Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation

KUBARK COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION

KUBARK COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION

TABLE O F CONTENTS Pages

I.

INTRODUCTION A. Explanation of P u r p o s e B. Explanation of Organization

111.

LEGAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

IV.

THE INTERROGATOR .

V.

THE A. B. C.

VI.

SCREENING AND OTHER PRELIMINARIES A. Screening B. Other P r e l i m i n a r y P r o c e d u r e s C. Summary

VII. j

INTERROGATEE . T y p e s of Sources: Intelligence C a t e g o r i e s T y p e s of Sources: P e r s o n a l i t y C a t e g o r i e s Other Clues

PLANNING THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION A. The Nature of Counterintelligence u Interrogation B. The Interrogation P l a n C. , The SpecFfics

:

15-29 15-19 19-28 28-29 30-37 30-33 33-37 37

38-51

VLII. THE NON- COER GIVE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION 52-81

Pages General Remarks The S t r u c t u r e of the Interrogation 1,. The Opening 2. The Reconnaissance 3. The Detailed Questioning 4, The Conclusion Techniques of Non- Coercive Interrogation of Resistant Sources

M.

.

THE COER GIVE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION O F RESISTANT SOURCES, 82-104 A. Restrictions 82 B. The The0i.y of Coercion 82-85 C. Arrest 85-86 D. Detention 86-87 E. Deprivation of Sensory Stimuli 87-90 F. T h r e a t s and F e a r 90-92 G. Debility 92-93 H, P a i n 93-95 I. Heightened Suggestibility and Hypnosis 95-98 J. Narcosis 98-100 K. T h e Detection of Malingering 101-102 L, Conclusion 103-104 '

X.

INTERROGATOR'S CHECK LIST

XI.

DESCRIPTIVE BILIOGRAPHY

XII.

INDEX

..,. ---..

I.

A.

INTRODUCTION

Explanation of Purpose

This manual cannot teach anyone how t o be, o r become, a good interrogator. At best it can help r e a d e r s to avoid t h e characteris'tic mistakes of poor interrogators. I t s purpose is t o provide guidelines f o r KUBARK interrogation, and particularly the counterintelligence interrogation of resistant sources. Designed a s an aid f o r interrogators and others i n m e d i a t e l y concerned, it is based largely upon t h e published r e s u l t s of extensive r e s e a r c h , including scientific inquiries conducted by specialists in closely related subjects. There is nothing mysterious about interrogation. It consists of no m o r e than obtaining needed information through responses to questions. As is t r u e of all craftsmen, some interrogators a r e m o r e able than others; and some of their superiority m a y be innate. But sound interrogation nevertheless r e s t s upon a knowledge of the subject m a t t e r and on c e r t a i n broad principles, chiefly psychological, which a r e not h a r d to understand. The success of good interrogators depends in large m e a s u r e upon their use, conscious o r not, of these principles and of processes and techniques deriving f r o m them. Knowledge of subject m a t t e r and of the basic principles w i l l not of itself c r e a t e a successful interrogation, but it will make possible the avoidance of mistakes that a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of poor interrogation. The purpose, then, is not t o teach the r e a d e r how t o be a good interrogator but r a t h e r to t e l l him what he must l e a r n in order to become a good interrogator.

