A. General Remarks
The term non-coercive is used above to denote methods of
interrogation that are not based upon the coercion of an
unwilling subject through the employment of superior force
originating outside himself. However, the non-coercive
interrogation is not conducted without pressure. On the contrary,
the goal is to generate maximum pressure, or at least as much as
is needed to induce compliance. The difference is that the
pressure is generated inside the interrogatee. His resistance is
sapped, his urge to yield is fortified, until in the end he
defeats himself.
Manipulating the subject psychologically until he becomes
compliant, without applying external methods of forcing him to
submit, sounds harder than it is. The initial advantage lies with
the interrogator. From the outset, he knows a great deal more
about the source than the source knows about him. And he can
create and amplify an effect of omniscience in a number of ways.
For example, he can show the interrogatee a thick file bearing
his own name. Even if the file contains little or nothing but
blank paper, the air of familiarity with which the interrogator
refers to the subject's background can convince some sources that
all is known and that resistance is futile.
If the interrogatee is under detention, the interrogator can
also manipulate his environment. Merely by cutting off all other
human contacts, "the interrogator monopolizes the social
environment of the source."(3) He exercises the powers of an
all-powerful parent, determining when the source will be sent to
bed, when and what he will eat, whether he will be rewarded for
good behavior or punished for being bad. The interrogator can and
does make the subject's world not only unlike the world to which
he had been accustomed but also strange in itself - a world in
which familiar patterns of time, space, and sensory perception
are overthrown. He can shift the environment abruptly. For
example, a source who refuses to talk at all can be placed in
unpleasant solitary confinement for a time. Then a friendly soul
treats him to an unexpected walk in the woods. Experiencing
relief and exhilaration, the subject will usually find it
impossible not to respond to innocuous comments on the weather
and the flowers. These are expanded to include reminiscences, and
soon a precedent of verbal exchange has been established. Both
the Germans and the Chinese have used this trick effectively.
The interrogator also chooses the emotional key or keys in
which the interrogation or any part of it will be played.
Because of these and other advantages, " [approx. 6 lines
deleted] ."(3)
Contents
B. The Structure of the Interrogation
A counterintelligence interrogation consists of four parts:
the opening, the reconnaissance, the detailed questioning and the
conclusion.
Contents
1. The Opening
Most resistant interrogatees block off access to significant
counterintelligence in their possession for one or more of four
reasons. The first is a specific negative reaction to the
interrogator. Poor initial handling or a fundamental antipathy
can make a source uncooperative even if he has nothing
significant or damaging to conceal. The second cause is that some
sources are resistant "by nature" - i.e. by early
conditioning - to any compliance with authority. The third is
that the subject believes that the information sought will be
damaging or incriminating for him personally that cooperation
with the interrogator will have consequences more painful for him
than the results of non-cooperation. The fourth is ideological
resistance. The source has identified himself with a cause, a
political movement or organization, or an opposition intelligence
service. Regardless of his attitude toward the interrogator, his
own personality, and his fears for the future, the person who is
deeply devoted to a hostile cause will ordinarily prove strongly
resistant under interrogation.
A principal goal during the opening phase is to confirm the
personality assessment obtained through screening and to allow
the interrogator to gain a deeper understanding of the source as
an individual. Unless time is crucial, the interrogator should
not become impatient if the interrogatee wanders from the
purposes of the interrogation and reverts to personal concerns.
Significant facts not produced during screening may be revealed.
The screening report itself is brought to life, the type becomes
an individual, as the subject talks. And sometimes seemingly
rambling monologues about personal matters are preludes to
significant admissions. Some people cannot bring themselves to
provide information that puts them in an unfavorable light until,
through a lengthy prefatory rationalization, they feel that they
have set the stage that the interrogator will now understand why
they acted as they did. If face-saving is necessary to the
interrogatee it will be a waste of time to try to force him to
cut the preliminaries short and get down to cases. In his view,
he is dealing with the important topic, the why . He will be
offended and may become wholly uncooperative if faced with
insistent demands for the naked what .
There is another advantage in letting the subject talk freely
and even ramblingly in the first stage of interrogation. The
interrogator is free to observe. Human beings communicate a great
deal by non-verbal means. Skilled interrogators, for example,
listen closely to voices and learn a great deal from them. An
interrogation is not merely a verbal performance; it is a vocal
performance, and the voice projects tension, fear, a dislike of
certain topics, and other useful pieces of information. It is
also helpful to watch the subject's mouth, which is as a rule
much more revealing than his eyes. Gestures and postures also
tell a story. If a subject normally gesticulates broadly at times
and is at other times physically relaxed but at some point sits
stiffly motionless, his posture is likely to be the physical
image of his mental tension. The interrogator should make a
mental note of the topic that caused such a reaction.
One textbook on interrogation lists the following physical
indicators of emotions and recommends that interrogators note
them, not as conclusive proofs but as assessment aids:
(1) A ruddy or flushed face is an indication of anger or
embarrassment but not necessarily of guilt.
(2) A "cold sweat" is a strong sign of fear and
shock.
(3) A pale face indicates fear and usually shows that the
interrogator is hitting close to the mark.
(4) A dry mouth denotes nervousness.
(5) Nervous tension is also shown by wringing a handkerchief
or clenching the hands tightly.
(6) Emotional strain or tension may cause a pumping of the
heart which becomes visible in the pulse and throat.
(7) A slight gasp, holding the breath, or an unsteady voice
may betray the subject.
(8) Fidgeting may take many forms, all of which are good
indications of nervousness.
55 [page break]
(9) A man under emotional strain or nervous tension will
involuntarily draw his elbows to his sides. It is a protective
defense mechanism.
(10) The movement of the foot when one leg is crossed over the
knee of the other can serve as an indicator. The circulation of
the blood to the lower leg is partially cut off, thereby causing
a slight lift or movement of the free foot with each heart beat.
