Methods of interrogation - forewarned is forearmed!

[Jacks Complete]

What you don't know will hurt you. If you are ever asked questions by a cop, you will meet these nasty tricks to cajole a confession from you, and they are often more effective than a beating, as well as admissable!

It is a game of chess to them, and they have nothing to lose, and they know the rules. You may well need them too!
----
http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/article.jsp?id=8631&siteSection=306
----
Updated: July 7th, 2006 01:31 PM EDT
Methods of Interrogation: Techniques on Interrogation for Corporate Security
Using factual techniques, emotional appeals and a modified emotional appeal to allow your investigations to bear fruit
David E. Zulawski, CFI, CFE; and Douglas E. Wicklander, CFI, CFE
Special to SecurityInfoWatch.com

[Editor's note: The following article is excerpted with permission from chapter 22 of the third edition of The Process of Investigation: Concepts and Strategies for Investigators in the Private Sector, published by Butterworth-Heinemann, and authored by Charles Sennewald and John Tsukayama. The book is useful as a reference guide, though the clarity and readability of the book makes it a useful self-study text for any security director or corporate investigator looking to hone his or her skillset. The following section is from a paragraph that was authored by David Zulawski and Douglas Wicklander, and which appeared in Sennewald and Tsukayama's text with permission from Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates.]


There are a number of different ways to conduct an interrogation of a suspect. The interrogator's selection
of an interrogation method often is based on the background of the suspect, amount of evidence
available, and possible response of the suspect to the interrogation. In instances where a number of
people were acting together to commit the crime it may be useful to have multiple interrogators available
to confront all of them at one time. It usually is preferable to conduct the interrogation in a surprise fashion, rather than alerting the suspects that they are going to be questioned.

Preparing for the interrogation requires that the interrogator had sufficient rooms, interrogators, witnesses,
and resources to handle the number of suspects involved in the incident. In larger cases, such as
organized theft rings, this may become as much of an administrative problem as an interrogational issue.

Factual

In cases where extensive factual information and evidence is available to the interrogator he may elect
to use a factual approach. However, when considering whether to use a factual attack the interrogator
should evaluate the amount of evidence available and whether or not it should be revealed to the suspect.
In some instances revealing the evidence may compromise informants or other ongoing investigations.

The most effective use of evidence is to contradict statements or assertions previously made by
the suspect. The interrogator should ask the suspect questions to which he will likely lie to conceal his
involvement in the incident. Once the suspect has been sufficiently locked into his story or alibi the
interrogator can now begin to dismantle it using the evidence discovered during the investigation.

The evidence is presented in a nonemotional fashion by the interrogator. The interrogator offers
a piece of evidence that contradicts a previous statement by the suspect and asks for an explanation
from the suspect. The interrogator usually starts with seemingly insignificant pieces of evidence that
are at odds with the suspect's earlier statements. The suspect at first usually will attempt to explain
away the evidence until it becomes evident to him that he has been caught as the contradictions mount.

An interrogator using a factual attack generally will get an admission only to the incident he
already knows about and not other areas of involvement. The use of facts establishes to the suspect
what his area(s) of exposure are and also tells him what the interrogator likely does not know. This
then limits admissions into other areas of wrongdoing that were unknown to the interrogator. A second
consideration is that using a factual approach alone, without rationalization, means that the suspect
must admit to the crime and to the fact that he is a bad person. Combining rationalization with a
factual approach often makes it easier for the suspect to confess since he is able to save face.

Classic Emotional

The classic emotional approach to an interrogation does not require the presentation of evidence. In
this approach it generally begins with the use of a direct accusation, which accuses the suspect of
involvement in a specific issue.

Interrogator: "Our investigation clearly indicates that you are involved in the theft of the
missing cargo from the trailer."

Suspect: "No, I didn't do that"

Interrogator: "No, there is no question that you did, but what we are here to discuss is the reason
why it happened."

In response to the direct accusation the suspect almost always will deny using an emphatic denial.
The suspect often will continue to deny since he has to protect his initial lie. The interrogator will reaccuse
the suspect and then immediately turn to rationalization to offer face-saving reasons why the
suspect became involved in the incident. It is not unusual for the suspect to interrupt the interrogator's
rationalization to offer another denial. The interrogator must be alert for the behavioral clues associated
with a denial so he can interrupt the suspect before he can verbalize one.