he 'interrogation

of a resistant source who i s a staff or agent m e m b e r of a n Orbit intelligence or security service o r of a clandestine Communist organization i s one of the most exacting of professional tasks. Uaually the odds still favor the interrogator, but they a r e s h a r p l y cut by the t r a i n h g , experience, pztiience and toughness of t h e interrogatee. In such c i r c u . s t a n c e s the i n t e r r o g a t o r needs all the help that he can get. And a.principa1 s o u r c e of a i d today is scientific findkgs. The intelligence s e r v i c e which i s able t o bring pertinent, modern knowledge to b e a r upon i t s p r o b l e m s enjoys huge advantages over a s e r v i c e which conducts its clandestine business in eighteenth century fashion. It is t r u e t h a t American psychologists have devoted s o m e what m o r e attention t o Communist interrogation technique a , p a r t i c u l a r l y "brainwashing", than t o U. S. 'practices. Yet they have conducted scientific inquiries into many subjects that a r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o interrogation: the effects of debility and isolation, t h e polygraph, reactions t o pain and f e a r , hypnosis and heightened suggestibility, narcosis, etc. This work is of sufficient importance and relevance that it i s no longer possible t o d i s c u s s interrogation significantly without reference t o the psychological r e s e a r c h conducted in the past decade. F o r t h i s r e a s o n a m a j o r purpose of t h i s study i s to focus relevant scientific findings upon CI interrogation. Every effort h a s been m a d e t o r e p o r t and i n t e r p r e t these findings in our own language, in p l a c e of the terminology employed by the psychologists. T h i s study is by no m e a n s confined to a r e s u m e and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of psychological findings. The approach of the psychologists i s customarily manipulative; that is, they suggest methods of imposing controls o r alterations upon the i n t e r r o g a t e e f r o m the outside. Except within the Communist f r a m e of r e f e r e n c e , they have paid l e s s attention t o t h e c r e a t i o n of i n t e r n a l controls--i. .e., conversion of the s o u r c e , s o that voluntary cooperation results. Moral considerations a s i d e , the imposition of external techniques of manipulating people c a r r i e s with it the grave risk'of l a t e r lawsuits, a d v e r s e publicity, o r other attempts to' strike back.

-

B.

Explanation of Organization

This study moves f r o m the general topic of interrogation per s e ( P a r t s I. II, IZI, IV, V, and VI) t o plannijng the.counterintelligence interrogation (Part VII) to the CI interrogation of resistant sources ( P a r t s V m , IX,and X). The definitions, 1ega.l considerations, and.discussions of interrogators and sources, a s well a s Section VI on screening and other preliminaries, a r e relevant to all kinds of interrogations. Once it is established that the source i s probably a counterintelligence target (in other words, i s probably a member of a foreign intelligence or security service, a Communist, o r a p a r t of any other group engaged in clandestine activity directed against the national security), the interrogation is planned and conducted accordingly. The CI interrogation techniques a r e discussed in an order of increasing intensity a s the focus on source r e s i s t a n t e grows sharper. he last section, on do's and dont's, i s a return t o the broader view of the opening p a r t s ; a s a check-list, it is placed last solely for convenience.

:,

'.

IL DEFINITIONS Most of the intelligence terminology employed h e r e which m a y once have been ambiguous has been clarified through usage o r through KUBARK instructions. F o r t h i s reason definitions have been omitted for such t e r m s a s burn notice, defector, escapee, and refugee. Other definitions have been included despite a csmmon agreement about meaning if the significance is shaded by the context.

1. Assessment: the analysis and synthesis of information, usually about a person or persons, f o r the purpose of appraisal. The assessment of individuals i s based upon the compilation and use of psychological as well as biographic detail. 2. Bona fides: evidence o r reliable information about identity, personal (including intelligence) history, and intentions or goo d faith. ,

3 . Control: the capacity t o generate, a l t e r , o r halt human behavior by implying, citing, o r using physical or psychological means to ensure compliance with direction. The compliance may be voluntary or involuntary. Control of an interrogatee can r a r e l y be established without control of his envir onrnent

.

4, Counterintelligence interrogation: an interrogation ( s e e #7) designed t o obtain information about hostile clandestine activities and persons o r groups engaged therein. KUBARK CI interrogations a r e designed, almost invariably, to yield information about foreign intelligence and security services or Communist organizations. Because security is an element of counterintelligence, interrogations conducted to obtain admis sions of clande stine plans o r activities directed against KUBARK or PBPRIMX security a r e also CI interrogations. But unlike a police interrogation, the CI

!

interrogation i s not aimed at causing the 'interrogatee to incriminate himself a s a means of bringing him to trial. Admissions of complicity a r e not, to a CI service, ends i n themselves but m e r e l y prelu&es ts t h e zc-l;a;tion Y-of m o r e information. "A

5.

Debriefing: obtaining information by questioning a controlled and witting source who is normally a willing one.

6 . E l i c i t i n g obtaining information, without revealing intent o r exceptional interest, through a v e r b a l .or written exchange with a person who may be willing o r unwilling t o provide what is sought and who may or m a y not be controlled. 7, Interrogation: obtaining information by direct questioning of a per son o r per sons under conditions which a r e either p a r t l y o r fully controlled by the questioner o r a r e believed by those questioned t o be subject t o his control. Because interviewing, debriefing, and eliciting a r e simpler methods of obtaining in.£ormation from cooperative subjects, interrogation i s usually r e s e r v e d for sources who a r e suspect, r e s i s t a n t , o r both. 8. Intelligence interview: obtaining information, not customarily under 'controlled conditions, by questioning a person who is aware of the nature and perhaps of the significance of his a n s w e r s but who i s ordinarily unaware of the purposes and specific intelligence affiliations of the interviewer. .