This becomes more pronounced and observable as the pulse rate
increases.
Pauses are also significant. Whenever a person is talking
about a subject of consequence to himself, he goes through a
process of advance self-monitoring, performed at lightning speed.
This self-monitoring is more intense if the person is talking to
a stranger and especially intense if he is answering the
stranger's questions. Its purpose is to keep from the questioner
any guilty information or information that would be damaging to
the speaker's self-esteem. Where questions or answers get close
to sensitive areas, the pre-scanning is likely to create mental
blocks. These in turn produce unnatural pauses, meaningless
sounds designed to give the speaker more time, or other
interruptions. It is not easy to distinguish between innocent
blocks -- things held back for reasons of personal prestige --
and guilty blocks -- things the interrogator needs to know. But
the successful establishment of rapport will tend to eliminate
innocent blocks, or at least to keep them to a minimum.
The establishment of rapport is the second principal purpose
of the opening phase of the interrogation. Sometimes the
interrogator knows in advance, as a result of screening, that the
subject will be uncooperative. At other times the probability of
resistance is established without screening: detected hostile
agents, for example, usually have not only the will to resist but
also the means, through a cover story or other explanation. But
the anticipation of withholding increases rather than diminishes,
the value of rapport. In other words, a lack of rapport may cause
an interrogatee to withhold information that he would otherwise
provide freely, whereas the existence of rapport may induce an
interrogatee who is initially determined to withhold to change
his attitude. Therefore the interrogator must not become hostile
if confronted with initial hostility, or in any other way confirm
such negative attitudes as he may encounter at the outset. During
this first phase his attitude should remain business-like but
also quietly (not ostentatiously) friendly and welcoming. Such
opening remarks by subjects as, "I know what you so-and-so's
are after, and I can tell you right now that you're not going to
get it from me" are best handled by an unperturbed "Why
don't you tell me what has made you angry?" At this stage
the interrogator should avoid being drawn into conflict, no
matter how provocatory may be the attitude or language of the
interrogatee. If he meets truculence with neither insincere
protestations that he is the subject's "pal" nor an
equal anger but rather a calm interest in what has aroused the
subject, the interrogator has gained two advantages right at the
start. He has established the superiority that he will need
later, as the questioning develops, and he has increased the
chances of establishing rapport.
How long the opening phase continues depends upon how long it
takes to establish rapport or to determine that voluntary
cooperation is unobtainable. It may be literally a matter of
seconds, or it may be a drawn-out, up-hill battle. Even though
the cost in time and patience is sometimes high, the effort to
make the subject feel that his questioner is a sympathetic figure
should not be abandoned until all reasonable resources have been
exhausted (unless, of course, the interrogation does not merit
much time). Otherwise, the chances are that the interrogation
will not produce optimum results. In fact, it is likely to be a
failure, and the interrogator should not be dissuaded from the
effort to establish rapport by an inward conviction that no man
in his right mind would incriminate himself by providing the kind
of information that is sought. The history of interrogation is
full of confessions and other self-incriminations that were in
essence the result of a substitution of the interrogation world
for the world outside. In other words, as the sights and sounds
of an outside world fade away, its significance for the
interrogatee tends to do likewise. That world is replaced by the
interrogation room, its two occupants, and the dynamic
relationship between them. As interrogation goes on, the subject
tends increasingly to divulge or withhold in accordance with the
values of the interrogation world rather than those of the
outside world (unless the periods of questioning are only brief
interruptions in his normal life). In this small world of two
inhabitants a clash of personalities -- as distinct from a
conflict of purposes -- assumes exaggerated force, like a tornado
in a wind-tunnel. The self-esteem of the interrogatee and of the
interrogator becomes involved, and the interrogatee fights to
keep his secrets from his opponent for subjective reasons,
because he is grimly determined not to be the loser, the
inferior. If on the other hand the interrogator establishes
rapport, the subject may withhold because of other reasons, but
his resistance often lacks the bitter, last-ditch intensity that
results if the contest becomes personalized.
The interrogator who senses or determines in the opening phase
that what he is hearing is a legend should resist the first,
natural impulse to demonstrate its falsity. In some interrogatees
the ego-demands, the need to save face, are so intertwined with
preservation of the cover story that calling the man a liar will
merely intensify resistance. It is better to leave an avenue of
escape, a loophole which permits the source to correct his story
without looking foolish.
If it is decided, much later in the interrogation, to confront
the interrogatee with proof of lying, the following related
advice about legal cross-examination may prove helpful.
"Much depends upon the sequence in which one conducts the
cross-examination of a dishonest witness. You should never hazard
the important question until you have laid the foundation for it
in such a way that, when confronted with the fact, the witness
can neither deny nor explain it. One often sees the most damaging
documentary evidence, in the forms of letters or affidavits, fall
absolutely flat as betrayers of falsehood, merely because of the
unskillful way in which they are handled. If you have in your
possession a letter written by the witness, in which he takes an
opposite position on some part of the case to the one he has just
sworn to, avoid the common error of showing the witness the
letter for identification, and then reading it to him with the
inquiry, 'What have you to say to that?' During the reading of
his letter the witness will be collecting his thoughts and
getting ready his explanations in anticipation of the question
that is to follow, and the effect of the damaging letter will be
lost.... The correct method of using such a letter is to lead the
witness quietly into repeating the statements he has made in his
direct testimony, and which his letter contradicts. Then read it
off to him. The witness has no explanation. He has stated the
fact, there is nothing to qualify."(41)
Contents
2. The Reconnaissance
If the interrogatee is cooperative at the outset or if rapport
is established during the opening phase and the source becomes
cooperative, the reconnaissance stage is needless; the
interrogator proceeds directly to detailed questioning. But if
the interrogatee is withholding, a period of exploration is
necessary. Assumptions have normally been made already as to what
he is withholding: that he is a fabricator, or an RIS agent, or
something else he deems it important to conceal. Or the
assumption may be that he had knowledge of such activities
carried out by someone else. At any rate, the purpose of the
reconnaissance is to provide a quick testing of the assumption
and, more importantly, to probe the causes, extent, and intensity
of resistance.
