Talk:Pride-and-ego down

False Opening

Pride-and-ego down refers to humiliation techniques used by captors in interrogating prisoners to encourage cooperation, usually consisting of "attacking the source's sense of personal worth" and in an "attempt to redeem his pride, the source will usually involuntarily provide pertinent information in attempting to vindicate himself." [1]

The above opening statement is a mixture of the definition from Army FM 34-52 and personal bias. This ultimately leads one to believe that Army interrogation doctrine supports illegal acts as defined by the Geneva Conventions, which is false.

Sources

This is good info for people who don't understand exactly what "interrogation" entails. Many people think it's like we see on TV: A shady detective gruffly asking questions behind a bright light. Real interrogation is a much more hostile and painful experience than that, and that explains how "information gained from terrorist suspects" is gained, as so glibly reported on the news. Tragic romance 04:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

FM 2-22.3?!?

Can someone provide a link to FM 2-22.3 for this article? All I can find in the area of interrogation is FM 34-52. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Here is a link: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm2-22-3.pdf Note: It will say FM 34-52 in parenthesis because 2-22.3 has replaced the 34-52 and it is nice for those more familiar with the old numbering to be able to reference the newer FM. FM = Field Manual for those that do not know.

Is this really torture?

P&E down may be unpleasant, but it is hardly torture. If I tell a detainee he is a terrible Jihadist and that he is the reason his fellow conspirators were caught, this causes him to emotionally react but does not cause "severe" mental pain (as would a mock execution).

Wiki definition of torture: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..."

Also, I would dispute the commenter that asserts that interrogation is a hostile and painful experience. For many interrogators, the old adage "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" holds true. I have had many interrogations where an apeal to the detainee's own greed was enough to get him talking. Hostile just doesn't work that well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.81.26 (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not accurate

Pride and Ego Down is not a technique, is an Interrogation Approach if we want to keep the encyclopedic entry accurate. The actual name (as per the Field Manual that is quoted here) is Emotional Pride and Ego Down. It is also not "a US army term" but an interrogation approach used by interrogators, not limited to the U.S. Army.

Also the section titled ==Misconceptions== is misleading and does not explain how the approach is used, but relies on poor interrogation practices done in the past. In order for an interrogator to use the Emotional Pride and Ego down approach, he must adhere to the Geneva Conventions, in particular Common Article 3. I think we can rename this to: "Common missapplications", or "non-authorized uses". For example:

• Sexual activities and/or anything sexual is not authorized and therefore not used with the approach.

• A "member" will never be put into a sexually tempting position, as this will contravene Common Article 3.

• Attractive members of the opposite sex are not brought in to ridicule a naked detainee, since interrogators are forbidden to use nudity as an interrogation enhancing technique.

• Subject is not denied basic human rights. So denying him personal hygiene will go against current practices and therefore a non-authorized technique.

• There is no ingestion of human waste or a "suffering" of human waste upon the person. This is an outrage against dignity and therefore a non-negotiable when it comes to doing professional interrogations.

A little problem is that the approach is introduced as an army technique. But if we are going to discuss this accurately, it must be discussed as an interrogation approach.

Take care, Jerry.mills (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The title is really poor for that section. Just titling it Misconceptions is confusing. For example, is it misconceptions by the public about the technique or agents regarding the policy? - 67.166.134.243 (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

POV-section

For obvious reasons. I think the section should be axed entirely. Someone obviously has an agenda to push here. 219.73.23.167 (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)