-

111. LEGAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

The legislation which founded KUBARK specifically denied it any law-enforcement o r police powers. y e t detention in a controlled environment and perhaps f o r a lengthy period is frequently e s s e n t i a l to a successful counterintelligence interrogation of a r e c a l c i t r a n t s o u r c e . ' . r

:

j

This necess ity, obviously. should be determined as e a r l y as p o s s ~ b l e .

f

The legality of detaining and questioning a person, and of the methods employed,

Detention poses the m o s t common of the legal problems. KUBARK has no independent legal authority to detaln anyone against h i s wil1.r

__I The has tc

in which soma KUBARK interrogations have been conducted h a s not always been the product of impatience. Some security s e r v i c e s , especially -those of the Sino-Soviet Bloc, may work a t leisure, depending upon time a s well a s their own methods to m e l t recalcitrance. KUBARK usually

-

cannot. Accordingly, unless it is considered that the prospective i n t e r r o g a t e e is cooperative and will remain s o indefinitely, the f i r s t s t e p in planning an interrogation is to detcrminc how long the s o u r c e . can b e held. The choice of methods depends in p a r t upon the answer to this question.

..

I

The handling and questioning of defectora a r e subject to the provis ions of Directlvc No. 4: to i t s r e l a t e d Chief/KUBARK Directtves, p r i n c i p a l l y ~ - Book Dispatch and to pertinent . Those cd'ncerned with the L interrogation of defectors, escapees, refugees, o r r e p a t r i a t e s should know t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s . -I

The kinds of countcrhtclligcncc information to be sought Ln a CI interrogation a r e stated generally in Chief/KUBARK ~ i r e c t l v ; and in g r e a t e r d o t a u Ln Book ~ i s p a t c h c 2

J

The interrogation of PBPRIME cltizcna poeaa s p e c i a l problems. F i r s t , s u c h interrogations should not bc conhuctcd f o r r e a s o n s lying outside the s p h e r e of KUBARK1a responsibilities. . F o r example, the

..,

'

.

should not normally-.... become d i r e c t l y rzlvclrred. Clandestine activity conducted a b r o a d on behalf of a f o r e i g n power by a private PBPRIME citizen does f a l l within KUBARKTs investigative a n d interrogative respanslbilities. However, any investigation; interrogation, o r interview of a PBPRIME citizen which is conducted a b r o a d because it is known o r suspected that h e i s engaged in clandestine activities directed against PBPRIME s e c u r i t y i n t e r e s t s r e q u i r e 8 the p r i o r and personal approval of ~ h i e f f o~r ~ ~ of h i s deputy.

- but

Since 4 Octo%er 1961, e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l application h a s been given t o the Espionage Act, making it henceforth possible to prosecute Ln the F e d e r a l C o u r t s a n y PBPRIME citizen who violates the statutes of this n f o r e i g n countries. ODENVY bas requested that it be informed, in Act i advance if t i m e p e r m i t s , if any investigative s t e p s a r e undertaken in t h e s e cases. Since KUBARK employees cannot be witnesses in court, each investigation m u s t b e conducted In such a manner that evidence obtained m a y b e p r o p e r l v introduced If the c a s e comes to trial. - states policy and p r o c e d u r e s f o r the conduct of investigations of PBPRIME citizens abroad. C _

Interrogations conducted under compulsion o r d u r e s s a r e especially lfkely to involve illegality a n d to entail damaging consequences f o r KUBARK. T h e r e f o r e p r i o r H e a d q u a r t e r s approval a t the KUDOVE level m u s t b e obtained f o r the 'hterrogation of any s o u r c e a g a i n s t his will and under any of the following circumstances:

1.. If bodily harm i s to be inflicted. 2. If medical, chemical, o r e l e c t r i c a l methods o r m a t e r i a l s a r e to b'e u s e d to induce acquiescence.

&3-.: 3

~

:

d

.,.