During the opening phase the interrogator will have charted
the probable areas of resistance by noting those topics which
caused emotional or physical reactions, speech blocks, or other
indicators. He now begins to probe these areas. Every experienced
interrogator has noted that if an interrogatee is withholding,
his anxiety increases as the questioning nears the mark. The
safer the topic, the more voluble the source. But as the
questions make him increasingly uncomfortable, the interrogatee
becomes less communicative or perhaps even hostile. During the
opening phase the interrogator has gone along with this
protective mechanism. Now, however, he keeps coming back to each
area of sensitivity until he has determined the location of each
and the intensity of the defenses. If resistance is slight, mere
persistence may overcome it; and detailed questioning may follow
immediately. But if resistance is strong, a new topic should be
introduced, and detailed questioning reserved for the third
stage.
Two dangers are especially likely to appear during the
reconnaissance. Up to this point the interrogator has not
continued a line of questioning when resistance was encountered.
Now, however, he does so, and rapport may be strained. Some
interrogatees will take this change personally and tend to
personalize the conflict. The interrogator should resist this
tendency. If he succumbs to it, and becomes engaged in a battle
of wits, he may not be able to accomplish the task at hand. The
second temptation to avoid is the natural inclination to resort
prematurely to ruses or coercive techniques in order to settle
the matter then and there. The basic purpose of the
reconnaissance is to determine the kind and degree of pressure
that will be needed in the third stage. The interrogator should
reserve his fire-power until he knows what he is up against.
Contents
3. The Detailed Questioning
a. If rapport is established and if the interrogatee has
nothing significant to hide, detailed questioning presents only
routine problems. The major routine considerations are the
following:
The interrogator must know exactly what he wants to know. He
should have on paper or firmly in mind all the questions to which
he seeks answers. It usually happens that the source has a
relatively large body of information that has little or no
intelligence value and only a small collection of nuggets. He
will naturally tend to talk about what he knows best. The
interrogator should not show quick impatience, but neither should
he allow the results to get out of focus. The determinant remains
what we need, not what the interrogatee can most readily provide.
At the same time it is necessary to make every effort to keep
the subject from learning through the interrogation process
precisely where our informational gaps lie. This principle is
especially important if the interrogatee is following his normal
life, going home each evening and appearing only once or twice a
week for questioning, or if his bona fides remains in doubt.
Under almost all circumstances, however, a clear revelation of
our interests and knowledge should be avoided. It is usually a
poor practice to hand to even the most cooperative interrogatee
an orderly list of questions and ask him to write the answers.
(This stricture does not apply to the writing of autobiographies
or on informational matters not a subject of controversy with the
source.) Some time is normally spent on matters of little or no
intelligence interest for purposes of concealment. The
interrogator can abet the process by making occasional notes --
or pretending to do so -- on items that seem important to the
interrogatee but are not of intelligence value. From this point
of view an interrogation can be deemed successful if a source who
is actually a hostile agent can report to the opposition only the
general fields of our interest but cannot pinpoint specifics
without including misleading information.
It is sound practice to write up each interrogation report on
the day of questioning or, at least, before the next session, so
that defects can be promptly remedied and gaps or contradictions
noted in time.
It is also a good expedient to have the interrogatee make
notes of topics that should be covered, which occur to him while
discussing the immediate matters at issue. The act of recording
the stray item or thought on paper fixes it in the interrogatee's
mind. Usually topics popping up in the course of an interrogation
are forgotten if not noted; they tend to disrupt the
interrogation plan if covered by way of digression on the spot.
Debriefing questions should usually be couched to provoke a
positive answer and should be specific. The questioner should not
accept a blanket negative without probing. For example, the
question "Do you know anything about Plant X?" is
likelier to draw a negative answer then "Do you have any
friends who work at Plant X?" or "Can you describe its
exterior?"
It is important to determine whether the subject's knowledge
of any topic was acquired at first hand, learned indirectly, or
represents merely an assumption. If the information was obtained
indirectly, the identities of sub-sources and related information
about the channel are needed. If statements rest on assumptions,
the facts upon which the conclusions are based are necessary to
evaluation.
As detailed questioning proceeds, addition biographic data
will be revealed. Such items should be entered into the record,
but it is normally preferable not to diverge from an impersonal
topic in order to follow a biographic lead. Such leads can be
taken up later unless they raise new doubts about bona fides .
As detailed interrogation continues, and especially at the
half-way mark, the interrogator's desire to complete the task may
cause him to be increasingly business-like or even brusque. He
may tend to curtail or drop the usual inquiries about the
subject's well-being with which he opened earlier sessions. He
may feel like dealing more and more abruptly with reminiscences
or digressions. His interest has shifted from the interrogatee
himself, who jut a while ago was an interesting person, to the
atsk of getting at what he knows. But if rapport has been
established, the interrogatee will be quick to sense and resent
this change of attitude. This point is particularly important if
the interrogatee is a defector faced with bewildering changes and
in a highly emotional state. Any interrogatee has his ups and
downs, times when he is tired or half-ill, times when his
personal problems have left his nerves frayed. The peculiar
intimacy of the interrogation situation and the very fact that
the interrogator has deliberately fostered rapport will often
lead the subject to talk about his doubts, fears, and other
personal reactions. The interrogator should neither cut off this
flow abruptly nor show impatience unless it takes up an
inordinate amount of time or unless it seems likely that all the
talking about personal matters is being used deliberately as a
smoke screen to keep the interrogator from doing his job. If the
interrogatee is believed cooperative, then from the beginning to
the end of the process he should feel that the interrogator's
interest in him has remained constant. Unless the interrogation
is soon over, the interrogatee's attitude toward his questioner
is not likely to remain constant. He will feel more and more
drawn to the questioner or increasingly antagonistic. As a rule,
the best way for the interrogator to keep the relationship on an
even keel is to maintain the same quiet, relaxed, and open-minded
attitude from start to finish.
