The FBI Rejected Harsh Interrogations Because They Fail in Court
Agents who must testify cannot use methods a judge would throw out, so being helpful beats being harsh.
The Oath with Chuck Rosenberg · Robert S. Mueller III: The Director (Part 2)After the attacks of September 11, 2001, other American agencies began questioning terrorism suspects with harsh methods the FBI had never used. Robert S. Mueller III, the bureau's director, barred his agents from taking part.
His reason came down to what happens next. The FBI is mainly a law enforcement agency, and its agents regularly testify in federal court. On the witness stand, an agent must show precisely where information came from, and faces scrutiny if he admits to using methods viewed as unconstitutional.
That creates what Mueller called a sourcing problem. Mueller said the CIA's job is "to gather information, regardless of where it comes from," while its officers do not testify in court. An FBI agent who wants to use that information for a search warrant or at trial must show exactly where each fact came from, and a statement obtained by unconstitutional methods, and evidence derived from it, can be thrown out.
So the bureau stuck with its own method, taught at its Quantico, Virginia, training academy and used for more than 100 years: rapport building. The agent appears helpful, listens, and writes everything down so it can be used in court. Mueller said "you'll get far more information from a subject if you appeared helpful than any other interrogation mechanism," and he agreed when asked that information gathered that way is more reliable.
The decision was unpopular at the time, even inside the FBI. A segment of the intelligence community argued that without tougher methods, the government would miss information that could save lives. Mueller said he did not quarrel with its use in intelligence work, and that he could speak only for the FBI.
Questions people ask
What is rapport-building interrogation in practice?
It means treating the interview like a conversation rather than a confrontation. Agents introduce themselves clearly, explain the process, listen at length, and look for common ground to keep the subject talking. The FBI teaches that a person who feels heard will volunteer far more detail, over more sessions, than someone who shuts down.
Why would a court throw out information from harsh interrogations?
The Constitution bars coerced confessions, and judges exclude statements that were not given voluntarily. Prosecutors must also prove that evidence was not the fruit of an illegal interrogation. If an agent admits to unconstitutional methods on the stand, the statement, and evidence derived from it, can be suppressed.
Do the FBI and CIA really operate under different rules?
Yes, because they have different jobs. The CIA, the nation's foreign intelligence service, collects secrets overseas and its officers almost never appear as witnesses in American criminal trials. The FBI builds cases for prosecution in federal court, so every interview must be documented to meet constitutional standards and rules of evidence.