T h e CI interrogator dealing with an uncooperative interrogatee who h a s b e e n well-briefed by a hostile service on the legal restrictions \,., under which ODYOKE s e r v i c e s operate m u s t expect some effective delaying tactics. The interrogatee has been told that KUBARK will not hold h i m long, that h e need only r e s i s t f o r a while. Nikolay KHOKHLOV, f o r example, reported that before he left for Frankfurt am Main on his assassination mission, the following thoughts coursed through his head: "If I should get into the hands of Western authorities, I can b e c o m e reticent, silent, and deny m y volunhry v.isit to Okolovtch. I know I will not b e tortured and that under the procedures (17) /-?he footnote numerals of w e s t e r n law I c a n conduct mys& boldly. in this text a r e keyed to the numbered bibliographYat the end.7 The flurried i n t e r r o g a t o r who encounters expert r e s istance should hot apd p r e s s ; if he does, h e is likelier to commit Ulegal a c t s which the s o u r c e c a n l a t e r u s e against hlm. Remembering that t h e Is on his side, the interrogator should a r r a n g e to get as much of it a s h e needs. '

IV.

THE INTERROGATOR

A number of studies of 'interrogation d i s c u s s qualities s a i d to be desirable In an interrogator. The l i s t s e e m s a l m o s t endless a professional manner, forcefulness, undcrs tanding and sympathy, breadth of gene-ral knowledge, ar ca knowledge, I ' a practical h o w l e d g e of psychology", skill in the tricks of the trade, a l e r t n e s s , p e r s e v e r a n c e , integrity, discretion, patience, a high I. Q., extensive experience, flexibility, etc., etc. Some texts even discuss the Lnterrogator's manners and grooming, and one pres c r i b e d the t r a i t s considered dcs irablc in his s e c r e t a r y . A repetition of this catalogue would s e r v e no purpose h e r e , especially because a l m o s t all of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s mentioned a r e a l s o d e s i r a b l e in c a s e officers, agents, policemen, salesmen. lmkbcrjacks, a n d everybody e l s e . The s e a r c h of the pertinent scientific l i t e r a t u r e disclosed no r e p o r t s of studies based on commondenominator t r a i t s of successful intcrrogators o r any other controlled inquiries that would invest these l i s t s with a n y objective' ~ l i d i t y . P e r h a p s the four qualifications of chief importance to the interrogator - a r c ( 1) enough operational tralning and experience to permit cp'ick recognition of leads; (2) r e a l familiarity with the language to be used; (3) extensive background laowledge about the interrogatcc's native country (and intelligence s e r v i c e , if employed by one); and (4) a genuine understanding of the s o u r c e a s a person.

-

Statioqs, and even a few b a s e s can call upon one o r s e v e r a l interrogators to supply these prerequisites, individually o r as a team. Whenever a number of i n t e r r o g a t o r s is available, the percentage of s u c c e s s e s is i n c r e a s e d by c a r e f u l matchlng of questioners and s o u r c e s and by ensuring that rigid prcscheduling does not prevent such matching. Of the four t r a i t s listed, a g e m h e insight into the s o u r c e ' s c h a r a c t e r and motives is perhaps

most important but l e a s t common. Later' portions of this manual explore this topic in m o r e detail. One genc,ral observation is introduced now, however, because it is considered basic to the establish-'. mcnt of rapport, upon which the success of non-cocrcivc interrogatloc "= depends. The interrogator should remember that he and 'the interrogatec a r e often working a t cross-purposes not because the intcrrogatcc is malevolently wfthho1d~h.gor misleading but simply because what h e wants f r o m the situation is not what the lntcrrogator wants. The interrogator's goal is to obtain useful information--facts about which the interrogatec presumably has acquired information. But at the outset of the interrogation, and perhaps f o r a long t h e , afterwards, the person being questioned is not greatly concerned with communicatlng his body of specialized information to his questioner; hc is concerned with putting his best foot forward. The question uppermost in h i s mind, at the beginning, is not likely to be ''How can I help PBPRIMEP1l but rather "What s o r t of impress ion am I making? " and, a l m o s t immediately thereafter, "What is going to happen to m e now?'' (An exception is the penetration agent or provocateur sent to a KUBARK field installation after training in withstanding interrogation. Such a n agent m a y feel confident enough not to be gravely concerned about h b e l f . His primary interest, f r o m the beginning, may be the acquisition of information about the interrogator and his service. )