Detailed interrogation ends only when (1) all useful
counterintelligence information has been obtained; (2)
diminishing returns and more pressing commitments compel a
cessation; or (3) the base, station, [one or two words deleted]
admits full or partial defeat. Termination for any reason other
than the first is only temporary. It is a profound mistake to
write off a successfully resistant interrogatee or one whose
questioning was ended before his potential was exhausted. KUBARK
must keep track of such persons, because people and circumstances
change. Until the source dies or tells us everything that he
knows that is pertinent to our purposes, his interrogation may be
interrupted, perhaps for years -- but it has not been completed.
Contents
4. The Conclusion
The end of an interrogation is not the end of the
interrogator's responsibilities. From the beginning of planning
to the end of questioning it has been necessary to understand and
guard against the various troubles that a vengeful ex-source can
cause. As was pointed out earlier, KUBARK's lack of executive
authority abroad and its operational need for facelessness make
it peculiarly vulnerable to attack in the courts or the press.
The best defense against such attacks is prevention, through
enlistment or enforcement of compliance. However real cooperation
is achieved, its existence seems to act as a deterrent to later
hostility. The initially resistant subject may become cooperative
because of a partial identification with the interrogator and his
interests, or the source may make such an identification because
of his cooperation. In either event, he is unlikely to cause
serious trouble in the future. Real difficulties are more
frequently created by interrogatees who have succeeded in
withholding.
The following steps are normally a routine part of the
conclusion:
a. [approx. 10 lines deleted]
d. [approx. 7 lines deleted]
e. [approx. 7 lines deleted]
f. [approx. 4 lines deleted]
Contents
C. Techniques of Non-Coercive Interrogation
of Resistant Sources
If source resistance is encountered during screening or during
the opening or reconnaissance phases of the interrogation,
non-coercive methods of sapping opposition and strengthening the
tendency to yield and to cooperate may be applied. Although these
methods appear here in an approximate order of increasing
pressure, it should not be inferred that each is to be tried
until the key fits the lock. On the contrary, a large part of the
skill and the success of the experienced interrogator lies in his
ability to match method to source. The use of unsuccessful
techniques will of itself increase the interrogatee's will and
ability to resist.
This principle also affects the decision to employ coercive
techniques and governs the choice of these methods. If in the
opinion of the interrogator a totally resistant source has the
skill and determination to withstand any con-coercive method or
combination of methods, it is better to avoid them completely.
The effectiveness of most of the non-coercive techniques
depends upon their unsettling effect. The interrogation situation
is in itself disturbing to most people encountering it for the
first time. The aim is to enhance this effect, to disrupt
radically the familiar emotional and psychological associations
of the subject. When this aim is achieved, resistance is
seriously impaired. There is an interval -- which may be
extremely brief -- of suspended animation, a kind of
psychological shock or paralysis. It is caused by a traumatic or
sub-traumatic experience which explodes, as it were, the world
that is familiar to the subject as well as his image of himself
within that world. Experienced interrogators recognize this
effect when it appears and know that at this moment the source is
far more open to suggestion, far likelier to comply, than he was
just before he experienced the shock.
Another effect frequently produced by non-coercive (as well as
coercive) methods is the evocation within the interrogatee of
feelings of guilt. Most persons have areas of guilt in their
emotional topographies, and an interrogator can often chart these
areas just by noting refusals to follow certain lines of
questioning. Whether the sense of guilt has real or imaginary
causes does not affect the result of intensification of guilt
feelings. Making a person feel more and more guilty normally
increases both his anxiety and his urge to cooperate as a means
of escape.
In brief, the techniques that follow should match the
personality of the individual interrogatee, and their
effectiveness is intensified by good timing and rapid
exploitation of the moment of shock. (A few of the following
items are drawn from Sheehan.) (32)
1. Going Next Door
Occasionally the information needed from a recalcitrant
interrogatee is obtainable from a willing source. The
interrogator should decide whether a confession is essential to
his purpose or whether information which may be held by others as
well as the unwilling source is really his goal. The labor of
extracting the truth from unwilling interrogatees should be
undertaken only if the same information is not more easily
obtainable elsewhere or if operational considerations require
self-incrimination.
2. Nobody Loves You
An interrogatee who is withholding items of no grave
consequence to himself may sometimes be persuaded to talk by the
simple tactic of pointing out that to date all of the information
about his case has come from persons other than himself. The
interrogator wants to be fair. He recognizes that some of the
denouncers may have been biased or malicious. In any case, there
is bound to be some slanting of the facts unless the interrogatee
redresses the balance. The source owes it to himself to be sure
that the interrogator hears both sides of the story.
3. The All-Seeing Eye (or Confession is Good for the Soul)
The interrogator who already knows part of the story explains
to the source that the purpose of the questioning is not to gain
information; the interrogator knows everything already. His real
purpose is to test the sincerity (reliability, honor, etc.) of
the source. The interrogator then asks a few questions to which
he knows the answers. If the subject lies, he is informed firmly
and dispassionately that he has lied. By skilled manipulation of
the known, the questioner can convince a naive subject that all
his secrets are out and that further resistance would be not only
pointless but dangerous. If this technique does not work very
quickly, it must be dropped before the interrogatee learns the
true limits of the questioner's knowledge.
