Talk:Fear Up interrogation techniques

Fear Up interrogation techniques include a number of undoubtedly coercive methods. If unpleasant, they still may be purely psychologically coercive and reasonably within the limits of the Geneva Conventions and Convention against Torture, but they also may go well beyond those constraints.

Existing doctrine
For example, the U.S. Army manual of 1987 described various levels of emotional fear effect, with explicit mention of Geneva Convention constraints. Targets for this approach are described as prisoners who are:"


 * younger and more inexperienced
 * appear nervous or frightened
 * appear to be the silent, confident type.
 * with something to hide, such as the commission of a war crime, or having surrendered while still having ammunition in his weapon, or breaking his military oath

This document divides the approach into mild and harsh methods. It also cautions it is a "dead-end" technique, to be used after more persuasive and rapport-building approaches have failed, since it is difficult to decrease fear once established. In the mild form, the interrogator must be visibly confident, relying on personality rather than shouting or making violent gestures. Still, it is a "credible distortion of the truth". It may be a blackmail-based technique when the source has something to hide, something of which his own side would not approve. It may rely on coincidence, such as suggestions of "caught on the wrong side of the border before hostilities actually commenced (he was armed, he could be a terrorist), or a result of his actions (he surrendered contrary to his military oath and is now a traitor to his country, and his own forces will take care of the disciplinary action)."

The harsh doctrinal approach has the interrogator(s) act "in a heavy, overpowering manner with a loud and threatening voice. The interrogator may even feel the need to throw objects across the room to heighten the source's implanted feelings of fear. Great care must be taken when doing this so that any actions taken would not violate the Geneva Conventions. This technique is to convince the source that he does indeed have something to fear and that he has no option but to cooperate. A good interrogator will implant in the source's mind that the interrogator himself is not the object to be feared, but is a possible way out of the trap. The fear can be directed toward reprisals by international tribunals, the government of the host country, or the source's own forces."