J

-

The skilled interrogator can save a great deal of time by understanding &e emotional needs of the intcrrogatce. Most people confronted by a n official--and dimly powerful--representative of a foreign power will get down to cases much faster if made to feel, f r o m the start, that they a r e being treated as individuals. So s implc a m a t t e r a s greeting an interrogatec by his name a t the opening of the sesaion establishes in h i s mind the comforting awareness that he is considered as a person, not a squeezable sponge. This is not to say that egotirrtic types should be allowed to bask a t length in the warmth of individual recognition. But it is Important to assuage the f e a r of denigration , which afflicts many people when f i r s t interrogated by making it clear that the individuality of thc intcrrogatcc is recognized. With this common understanding established, the interrogation can move on to -mpersonal m a t t e r s and will not later be thwarted or interrupted--

or a t l e a s t not as often--by irrelevant answers designed not to provide f a c t s but to prove that the interrogatee is a respectable m e m b e r of the human r a c e .

:. .. .... ... ..-.. . .. .. .

Although it is often necessary to trick people into telling what we need to b o w , specially in CI interrogations, the initial question which the interrogator a s k s of himself shbuld be, I1How can I make him want to tell m e what he knows?" r a t h e r than "Hour can I t r a p him into disclos ing what.he koows? If the per son being ques t i m e d is genuinely hostile f o r ideological reasons, techniques of manipulation a r e In order. BU; the assumption of hostility--or a t l e a s t the use of p r e s s u r e .tactics a t the f i r s t encounter--may make difficult subjects even out of those who wcnild respond to recognition of individuality and an Lnit'ial assumption of good will.

...

.

Another preliminary comment about the interrogator is that normally h e should not personalize. That is, h e should not be pleased, flattered, frustrated, goaded, or otherwise emotionally and personally affected by the interrogation. A calculated display of feeling employed f o r a specific purpose is a n exception; but even under these circumstances the interrogator is in full control. The interrogation situation is intensely inter-personal; i t is therefore all the m o r e n e c e s s a r y to strike a counter-balance by an attitude which the subject clearly recognizes as essentially f a i r and objective. The kind of person who cannot help personalizing, ' the interrogation situation, who becomes .emotionally involved m m a y habe chance (and even spectacular) successes as a n interrogator but is a l m o s t c e r t a h to have a poor batting average. It i s frequently said that the interrogator should be "a good judge of human nature. l 1 In fact, '

3 t( 3 ) This study states l a t e r (page "Great attention has been given to the degree to which persons a r e able to lnake judgements f r o m casual observations regarding the personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of another. The consensus of r e s e a r c h is that with r e s p e c t to many kinds of judgments, a t l e a s t some judges p e r f o r m reliably better than chance. . . Nevertheless, l l . . . the level

.

.

of reliability in judgments is s o low that r e s e a r c h encounters difficulties when i t s e e k s to determine who makes better judgments. . (3) Tn brief, the interrogator is likelier to overestimate h i s ability' .. h to judge o t h e r = + k cts -d-,rest:kzf,e it, especially tl he hzs bad l i t t l e o r no training in m o d e r n psychology. It follows that e r r o r s in a s s e s s m e n t and In handling a r e likelier to r e s u l t f r o m snap judgments based upon the assuinptiqn of b t e skill in judg'mg o t h e r s than f r o m holding such judgments in abeyance until enough facts a r e h o w n .

. .

T h e r e h a s been a good deal of discussion'of interrogation e x p e r t s v s . subject-matter experts. Such facts a s a r e available suggest that the l a t t e r have a slight advantage. But f o r counterintelligence purposes the debate is academic.

I t i s sound p r a c t i c e to a s s i g n inexperienced interrogators to g u a r d duty o r to other supplementary tasks directly ;elated to interrogation, s o that they can view the process closely before . tdking charge. The u s e of beginning interrogators a s s c r e e n e r s ( s e e p a r t W) is a l s o recommended. Although t h e r e is s o m e limited validity in the view, frequently e x p r e s s e d in interrogation p r i m c r s , that the interrogation i s e s s e n t i a l l y a batfle of wits, the CI Lnterrogator who encounters a skilled and r e s istant interrogatee should r e m e m b e r that a wide

* ~ h ci n t e r r o g a t o r should be supported whenever possible by qualified analysts1 review of h i s daily I1tdke"; experience h a s shown that s u c h a review w i l l r a i s e questions to be put and poLnts to be clarified and lead to a thorough coverage of the subject in hand.