4. The Informer
Detention makes a number of tricks possible. One of these,
planting an informant as the source's cellmate, is so well-known,
especially in Communist countries, that its usefulness is
impaired if not destroyed. Less well known is the trick of
planting two informants in the cell. One of them, A, tries now
and then to pry a little information from the source; B remains
quiet. At the proper time, and during A's absence, B warns the
source not to tell A anything because B suspects him of being an
informant planted by the authorities.
Suspicion against a single cellmate may sometimes be broken
down if he shows the source a hidden microphone that he has
"found" and suggests that they talk only in whispers at
the other end of the room.
5. News from Home
Allowing an interrogatee to receive carefully selected letters
from home can contribute to effects desired by the interrogator.
Allowing the source to write letters, especially if he can be led
to believe that they will be smuggled out without the knowledge
of the authorities, may produce information which is difficult to
extract by direct questioning.
6. The Witness
If others have accused the interrogatee of spying for a
hostile service or of other activity which he denies, there is a
temptation to confront the recalcitrant source with his accuser
or accusers. But a quick confrontation has two weaknesses: it is
likely to intensify the stubbornness of denials, and it spoils
the chance to use more subtle methods.
One of these is to place the interrogatee in an outer office
and escort past him, and into the inner office, an accuser whom
he knows personally or, in fact, any person -- even one who is
friendly to the source and uncooperative with the interrogators
-- who is believed to know something about whatever the
interrogatee is concealing. It is also essential that the
interrogatee know or suspect that the witness may be in
possession of the incriminating information. The witness is
whisked past the interrogatee; the two are not allowed to speak
to each other. A guard and a stenographer remain in the outer
office with the interrogatee. After about an hour the
interrogator who has been questioning the interrogatee in past
sessions opens the door and asks the stenographer to come in,
with steno pad and pencils. After a time she re-emerges and types
material from her pad, making several carbons. She pauses, points
at the interrogatee, and asks the guard how his name is spelled.
She may also ask the interrogatee directly for the proper
spelling of a street, a prison, the name of a Communist
intelligence officer, or any other factor closely linked to the
activity of which he is accused. She takes her completed work
into the inner office, comes back out, and telephones a request
that someone come up to act as legal witness. Another man appears
and enters the inner office. The person cast in the informer's
role may have been let out a back door at the beginning of these
proceedings; or if cooperative, he may continue his role. In
either event, a couple of interrogators, with or without the
"informer", now emerge from the inner office. In
contrast to their earlier demeanor, they are now relaxed and
smiling. The interrogator in charge says to the guard,
"O.K., Tom, take him back. We don't need him any more."
Even if the interrogatee now insists on telling his side of the
story, he is told to relax, because the interrogator will get
around to him tomorrow or the next day.
A session with the witness may be recorded. If the witness
denounces the interrogatee there is no problem. If he does not,
the interrogator makes an effort to draw him out about a hostile
agent recently convicted in court or otherwise known to the
witness. During the next interrogation session with the source, a
part of the taped denunciation can be played back to him if
necessary. Or the witnesses' remarks about the known spy, edited
as necessary, can be so played back that the interrogatee is
persuaded that he is the subject of the remarks.
Cooperative witnesses may be coached to exaggerate so that if
a recording is played for the interrogatee or a confrontation is
arranged, the source -- for example, a suspected courier -- finds
the witness overstating his importance. The witness claims that
the interrogatee is only incidentally a courier, that actually he
is the head of an RIS kidnapping gang. The interrogator pretends
amazement and says into the recorder, "I thought he was only
a courier; and if he had told us the truth, I planned to let him
go. But this is much more serious. On the basis of charges like
these I'll have to hand him over to the local police for
trial." On hearing these remarks, the interrogatee may
confess the truth about the lesser guilt in order to avoid
heavier punishment. If he continues to withhold, the interrogator
may take his side by stating, "You know, I'm not at all
convinced that so-and-so told a straight story. I feel,
personally, that he was exaggerating a great deal. Wasn't he?
What's the true story?"
7. Joint Suspects
If two or more interrogation sources are suspected of joint
complicity in acts directed against U.S. security, they should be
separated immediately. If time permits, it may be a good idea
(depending upon the psychological assessment of both) to postpone
interrogation for about a week. Any anxious inquiries from either
can be met by a knowing grin and some such reply as, "We'll
get to you in due time. There's no hurry now ." If
documents, witnesses, or other sources yield information about
interrogatee A, such remarks as "B says it was in Smolensk
that you denounced so-and-so to the secret police. Is that right?
Was it in 1937?" help to establish in A's mind the
impression that B is talking.
If the interrogator is quite certain of the facts in the case
but cannot secure an admission from either A or B, a written
confession may be prepared and A's signature may be reproduced on
it. (It is helpful if B can recognize A's signature, but not
essential.) The confession contains the salient facts, but they
are distorted; the confession shows that A is attempting to throw
the entire responsibility upon B. Edited tape recordings which
sound as though A had denounced B may also be used for the
purpose, separately or in conjunction with the written
"confession." If A is feeling a little ill or
dispirited, he can also be led past a window or otherwise shown
to B without creating a chance for conversation; B is likely to
interpret A's hang-dog look as evidence of confession and
denunciation. (It is important that in all such gambits, A be the
weaker of the two, emotionally and psychologically.) B then reads
(or hears) A's "confession." If B persists in
withholding, the interrogator should dismiss him promptly, saying
that A's signed confession is sufficient for the purpose and that
it does not matter whether B corroborates it or not. At the
following session with B, the interrogator selects some minor
matter, not substantively damaging to B but nevertheless
exaggerated, and says, "I'm not sure A was really fair to
you here. Would you care to tell me your side of the story?"
If B rises to this bait, the interrogator moves on to areas of
greater significance.
