Interrogation, USE OF INTERPRETERS

---

In some situations and cultures, interpreters may be limited in their effectiveness with a TA if their social standing is considerably lower than that of the audience.

Examples include significant differences in military rank or membership in an ethnic or religious group. Regardless of Soldiers' personal feelings on social status, they should remember the job is to accomplish the mission, not to act as an agent for social reform. Soldiers must tolerate local prejudices as a fact of life. An often-overlooked consideration is how well the interpreter speaks English. As a rule, if the interpreter understands the Soldier and the Soldier understands the interpreter, then the interpreter's command of English is satisfactory.

A Soldier can check that understanding by asking the interpreter to paraphrase, in English, something the Soldier said. The Soldier then restates the interpreter's comments to ensure that both understand each other. In addition, interpreting goes both ways. Interpreters must be able to convey information expressed by interviewees or the TA.

Interpreters should be quick, alert, and responsive to changing conditions and situations.

They should be able to grasp complex concepts and discuss them without confusion in a reasonably logical sequence. Although education does not equate to intelligence, generally speaking, the better educated the interpreter, the better he or she will perform, due to increased exposure to diverse concepts. In certain situations, Soldiers may need interpreters with technical training or experience in special subject areas.

This type of interpreter is able to translate the meaning as well as the words. For instance, if the subject is nuclear physics, background knowledge is useful. Soldiers should beware of a potential interpreter who arrives late for the interview. Throughout the world, the concept of time varies widely. In many less-developed countries, time is relatively unimportant. Soldiers should make sure that interpreters understand the importance of punctuality. If interpreters are local nationals, it is safe to assume that their first loyalty is to the HN or ethnic group, not to the US military.

The security implications are clear. Soldiers must be very cautious in how they explain concepts.

The Nation's Law Enforcement Community

Additionally, some interpreters, for political or personal reasons, may have ulterior motives or a hidden agenda when they apply for an interpreting job. Soldiers who detect or suspects such motives should tell the commander or security manager. Gender, age, and race. Gender, age, and race can seriously affect mission accomplishment. One example is the status of females in Muslim society. In predominantly Muslim countries, cultural prohibitions may render a female interpreter ineffective in certain circumstances.

Another example is the Balkans, where ethnic divisions may limit the effectiveness of an interpreter from outside the TA. Since traditions, values, and biases vary from country to country, it is important to check with the in-country assets or area studies for specific taboos or favorable characteristics. Soldiers and interpreters work as teams. For interpreters to be most effective, they should become a psychic extension of Soldiers. The TA will be quick to recognize personality conflicts between Soldiers and interpreters.

The Use of an Interpreter During an Interview

Such conflicts can undermine the effectiveness of the communication effort. If possible, when selecting interpreters, Soldiers should look for compatible traits and strive for a harmonious working relationship. If several qualified interpreters are available, Soldiers should select at least two. This practice is of particular importance if the interpreter will be used during long conferences or courses of instruction.

When two interpreters are available, they should work for one-half hour periods. Due to the mental strain associated with this type job, four hours of active interpreting is usually the approximate maximum for peak effectiveness. In the case of short duration meetings and conversations, when two or more interpreters are available, one can provide quality control and assistance to the active interpreter. Additionally, this technique is useful when conducting coordination or negotiation meetings, as one interpreter is used in an active role and the other pays attention to the body language and side conversations of the others present.

Many times, Soldiers can gain important auxiliary information that assists in negotiations from listening to what others are saying among themselves outside of the main discussion. Implied throughout the preceding points is the need for a careful analysis of the TA. This type of analysis goes beyond the scope of this appendix.

FMI Appendix B Use of Interpreters

Mature judgment, thoughtful consideration of the TA as individuals, and a genuine concern for their receiving accurate information goes a long way toward accomplishing the mission. Soldiers must remember that an individual from a farm or small village is going to have markedly different expectations than a jet-setting polo player.

As mentioned, it is safe to assume that if interpreters are not US military or US citizens, their first loyalty is to their country or ethnic group, not the United States. The security implications of using local nationals are clear. Soldiers must be cautious about what information they give interpreters. Soldiers must always keep security in mind. Certain tactical situations may require the use of uncleared indigenous personnel as "field expedient" interpreters. Commanders should be aware of the increased security risk involved in using such personnel and carefully weigh the risk versus the potential gain.

Obstacles arise when interrogating non-English speakers

If uncleared interpreters are used, any sensitive information should be kept to a minimum. Interpreters must be honest and free from unfavorable notoriety among the local populace.

Their reputation or standing in the community should be such that persons of higher rank and standing will not intimidate them. Interpreters are a vital link between Soldiers and the TA. Without cooperative, supportive interpreters, the mission could be in serious jeopardy. Mutual respect and understanding is essential to effective teamwork.