If the rationalizations are successful, the suspect's denials will weaken and become less frequent
while his physical posture becomes much more open. As the suspect internalizes the rationalizations
he begins to think about confessing. Outwardly the suspect's physical behavior appears defeated. The
head drops, the shoulders round, and the eyes begin to tear as the suspect goes into submission. By
observing the suspect's physical behavior it becomes evident to the interrogator that the suspect is ready
to confess.

After carefully observing the suspect's physical behavior and recognizing that it is associated with
confession, the interrogator offers an assumptive question. The assumptive question is designed to
make it easier for the individual to confess. Instead of asking, "You did this didn't you?" the interrogator
asks a choice question based on the rationalization. "Did you plan this out or did you do it
on the spur-of-the-moment?" The suspect can make one of three responses to this question. He could
select either choice or he could continue to deny. Selection of either of the choices is an admission of
guilt to the incident under investigation and is supported by the interrogator, "Great, that's what I
thought."

The interrogator then begins to develop the admission, answering the investigative questions who,
where, when, why, and how. The suspect is locked into the details of his crime and the admission is
fully developed into a confession. Once this has been adequately developed, the interrogator then goes
on to obtain a statement from the suspect to preserve the confession for later use.

Wicklander-Zulawski Non-confrontational Method(TM)

The Wicklander-Zulawski Non-confrontational Method® is a modified emotional appeal. The
primary strategy in this approach is to avoid forcing the suspect into a position where he has to deny
his involvement, which makes it more difficult for him to confess later. Instead, the Wicklander-
Zulawski (WZ) method takes advantage of the three primary reasons why a person confesses and
structures the interrogator's approach to move the suspect from resistance to acceptance without
denial.

The first part of the WZ method uses an introductory statement that helps the interrogator convince
the suspect that his guilt is known. The interrogator also has an opportunity at this time to
observe behavior and identify other areas of criminal activity that the suspect may be involved in. The
introductory statement consists of three parts:

*A description of the security function and its purpose
*A discussion of the different methods that could be used to cause losses or crimes
*How investigations are conducted


When adequately done, the introductory statement is a powerful tool to convince the individual
that his guilt is known. It also affords the interrogator an opportunity to behaviorally observe the
suspect's responses to a number of different methods of theft or crimes. Many suspects will react behaviorally
to methods of theft or crimes that they have committed, allowing the interrogator to gather
intelligence relating to the scope of the suspect's criminal activity.
The interrogator then moves through a highly structured planned approach using rationalizations
and dealing with internal conflicts in the suspect's mind. This approach concludes with the use
of an assumptive question called a soft accusation. Instead of the choice question, which essentially
gives an admission to what was known, the soft accusation asks for an admission that may expand the
suspect's involvement into other areas of theft or criminal activity. The following is an example of the
soft accusation.

Interrogator: "When would you say was the very first time that you took money from the
company?"

The suspect may make an admission to this question or pause to consider his response. If the
suspect pauses the interrogator will use a follow-up question to achieve the first admission.

Interrogator: "Was it your first week on the job?"
Suspect: "No!"
Interrogator: "Great, I didn't think that was the case."

The suspect now has admitted stealing money, but denied that it was the first week on the job.
The interrogator continues to develop the admission with the suspect confirming theft of cash prior
to the missing deposit. In this way the interrogator is more likely to get closer to the true scope of
the suspect's involvement in theft activity than by focusing on the single missing deposit theft of
which he was suspected. In the event that the deposit is the sole theft incident the suspect has been
involved in, he will confess to that while strongly denying other activities. The interrogator develops
the total admission with the suspect and reduces the confession to some permanent form for later
use.

There are a number of additional approaches that an interrogator could use to begin the interrogation.
These approaches vary in complexity and difficulty so the new interrogator is encouraged to
use those described previously before attempting new strategies. More information and examples on
these approaches are detailed in the textbook, Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation.


Backing Out

There may be instances where the suspect will not confess to the incident under investigation. The
interrogator should be prepared to back out of the interrogation without obtaining an admission.

Prior to backing out the interrogator should present the evidence discovered during the investigation.
On occasion the individual may be able to explain the evidence or provide proof of their innocence.