The outer-and-inner office routine may also be employed. A,
the weaker, is brought into the inner office, and the door is
left slightly ajar or the transom open. B is later brought into
the outer office by a guard and placed where he can hear, though
not too clearly. The interrogator begins routine questioning of
A, speaking rather softly and inducing A to follow suit. Another
person in the inner office, acting by prearrangement, then
quietly leads A out through another door. Any noises of departure
are covered by the interrogator, who rattles the ash tray or
moves a table or large chair. As soon as the second door is
closed again and A is out of earshot, the interrogator resumes
his questioning. His voice grows louder and angrier. He tells A
to speak up, that he can hardly hear him. He grows abusive,
reaches a climax, and then says, "Well, that's better. Why
didn't you say so in the first place?" The rest of the
monologue is designed to give B the impression that A has now
started to tell the truth. Suddenly the interrogator pops his
head through the doorway and is angry on seeing B and the guard.
"You jerk!" he says to the guard, "What are you
doing here?" He rides down the guard's mumbled attempt to
explain the mistake, shouting, "Get him out of here! I'll
take care of you later!"
When, in the judgment of the interrogator, B is fairly well
convinced that A has broken down and told his story, the
interrogator may elect to say to B, "Now that A has come
clean with us, I'd like to let him go. But I hate to release one
of you before the other; you ought to get out at the same time. A
seems to be pretty angry with you -- feels that you got him into
this jam. He might even go back to your Soviet case officer and
say that you haven't returned because you agreed to stay here and
work for us. Wouldn't it be better for you if I set you both free
together? Wouldn't it be better to tell me your side of the
story?"
8. Ivan Is a Dope
It may be useful to point out to a hostile agent that the
cover story was ill-contrived, that the other service botched the
job, that it is typical of the other service to ignore the
welfare of its agents. The interrogator may personalize this
pitch by explaining that he has been impressed by the agent's
courage and intelligence. He sells the agent the idea that the
interrogator, not his old service, represents a true friend, who
understands him and will look after his welfare.
9. Joint Interrogators
The commonest of the joint interrogator techniques is the
Mutt-and-Jeff routine: the brutal, angry, domineering type
contrasted with the friendly, quiet type. This routine works best
with women, teenagers, and timid men. If the interrogator who has
done the bulk of the questioning up to this point has established
a measure of rapport, he should play the friendly role. If
rapport is absent, and especially if antagonism has developed,
the principal interrogator may take the other part. The angry
interrogator speaks loudly from the beginning; and unless the
interrogatee clearly indicates that he is now ready to tell his
story, the angry interrogator shouts down his answers and cuts
him off. He thumps the table. The quiet interrogator should not
watch the show unmoved but give subtle indications that he too is
somewhat afraid of his colleague. The angry interrogator accuses
the subject of other offenses, any offenses, especially those
that are heinous or demeaning. He makes it plain that he
personally considers the interrogatee the vilest person on earth.
During the harangue the friendly, quiet interrogator breaks in to
say, "Wait a minute, Jim. Take it easy." The angry
interrogator shouts back, "Shut up! I'm handling this. I've
broken crumb-bums before, and I'll break this one, wide
open." He expresses his disgust by spitting on the floor or
holding his nose or any gross gesture. Finally, red-faced and
furious, he says, "I'm going to take a break, have a couple
of stiff drinks. But I'll be back at two -- and you, you bum, you
better be ready to talk." When the door slams behind him,
the second interrogator tells the subject how sorry he is, how he
hates to work with a man like that but has no choice, how if
maybe brutes like that would keep quiet and give a man a fair
chance to tell his side of the story, etc., etc.
An interrogator working alone can also use the Mutt-and-Jeff
technique. After a number of tense and hostile sessions the
interrogatee is ushered into a different or refurnished room with
comfortable furniture, cigarettes, etc. The interrogator invites
him to sit down and explains his regret that the source's former
stubbornness forced the interrogator to use such tactics. Now
everything will be different. The interrogator talks man-to-man.
An American POW, debriefed on his interrogation by a hostile
service that used this approach, has described the result:
"Well, I went in and there was a man, an officer he was...
-- he asked me to sit down and was very friendly.... It was very
terrific. I, well, I almost felt like I had a friend sitting
there. I had to stop every now and then and realize that this man
wasn't a friend of mine.... I also felt as though I couldn't be
rude to him.... It was much more difficult for me to -- well, I
almost felt I had as much responsibility to talk to him and
reason and justification as I have to talk to you right
now."(18)
Another joint technique casts both interrogators in friendly
roles. But whereas the interrogator in charge is sincere, the
second interrogator's manner and voice convey the impression that
he is merely pretending sympathy in order to trap the
interrogated. He slips in a few trick questions of the
"When-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife?" category. The
interrogator in charge warns his colleague to desist. When he
repeats the tactics, the interrogator in charge says, with a
slight show of anger, "We're not here to trap people but to
get at the truth. I suggest that you leave now. I'll handle
this."
It is usually unproductive to cast both interrogators in
hostile roles.
Language
If the recalcitrant subject speaks more than one language, it
is better to question him in the tongue with which he is least
familiar as long as the purpose of interrogation is to obtain a
confession. After the interrogatee admits hostile intent or
activity, a switch to the better-known language will facilitate
follow-up.
An abrupt switch of languages may trick a resistant source. If
an interrogatee has withstood a barrage of questions in German or
Korean, for example, a sudden shift to "Who is your case
officer?" in Russian may trigger the answer before the
source can stop himself.
An interrogator quite at home in the language being used may
nevertheless elect to use an interpreter if the interrogatee does
not know the language to be used between the interrogator and
interpreter and also does not know that the interrogator knows
his own tongue. The principal advantage here is that hearing
everything twice helps the interrogator to note voice,
expression, gestures, and other indicators more attentively. This
gambit is obviously unsuitable for any form of rapid-fire
questioning, and in any case it has the disadvantage of allowing
the subject to pull himself together after each query. It should
be used only with an interpreter who has been trained in the
technique.
