Decent if perhaps self-serving

Decent if perhaps self-serving book, which makes a good case for the author's main points. However, it's easy to imagine that the author sees himself as perhaps more of a hero fighting against the odds, than would be borne out by a discussion with all those involved.

In 2006, Matthew Alexander traveled to Iraq to assist in the interrogation of suspected terrorists. With the atrocities of Abu Ghraib still in the news and the United States’ participation in the Geneva Convention, the “old school” methods of interrogation are off-limits. Alexander is on a mission to bring humanity and strategy back into the art of interrogation. With Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a terrorist with plans to ignite a civil war in the broken Iraqi state, at large, and with suicide bombings in civilian areas on the rise, the stakes have never been more high. Will Alexander successfully transform the US’ interrogation methods or are we destined to repeat the same mistakes?

I think from the title of the book, I was expecting a more comprehensive account of interrogations as a whole and a more in-depth look at the various interrogation methods used. While the interrogation methods were mentioned in passing, and while there were a couple different subjects interrogated in the book, it definitely wasn’t what I was expecting. How to Break a Terrorist basically recounts a couple months in Alexander’s life as he interrogates a few terrorists while balancing humanity and national security.

Subjects discussed with the detainees included what caused them to join Al-Qaeda, how the Shiite police forces treated their families in the aftermath of the American invasion, and how the terror cells were structured. Personal stories of pain and resilience poured through the pages, and it showed a more human side to atrocious murderers that was interesting, if not a little sickening at times.

The book was intriguing and definitely a quick read, although it is a little outdated at this point. It didn’t change my life significantly, and I was a bit disappointed due to unmet expectations. It’s definitely a worthy read for those interested in the Iraq War and international relations, though.

I could not put this book down. It was a fascinating read on what modern interrogation techniques are like, as well as of the petty politics that go on even in these extreme circumstances. What I found most interesting, and most disturbing, is how many of the techniques I frequently use with my therapy clients to build rapport and open them up to telling me things they are initially hesitant about. What old school interrogators seem to forget is that beyond all the cultural differences, and the horrific actions, and disgusting rhetoric, the people in front of them are still people. And to act like they've somehow relinquished their humanity for their cause is to fundamentally misunderstand humanity.

I did find it somewhat simply written, and I wish it were longer and showed more, AND the little black out censor lines that were kept in when the government read over them swap between being fascinating and really really big frustrating. ARGH! In one sense it's cool he left them in there, on the other hand - what a tease! I kept feeling like I could just shine a light through the other side of the paper and read what was marked out.

There was nothing truly surprising in this -- if you treat people with respect they will respond better than if you try and demean and control them. It's the whole "you get more bees with honey" theory in action. That said, it was nice to read was is essentially one like piece of ancedotal evidence that proves the theory. It also shows that some people, for whatever reason, will always stick to the old, cruel ways of interrogation. Disappointing, but I suppose that is human nature as well.

The story is absolutely fascinating; the writing leaves something to be desired. This is not a book about torture vs non-torture, but about using intimidation/control vs a more friendly approach to interrogating terrorists. The author is working as an interrogator in Iraq, but his techniques are informed by work in criminal investigation in the US. The main plotline is about how this group of interrogators finally found Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but a lot of interesting details about the war in Iraq are revealed along the way.

I saw this author on "The Daily Show" and thought his book sounded interesting. He is an interrogator who worked in Iraq to ultimately help track down Zarqawi without using torture. It is the first book I have read which had passages blacked out by the Department of Defense. This is a hard book to review because it deals with so many complicated issues -- issues which people feel really strongly about. So for me personally, the struggle was this -- it is great to show that interrogators can extract information from people by being respectful, and more importantly, by not using torture. But at the same time, the information that they DO collect is still being used to ultimately go kill someone. I thought the author did a good job showing the humanity of the people he interrogated -- showing that they cared about their families and that they felt helpless in their war-torn country to do anything but join up with the insurgency. At the same time, he was also really honest (and graphic) about how much hatred he felt when he watched videos of beheadings and suicide bombings and how hard it was to then go in and be respectful toward the people who were responsible for those atrocities. He admitted to mistakes -- times when false intelligence or tactical errors led to the deaths of innocent people, and that was hard to read. In all, the book provided a lot of interesting insight into the inner workings of interrogations in Iraq, and how many shades of gray there are about every part of the process.

No creo o nunca creeré que la tortura sea la manera de conseguir información. Para mí, Estados Unidos utiliza el argumento de "the war on terror" como una excusa para cometer atrocidades y hacer experimentos con personas a las que ellos han categorizado como peligrosas, a veces sin tener pruebas sólidas.

Por supuesto que es necesario combatir el terrorismo (aunque combatir el cambio climático es más importante aún y no veo a Trump tan preocupado con eso, pero claro, no trae dinero porque no se pueden vender armas combatiendo el cambio climático...) y es necesario conseguir información que puede evitar las muertes de centenares de personas inocentes, pero estoy segura de que existen otros métodos más humanos (y mil veces más efectivos) que la tortura para conseguirla. De hecho, dudo seriamente que la tortura funcione en la gran mayoría de casos.

Por eso mismo, espero que cuando lea este libro el autor me ofrezca una posible solución a los horribles métodos empleados que resulte aceptable tanto moral como profesionalmente.

Not exactly what I was expecting, but still interesting in its own right. I though this would be more about facts and policies, but it turned out to be a story of how the author helped catch one of the major terrorists in Iraq. (Really, "How I Broke Terrorists" would have been a more accurate title.) Pretty easy and fun to read.