If the suspect cannot provide an adequate explanation for the evidence the interrogation could
continue using one of the emotional appeals. Sometimes presenting evidence at this point will cause
the suspect to confess or to lie when confronted with it, which may prove damning at some later point.
If the suspect still refuses to acknowledge his involvement after presenting the evidence, the interrogation
shifts to the suspect's knowledge or suspicion of who was involved. From there the interrogator
either will discuss the individual's suspicion or talk about why he does not believe why the
others were involved.

Another way of backing out of the interrogation is to use the behavioral interview, which allows
the suspect to begin to talk. The interrogator asks the questions included in the interview and then
slowly draws the encounter to a close.


(Copyright 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved, with copyright 2006 from Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, reprinted with permission of publisher.)

[nbk2000]

I had corporate goons question me at my (former) job once.

I used the tried-and-true method of "I can neither confirm nor deny", "I have no knowledge of such events", and "I don't remember".

It drove them crazy, because I didn't claim innocence, but neither did I admit guilt. :p

They tried the whole routine, but none of the techniques listed above will work if you don't give them a crack to drive their wedge into.

Can't confront with 'Facts' when it's a heresay case, emotional appeals don't work on a psycopath (who doesn't give a shit), and non-confrontational is moot against someone who doesn't give you anything to work with in the first place.

The whole time I was looking the nigger in the eye while he was questioning me. A continuous stare, not hardly blinking, projecting the mental image to him through my eyes of the horrors I would inflict upon his flayed carcass given the chance.

Got to where he was avoiding my stare. :D

In the end, they gave me an administrative wrist-slap (which meant squat) just on general principle, and I continued doing what I was doing as if nothing happened. :D

Name, rank, and serial number works for POW's being tortured, so as long as you stick to that premise, all interogaters will quit, for they can only use against you what you yourself provide them with.

[2112]

One must be careful when conversing with federal agents, or with individuals that will report your conversation to a federal agency. Lying to such individuals is a crime if it is in connection to an investigation; it is obstruction of justice.

One of the easiest ways to make sure that you do not get charged with this crime is to respond to every question with five words, "I have nothing to say." This is very different from saying, "I don't know," because if they are able to find out that you did know something, even a small piece of information, they can charge you with obstruction of justice.

Examples of what can, and has happened, are available here (http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/043/lying.html).

This is one important excerpt from the link:
People have been found guilty of this crime because they lied to private contractors hired by a federal agency.[19] In April 2004, several executives at Computer Associates, the giant software company, were charged with this crime; three of them have pleaded guilty to the charges. They did not lie to any federal agent. Instead, they were charged with making false statements to attorneys working for Computer Associates who were conducting an internal investigation of allegations of improper conduct within the business. Since this internal investigation concerned activities that were within the jurisdiction of the United States, the government asserted that lies to the business’ attorneys were crimes. Prosecutors stated that the executives knew that their statements would be turned over to the government and because of this, they needed to tell the truth.[20]

[rsx914]

Classic Emotional

The classic emotional approach to an interrogation does not require the presentation of evidence. In
this approach it generally begins with the use of a direct accusation, which accuses the suspect of
involvement in a specific issue.


I've been here and seen this with the FBI. One of the guys, the "good cop", said his name was Jeff Ward (No, not the motocross rider.). The "bad cop" said he was Ray Laura. It was all fun and games until Ray said,"We're the FBI, we don't make mistakes." After which I couldn't resist asking,"What about Richard Jewel?".

Talk about a short fuse. I was instantly subjected to the odor of his noon meal and the spittle spewing from his speach actually hit me in the cheek.

After putting up with more than three hours of interrogation I lawyered up. Said lawyer later told me,"If they really had anything on you they wouldn't be talking to you. You'd be in jail. Period." That made me feel a whole lot better because I was not in jail. I was still paranoid and for days I would sit in the trees with my rifle waiting for them to return up my driveway. I feel dumb about it now, but until you are in the same situation don't pass judgement. It was literally a life altering event.

[Isotoxin]

I have had a small taste of the interogation although it is nothing as major as others above are talking about.