It is of basic importance that the interrogator not using an
interpreter be adept in the language selected for use. If he is
not, if slips of grammar or a strong accent mar his speech, the
resistant source will usually feel fortified. Almost all people
have been conditioned to relate verbal skill to intelligence,
education, social status, etc. Errors or mispronunciations also
permit the interrogatee to misunderstand or feign
misunderstanding and thus gain time. He may also resort to
polysyllabic obfuscations upon realizing the limitations of the
interrogator's vocabulary.
Spinoza and Mortimer Snerd
If there is reason to suspect that a withholding source
possesses useful counterintelligence information but has not had
access to the upper reaches of the target organizations, the
policy and command level, continued questioning about lofty
topics that the source knows nothing about may pave the way for
the extraction of information at lower levels. The interrogatee
is asked about KGB policy, for example: the relation of the
service to its government, its liaison arrangements, etc., etc.
His complaints that he knows nothing of such matters are met by
flat insistence that he does know, he would have to know, that
even the most stupid men in his position know. Communist
interrogators who used this tactic against American POW's coupled
it with punishment for "don't know" responses --
typically by forcing the prisoner to stand at attention until he
gave some positive response. After the process had been continued
long enough, the source was asked a question to which he did know
the answer. Numbers of Americans have mentioned "...the
tremendous feeling of relief you get when he finally asks you
something you can answer." One said, "I know it seems
strange now, but I was positively grateful to them when they
switched to a topic I knew something about."(3)
The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
It has been suggested that a successfully withholding source
might be tricked into compliance if led to believe that he is
dealing with the opposition. The success of the ruse depends upon
a successful imitation of the opposition. A case officer
previously unknown to the source and skilled in the appropriate
language talks with the source under such circumstances that the
latter is convinced that he is dealing with the opposition. The
source is debriefed on what he has told the Americans and what he
has not told them. The trick is likelier to succeed if the
interrogatee has not been in confinement but a staged
"escape," engineered by a stool-pigeon, might achieve
the same end. Usually the trick is so complicated and risky that
its employment is not recommended.
Alice in Wonderland
The aim of the Alice in Wonderland or confusion technique is
to confound the expectations and conditioned reactions of the
interrogatee. He is accustomed to a world that makes some sense,
at least to him: a world of continuity and logic, a predictable
world. He clings to this world to reinforce his identity and
powers of resistance.
The confusion technique is designed not only to obliterate the
familiar but to replace it with the weird. Although this method
can be employed by a single interrogator, it is better adapted to
use by two or three. When the subject enters the room, the first
interrogator asks a doubletalk question -- one which seems
straightforward but is essentially nonsensical. Whether the
interrogatee tries to answer or not, the second interrogator
follows up (interrupting any attempted response) with a wholly
unrelated and equally illogical query. Sometimes two or more
questions are asked simultaneously. Pitch, tone, and volume of
the interrogators' voices are unrelated to the import of the
questions. No pattern of questions and answers is permitted to
develop, nor do the questions themselves relate logically to each
other. In this strange atmosphere the subject finds that the
pattern of speech and thought which he has learned to consider
normal have been replaced by an eerie meaninglessness. The
interrogatee may start laughing or refuse to take the situation
seriously. But as the process continues, day after day if
necessary, the subject begins to try to make sense of the
situation, which becomes mentally intolerable. Now he is likely
to make significant admissions, or even to pour out his story,
just to stop the flow of babble which assails him. This technique
may be especially effective with the orderly, obstinate type.
Regression
There are a number of non-coercive techniques for inducing
regression, All depend upon the interrogator's control of the
environment and, as always, a proper matching of method to
source. Some interrogatees can be repressed by persistent
manipulation of time, by retarding and advancing clocks and
serving meals at odd times -- ten minutes or ten hours after the
last food was given. Day and night are jumbled. Interrogation
sessions are similarly unpatterned the subject may be brought
back for more questioning just a few minutes after being
dismissed for the night. Half-hearted efforts to cooperate can be
ignored, and conversely he can be rewarded for non-cooperation.
(For example, a successfully resisting source may become
distraught if given some reward for the "valuable
contribution" that he has made.) The Alice in Wonderland
technique can reinforce the effect. Two or more interrogators,
questioning as a team and in relays (and thoroughly jumbling the
timing of both methods) can ask questions which make it
impossible for the interrogatee to give sensible, significant
answers. A subject who is cut off from the world he knows seeks
to recreate it, in some measure, in the new and strange
environment. He may try to keep track of time, to live in the
familiar past, to cling to old concepts of loyalty, to establish
-- with one or more interrogators -- interpersonal relations
resembling those that he has had earlier with other people, and
to build other bridges back to the known. Thwarting his attempts
to do so is likely to drive him deeper and deeper into himself,
until he is no longer able to control his responses in adult
fashion.
The placebo technique is also used to induce regression The
interrogatee is given a placebo (a harmless sugar pill). Later he
is told that he has imbibed a drug, a truth serum, which will
make him want to talk and which will also prevent his lying. The
subject's desire to find an excuse for the compliance that
represents his sole avenue of escape from his distressing
predicament may make him want to believe that he has been drugged
and that no one could blame him for telling his story now.
Gottschelk observes, "Individuals under increased stress are
more likely to respond to placebos."(7)
Orne has discussed an extensions of the placebo concept in
explaining what he terms the "magic room" technique.