Soldiers must establish rapport early in the relationship and maintain rapport throughout the operation. The difficulty of establishing rapport stems most of the time from the lack of personal contact.

Soldiers begin the process of establishing rapport before they meet interpreters for the first time by doing their homework in advance on the people, nations, and areas to be discussed. Most foreigners are reasonably knowledgeable about the United States. Soldiers should obtain some basic facts about the HN. Useful information may include population, geography, ethnic groups, political system, prominent political figures, monetary system, business, agriculture, and exports.

A good general outline can be obtained from a recent almanac or encyclopedia. More detailed information is available in the area handbook for the country, from the Internet, and from current newspapers and magazines. Soldiers working with an interpreter should find out about the interpreter's background. This positioning also invites the subject to talk to the investigator rather than the interpreter.

Conversely, it is undesirable to position the interpreter directly in front of the subject. This arrangement affords the deceptive suspect greater comfort because he is not psychologically exposed to the investigator in much the same way that a guilty suspect feels protected if the investigator is seated behind a desk or table. Furthermore, if the investigator is not sitting directly in front of the subject, the interpretation of various nonverbal behaviors such as posture alignment and eye movements may be affected.

The one exception to this rule is when interviewing a subject who is deaf or hearing impaired. The investigator should be positioned directly to the side of the signer. Consequently, this arrangement may be considered when the subject is in custody and is offering little cooperation. Another occasion in which this may be a desirable position for the interpreter is when the subject is familiar with the interpreter and the investigator wants to minimize the psychological bond between the two.

Prior to the interview the investigator should spend a few minutes briefing the interpreter about the issue under investigation as well as the general procedures that will be used during the interview. It may be appropriate to reassure the interpreter that the suspect does not present a danger and that adequate security measures in place. During any formal interview it is our recommendation that the investigator prepare for the interview by writing out, in abbreviated form, key questions that will be asked during the interview. It will be beneficial for the interpreter to review these scripted questions to help prepare for the translations and ask questions, if necessary, to clarify the meaning of certain words.

Once the investigator and interpreter are seated in front of the suspect, the investigator should introduce himself but not the interpreter. The goal is for the suspect to perceive the interpreter as a disinterested, uninvolved party to the conversation. The investigator should look at the subject when asking a question. If this pattern is established from the outset of the interview, most subjects will also direct their responses to the investigator rather than to the interpreter.

If the subject directs his response to the interpreter, the investigator should immediately interrupt the response and instruct the subject to talk to him. During the first several minutes of the interview the investigator should ask non-threatening background questions which appear to have the purpose of identifying the subject and obtaining general background information from him.

The following are examples of introductory questions:. In actuality, these questions serve a much more important function than simply identifying the subject. First, introductory non-threatening questions establish a communication pattern for the rest of the interview. Second, the initial asking of non-threatening questions allows the investigator to develop a rapport with the subject. To conduct an effective interview requires that a special relationship exist between the investigator and subject.

The second time police questioned Escondido murder suspect Vinh Pham, they asked a nurse at the jail to help them communicate with the man they'd arrested. She wasn't trained as a translator or an interrogator. What followed were statements that —— while potentially giving police more information on the slaying they were investigating —— ended up as being inadmissible in court.

Halfway through the interrogation, Pham —— whose murder trial is under way —— said in Vietnamese, "I want to go back to jail," and "I don't want to say anymore. Superior Court Judge Marguerite Wagner, who is presiding over Pham's trial, ruled earlier this month that, by making that statement, Pham had invoked his right to silence, making the rest of the interrogation inadmissible in court.

Wagner tossed the second half of the interrogation. The jury won't hear the rest of the conversation, which the prosecutor had characterized in court documents as "crucial" to the case. Prosecutors have other evidence they argue connects Pham to the shooting death of his sister-in-law's boyfriend, Johnny Nguyen. That evidence includes a bullet found in the wall of Pham's home.

Prosecutors allege the bullet came from the same gun that was used in killing Nguyen. Pham's case is an example of a hole in the system that, while it doesn't come up very often, could have the potential to make or break a case in court. Police and others agree that the language barrier can be tough to overcome in interrogations. But there are no laws in place that govern when or if an interpreter should be brought in during interrogations —— nor are their laws that govern the qualifications of the interpreter to whom police turn.

The California Constitution states that a person unable to understand English who is charged with a crime has the right to an interpreter throughout the proceedings. The key word there is "charged," said Dan Segura, the public defender who at one time represented Pham in the pending murder case. Segura said that the courts have generally ruled that a "charge" refers to the actual complaint filed by the prosecutors office, not to the arrest.

• Geopolitics and the Post-Colonial: Rethinking North-South Relations
• Isorropia
• MCAT Chemistry Review Questions Naming Ionic Compounds
• The Development of the Person: The Minnesota Study of Risk and Adaptation from Birth to Adulthood
• Back to Basics: Tactics (ChessCafe Back to Basics Chess)