I was informed on(narced) by a fellow classmate for possesion of LSD in school and was searched and interogated by a cop and a school person. In this case I couldn't talk my way out of it as they found blotter on my person but I didn't ever admit to anything nor inform who sold it to me - luckily at court it turned out not to be LSD and I was free to go but only after being arrested and being fingerprinted by computer :mad:

Secondly(and here is an example of more subtle interogation) I was trying to get into a private school and while on tour I asked a student about the price of drugs on campus while alone with him. Apparently he informed the admissions board and the lady that interviewed me before phoned me to stop by and talk to her again. I had something of a clue what was up and driving there I was sweating slightly, heart rate up and generally nervous. However once I was talking to her(interogation but somewhat relaxed) I for some reason grew more relaxed, heart rate dropped and I of course did all the body language that shows lack of guilt(open palms resting lightly on belly/chest, relaxed posture, expressive face, eye contact, head and neck looking up ext - thank you RS for teaching me this stuff!) The only thing I messed up on was I would do a facial emotion a tiny bit before or after I should a few times. But in general I was good.

Anyway she told me what the student said - I denied it. We went around with that for awhile and then she tried a trick where she said something along the lines that she knew I was just asking because I was curious and not because I had any intention of buying any drugs. A classic trick as shown in the above text but I saw it and still denied the charges. I had already made a good impression on her before this meeting and I tried to bolster it that time as well(it worked well considering the circumstances!) Sadly the kid did not take back his outragous and false accusations ;) and they took it before a small group that made the admissions board while I was away and decided I couldn't join the school(its selective so even if they thought I would do well there they can always find better people as they dont need to grub for applicants)

Anyway I thought it was nice I was able to keep my head somewhat and do the nonverbal cues like I learned as well as I could under stress and have my heartrate drop and all. If any of you have read Hard Rain and the related books about the japanese hitman you might be familiar with the concept of someone with low emotional ability for secondary emotions yet not no ablity like a psycopathic or sociopathic person(I know for sure I am not either because I have read the DSM-IV and it doesn't fit although of course they have updated the terms but I like the older terms better anyway. Almost needless to say I havn't the life experiance to know how I would react in the aftermath of a situation where a sociopath really shines like a murder or warfare - I expect, by projecting much less serious examples, that I would get PTSD and feel guilty but not to the degree of the average person. This I feel is a good thing because true sociopathy caries with it horrible impulsivity that is disadvantagous - as NBK might say, "RTPB #4, bitch!" - basically 'Low, not no' is the catchphrase for me :)

Anyway we should all study interogation and try never to be on the wrong side of it - as it is a powerful tool just like a gun or a legal contract. Thank you RS for helping people like me in all situations big or small when we need to lie our asses off and further our own private goals!

[Anira]

I have learned that you should not accept that they have something on you.

At lunch one day my friend and I were eating in the computer room and being bored, so we started messing around with the shared drives (there are a LOT on that network, it was shared between several campuses). I found this folder called "Destiny" so I opened it up and to my surprise inside it was a full list of the districts students, phone numbers, addresses and the likes. We thought hell yea, no more paper phone book for us. So we took a copy. Later the next day I for some reason- Fear of being caught? (They watch the network logs there very closely.) I notified the admin that it was left unprotected, I know very bad move. Anyway the next day they called me in to the office and my friend was already there. They asked me to write a statement of what I knew so I did. Later they called me into an office and the police started interrogating me.

Wait- Don't they have to tell you your Miranda rights before they can interrogate you for legal evidence?

Anyway- They told me that I had better tell the truth or I would get slapped in handcuffs and pulled down to the station (I already was going to tell the truth, I felt for sure they knew my involvement). So they asked me if I had a copy and I said yes. Guess what? They were like "oh. That changes everything" and left the room. They didn’t know that I was involved and they had just gotten me to confess. Turns out that yes was the only piece of evidence they ever used against me. They gave me a 5 day suspension and confiscated my computer. They didn’t really confiscate my computer, they blackmailed me into giving it to them. They said "If you don't turn over your computer we will have to press criminal charges" (Turns out what we did might have been illegal depending on how good a lawyer we got). Moral of the story for me? Don't tell them anything. According to the school admin "honesty is never the best policy".

[rsx914]

What amazed me the most, and I know all you hard core types scoff at the suggetion of an epiphany, is that they will use anything, even illegal methods to get you to admit even a shred of self incriminating evidence. Then they have the wedge they need to pin you. Of course nothing is illegal if you work for the government.

