

- Access mode: http://www.dailykos.com/story/1016/7/14/1548258/School- of-the-Americas-WHINSEC-Closure-Included-m-Democratic-Party-Platform.

6. The case for closing the School of the Americas / Quigley B. [Electronic resource]. - BYU J. Pub. L. - 2005. - 25 p. - Access mode: http://digitalcommons. law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= 13 55&context=jpl

7. Torturers' Confessions [Electronic resource] G.Thomspon, G. Cohn // The Baltimore Sun. - June 13, 1995. - Access mode: www.baltimoresun.com /news/bal-honduras3 -story.html.

Размещено на Allbest.ru