"An example... would be... the prisoner who is given a
hypnotic suggestion that his hand is growing warm. However, in
this instance, the prisoner's hand actually does become warm, a
problem easily resolved by the use of a concealed diathermy
machine. Or it might be suggested... that... a cigarette will
taste bitter. Here again, he could be given a cigarette prepared
to have a slight but noticeably bitter taste." In discussing
states of heightened suggestibility (which are not, however,
states of trance) Orne says, "Both hypnosis and some of the
drugs inducing hypnoidal states are popularly viewed as
situations where the individual is no longer master of his own
fate and therefore not responsible for his actions. It seems
possible then that the hypnotic situation, as distinguished from
hypnosis itself, might be used to relieve the individual of a
feeling of responsibility for his own actions and thus lead him
to reveal information."(7)
In other words, a psychologically immature source, or one who
has been regressed, could adopt an implication or suggestion that
he has been drugged, hypnotized, or otherwise rendered incapable
of resistance, even if he recognizes at some level that the
suggestion is untrue, because of his strong desire to escape the
stress of the situation by capitulating. These techniques provide
the source with the rationalization that he needs.
Whether regression occurs spontaneously under detention or
interrogation, and whether it is induced by a coercive or
non-coercive technique, it should not be allowed to continue past
the point necessary to obtain compliance. Severe techniques of
regression are best employed in the presence of a psychiatrist,
to insure full reversal later. As soon as he can, the
interrogator presents the subject with the way out, the
face-saving reason for escaping from his painful dilemma by
yielding. Now the interrogator becomes fatherly. Whether the
excuse is that others have already confessed ("all the other
boys are doing it"), that the interrogatee had a chance to
redeem himself ("you're really a good boy at heart"),
or that he can't help himself ("they made you do it"),
the effective rationalization, the one the source will jump at,
is likely to be elementary. It is an adult's version of the
excuses of childhood.
The Polygraph
The polygraph can be used for purposes other than the
evaluation of veracity. For example, it may be used as an adjunct
in testing the range of languages spoken by an interrogatee or
his sophistication in intelligence matters, for rapid screening
to determine broad areas of knowledgeability, and as an aid in
the psychological assessment of sources. Its primary function in
a counterintelligence interrogation, however, is to provide a
further means of testing for deception or withholding.
A resistant source suspected of association with a hostile
clandestine organization should be tested polygraphically at
least once. Several examinations may be needed. As a general
rule, the polygraph should not be employed as a measure of last
resort. More reliable readings will be obtained if the instrument
is used before the subject has been placed under intense
pressure, whether such pressure is coercive or not. Sufficient
information for the purpose is normally available after screening
and one or two interrogation sessions.
Although the polygraph has been a valuable aid, no
interrogator should feel that it can carry his responsibility for
him. [approx. 7 lines deleted] (9)
The best results are obtained when the CI interrogator and the
polygraph operator work closely together in laying the groundwork
for technical examination. The operator needs all available
information about the personality of the source, as well as the
operational background and reasons for suspicion. The CI
interrogator in turn can cooperate more effectively and can fit
the results of technical examination more accurately into the
totality of his findings if he has a basic comprehension of the
instrument and its workings.
The following discussion is based upon R.C. Davis'
"Physiological Responses as a Means of Evaluating
Information."(7) Although improvements appear to be in the
offing, the instrument in widespread use today measures
breathing, systolic blood pressure, and galvanic skin response
(GSR). "One drawback in the use of respiration as an
indicator," according to Davis, "is its susceptibility
to voluntary control." Moreover, if the source "knows
that changes in breathing will disturb all physiologic variables
under control of the autonomic division of the nervous system,
and possibly even some others, a certain amount of cooperation or
a certain degree of ignorance is required for lie detection by
physiologic methods to work." In general, "...
breathing during deception is shallower and slower than in truth
telling... the inhibition of breathing seems rather
characteristic of anticipation of a stimulus."
The measurement of systolic blood pressure provides a reading
on a phenomenon not usually subject to voluntary control. The
pressure "... will typically rise by a few millimeters of
mercury in response to a question, whether it is answered
truthfully or not. The evidence is that the rise will generally
be greater when (the subject) is lying." However,
discrimination between truth-telling and lying on the basis of
both breathing and blood pressure "... is poor (almost nil)
in the early part of the sitting and improves to a high point
later."
The galvanic skin response is one of the most easily triggered
reactions, but recovery after the reaction is slow, and "...
in a routine examination the next question is likely to be
introduced before recovery is complete. Partly because of this
fact there is an adapting trend in the GSR with stimuli repeated
every few minutes the response gets smaller, other things being
equal."
Davis examines three theories regarding the polygraph. The
conditional response theory holds that the subject reacts to
questions that strike sensitive areas, regardless of whether he
is telling the truth or not. Experimentation has not
substantiated this theory. The theory of conflict presumes that a
large physiologic disturbance occurs when the subject is caught
between his habitual inclination to tell the truth and his strong
desire not to divulge a certain set of facts. Davis suggests that
if this concept is valid, it holds only if the conflict is
intense. The threat-of-punishment theory maintains that a large
physiologic response accompanies lying because the subject fears
the consequence of failing to deceive. "In common language
it might be said that he fails to deceive the machine operator
for the very reason that he fears he will fail. The 'fear' would
be the very reaction detected." This third theory is more
widely held than the other two. Interrogators should note the
inference that a resistant source who does not fear that
detection of lying will result in a punishment of which he is
afraid would not, according to this theory, produce significant
responses.
Graphology
The validity of graphological techniques for the analysis of
the personalities of resistant interrogatees has not been
established. There is some evidence that graphology is a useful
aid in the early detection of cancer and of certain mental
illnesses. If the interrogator or his unit decides to have a
source's handwriting analyzed, the samples should be submitted to
Headquarters as soon as possible, because the analysis is more
useful in the preliminary assessment of the source than in the
later interrogation. Graphology does have the advantage of being
one of the very few techniques not requiring the assistance or
even the awareness of the interrogatee. As with any other aid,
the interrogator is free to determine for himself whether the
analysis provides him with new and valid insights, confirms other
observations, is not helpful, or is misleading.
Contents
Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted. |