Take for example the FLIR used to find in-home grow operations. They have been ruled inadmissable (Well, don't use me as your defense. The last time I saw that they were inadmissable in court was quite a while ago. I think that was in 2002 in Bonner County, Idaho. Things may have changed there.) unless they obtain a search warrant as they were deemed an invasion of privacy. A search warrant may or may not tip you off to their intentions. So they go ahead and fly over your house with the FLIR and if they suspect illegal activity then they post a stake out on you to see if they can catch you doing some other self incriminating activity. Like selling your wares to a dealer. They never use the pictures gleaned via FLIR in court, but they use the FLIR to find "prospects" so to speak.

I'm getting off topic here. So invoke the three "S's". Shoot 'em, shovel 'em, and shut up.

[c.Tech]

As “anything you say or do can and will be used against you in court” I would prefer to just act relaxed, give no comment and don’t say anything until a lawyer was present.

But almost certainly my parents would be called in and screw the whole thing up. They worried about getting in trouble from what I do but if I ever got interrogated they would probably be the ones who are the cause.

lawyer later told me,"If they really had anything on you they wouldn't be talking to you. You'd be in jail. Period."
Always a good thing to remind anybody who you are involved in illegal activities with.

Also let them know a summarized more understandable (simpler) form of the methods, if their not too bright or don’t understand many terms.

Police may also say that somebody you have been involved in illegal activities with has already admitted to the offence, most people would probably believe them (even though they may have no evidence yet) and admit to the crime because they believe they are caught.

Also if you say “no comment” or similar to some questions you should stick with that for other questions. (From 2004 book “Am I old enough” which discusses Victorian law and rights as a minor)

I was still paranoid and for days I would sit in the trees with my rifle waiting for them to return up my driveway.
Did this mean you were planning to shoot them? Not a good idea if you have murder of an officer on top of your other crimes.

[nbk2000]

Isotoxin:

In the USA, possession of materials believed by the possessor to be a controlled substance (drug) makes that material just as illegal as the real thing, even if it turns out to be (in your case) plain blotter paper, sugar cubes, or laundry soap.

You lucked out. :)

[akinrog]

Police may also say that somebody you have been involved in illegal activities with has already admitted to the offence, most people would probably believe them (even though they may have no evidence yet) and admit to the crime because they believe they are caught.


This is called fishing in English slang, I believe. The officer may either talks out of his/her heinie to make you chime in and give a clue about your involvement or understate the case to make you admit it (e.g. if the person in question is dead, they might tell s/he is slightly wounded and being treated in hospital).

In case of serious charges, don't look so relaxed and calm. This behaviour is also suspicious. Instead, pretending to be panicked is better and/or playing dumb in some cases.

However, it's better to avoid being interrogated in the first place. Don't get involved anything illegal. :) Regards.

[nbk2000]

If you followed the RTPBs of "Kill all witnesses", "Kill your crime partners", and "Make sure of the kill by destroying or cutting off the head", then the cops telling you "They're in the hospital and talking" would be an instantly transparent lie, now wouldn't it? :)

[Isotoxin]

I know this to be true NBK - luckily I never admited it was LSD even when they acted like if I just came clean and told the "truth" they would go easy on me - I suspect if I had said "Well now that you found it I guess I should just admit its acid" I might have been convicted. Luckily I never commented on what it was at all - the cop asked if it was something that could hurt him and I said I didn't think so.

I dont see how they could prove I thought it was anything but paper without me talking. So now I guess I have learned the value of not talking even more! :)

Learn these lessons now in somewhat relaxed situations so I remember them forever I hope.

Thanks for pointing that aspect of the event out NBK

rsx914: You bring up a good point - I tried to tell someone on the internet about these sort of tactics by the police but he was insistant that the cops could not do anything without reasonable suspicion - if only this were really true. From the cop's viewpoint it makes perfect sense - in their minds they are just getting a lead on illegal activity and then building a legal case once they know who is doing what. Too bad they are wrecking the Constitution and hurting our ability to evade conviction.

[rsx914]

Did this mean you were planning to shoot them?

Yes, so it's a good thing they didn't return. I lost my job. Not a single attorney in the state (Idaho) would talk to me. I called one in Seattle that I knew well. The FBI actually went to my wife's place of employment and tried to pidgeon hole her too. Luckily I had called her and told her to meet me at home as soon as I got out of my interrogation so they just missed her. Shortly after we both got home we were standing in our front yard when the FBI rolled up my driveway. Then they tried to separate us. We deferred all questions to our attorney. They were not happy. They sure like to use intimidation.

My thinking now is that they don't care if they get the right person or not. As long as someone goes to jail and makes them look good.

[c.Tech]

rsx, sorry for the personal question but curiosity has got the better of me.

What crime did you commit to be interviewed by the FBI and to lose your job?

If you don't feel safe posting this on a public forum you could send me a pm.

[rsx914]

I lost my job becuse the FBI put pressure on my employer to assist them in their investigaton. Say you're Starbucks and the FBI comes to you and starts asking questions about a barista. Two goons in cheap suits driving a Chevy Corsica sit at a table next to the front door and stare at everyone who comes in and take copious notes. Do you think that's good for business? And the FBI knows this. So you fire the barista and the FBI waits for him/her to make a mistake.

I failed to give them anything, ie: talk to "friends", spend money, throw evidence in a dumpster. My phone was tapped, I was followed, and as I said earlier not a single attorney around would take me as a client. I was never even arrested! My home was never searched, that I know of, so I also suspect the judge wouldn't give them a warrant. Lack of evidence? After more than a year, they moved on to another suspect. "Ok boys, that didn't work, let's go wreck someone else's life." The HR veep even quit apalled.

You can figure out what I was suspected of from what I've said, here and on another thread. But the important thing to see here is that they don't play by any "rules" you, me, and everyone thinks they play by. It's not about right and wrong. It's all about the money. Who said that anyway? He's a fucking genius.

Remember that scene in "Seven" where Morgan Freeman takes Brad Pitt to the library and gets a list of people (read suspects), who have checked out certain books? You think that's legal? And they make Freeman's character look like some pitiful zealot who's just doing his job. Bullshit. The real deal is more like Alec Baldwin in "Glen Garry Glen Ross". I think all cops are A.D.D.

[knowledgehungry]

Unless the statute of limitations has run out for your adventures I would advise you edit your posts. I am sure that this forum is watched, and while it is unlikely that they will be able to nail you from any of this, or will, admitting to anything, anywhere, even in a round about way is a needless risk.

[Bugger]

Of course, the Pigs everywhere are as corrupt as hell. They think they are above the law, once they are given their ill-fitting shabby blue uniforms after training periods of only a few months. And the stupid things they get taught in Pig Training Colleges! - certainly very little or no human-rights law or ethics. Those in the states of Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland, in Australia, and the Australian Federal Pigs and Secret Political Pigs (ASIO), are among the most corrupt of all, along with those in Mexico, Brazil, Italy (Mussolini-worshippers), and the Republican-voting U.S. states.

The New Zealand Pigs are not much better, either. Since 1970, and especially in the last 15 years, there have been numerous cases here where people have been deliberately framed for serious crimes they did not commit, mostly murders, by pigs desperately seeking promotion. They routinely fake evidence, lie in Court, suppress or downplay evidence favorable to the defense, and pay false witnesses to lie in Court. And in recent years, many pigs have faced criminal charges themselves; over a dozen are currently being dealt with by the Court.

[furdog]

Well I will only say this ,when they read you your rights"You have the right to remain silent" .That’s what you need to do! I agree with NBK2000 be like the three monkeys. You did not see a thing, you did not hear a damn thing, and your not saying a damn thing.

He also brought up a good point! Confusion and lack of knowledge is a easy way to kill a investigation. There is no law that says you have to give information in a case. No laws exist that requires you to give testimony inreference to anything, even if it may or may not pertain to you.

Interesting enough with todays laws you may well find yourself involved in a conspiracy by opening your mouth. I have myself been in Federal Court and plead the fith to keep my ass from being caught up in a conspiracy.

"Just act deaf , blind and dumb”.

[Jacks Complete]

Unless in the UK, where that silence can and will be used against you in court. :-(

[nbk2000]

For a perfect example of what to do when confronted by cops:

http://resist.com/RacistVideos/videos/ihnts1.wmv

"I have nothing to say."

[Diabolique]

In the secret Pfizer courts, they do not have to tell you what you are charged with if the charges are classified, have a lawyer unless they approve, and can be required to testify against yourself. You do not have to be present at the trial if classified evidence is being presented - you aren't cleared for it. Sometimes, you might not even be told that a trial is taking place, that's classified. Many of their rules are classified. And people tell me I am exaggerating when I ask "Did I just wake up back in Nazi Germany?"

How soon before the authorities bring back "Nacht und Nebel"?