II

variety of aids can be made available. in th'e field o r f r o m Headquarters. (These a r e discussed in Part VIII. ) The intensely personal nature of the interrogation situation makes it all the m o r e n e c e s s a r y + h t the KUBARK questioner should a h not f o r a personal triumph but f o r his true goal--the acquisition of all needed information by any author fied means.

..

-.

.. . . .. . .

. .. . C

V.

A.

THE INTERROGATEE

Types Of Sources: Intelligence Categories

F r o m the viewpoint of t h e intelligence s e r v i c e t h e categories of p e r sons who m o s t frequently provide useful information i n r e sponse t o questioning a r e t r a v e l l e r s ; r e p a t r i a t e s ; d e f e c t o r s , e s c a p e e s , and refugees; t r a n s f e r r e d sources; agents, including provocateurs, double agents, and penetration agents; and swindlers and f a b r i c a t o r s .

1. T r a v e l l e r s a r e usually interviewed, debriefed, o r G e r i e d through eliciting techniques. If they a r e interrogated, t h e r e a s o n i s t h a t they a r e known o r believed t o fall into one of t h e following categories, 2 . Repatriates a r e sometimes interrogated. although other techniques a r e used m o r e often. The p r o p r i e t a r y i n t e r e s t s of t h e h o s t government will frequently dictate interrogation by a liaison s e r v i c e r a t h e r than by KUBARK. If KUBARK i n t e r r o g a t e s , t h e following preliminary steps a r e taken:

a. traces. b.

A r e c o r d s check, including local and H e a d q u a r t e r s

Testing of bona fides.

c. Determination of r e p a t r i a t e ' s kind and level of a c c e s s while outside his own country. d. P r e l i m i n a r y a s s e s s m e n t of motivation (including political orientation), reliability, and capability a s o b s e r v e r and r e p o r t e r , e.

Determination of a l l intelligence o r Communist

r e l a t i o n s h i p s , whether with a s e r v i c e o r party of the r e p a t r i a t e ' s own country, country of detention, o r another. Full particulars a r e needed,

3. D e f e c t o r s , e s c a p e e s , and refugees a r e normally interrogated at sufficient length t o p e r m i t a t l e a s t a preliminary testing of bona T h e experience of t h e post-war y e a r s h a s demonstrated that fides Soviet d e f e c t o r s ( 1 ) a l m o s t ne;er defect solely o r primarily because of inducement by a W e s t e r n s e r v i c e , (2) usually leave the USSR f o r p e r s o n a l r a t h e r than ideological r e a s o n s , and (3) a r e often RIS agents. .-

.

All analyses of t h e defector -refugee flow have shown that t h e Orbit s e r v i c e s a r e well-aware of the advantages offered by this channel a s a m e a n s of planting t h e i r agents in t a r g e t countries.

I 4.

T r a n s f e r r e d s o u r c e s r e f e r r e d t o K U B m K by another service

f o r interrogation a r e usually sufficientl? well-known t o the t r a n s f e r r i n g s e r v i c e s o that a file h a s been opened. Whenever possible, KUBARK should s e c u r e a copy of the f i l e o r its full informational . '.'.,.. - . equivalent before accepting custody. 5.

Agents a r e --

m o r e frequently debriefed than interrogated.

a s an analytic tool. If it i s then established o r d strongly suspected that the agent belongs t o one of the following categories., further investigation and, eventually, i n t e ~ r o g a t i o n usually follow.

a. Provocateur. Many provocation agents a r e walk-ins posing a s escapees, refugees, o r defectors in o r d e r t o penet r a t e e m i g r e groups, ODY OKE intelligence, o r other t a r g e t s assigned by hostile s e r v i c e s Although denunciations by genuine refugee s and other evidence of information obtained f r o m documents, local officials, and like sources m a y r e s u l t in exposure, the detection of provocation frequently depends upon skilled interrogation. A l a t e r section of this manual d e a l s with the preliminary testing of -bona fide$ But the r e s u l t s of preliminary testing- a r e often inconclusive, and detailed interrogation i s frequently essential to confession and full revelation. Thereafter t h e provocateur may be questioned f o r operational and positive intelligence a s well as counterintelligence provided that proper cognizance i s taken of his status during the .questioning and l a t e r , when r e p o r t s a r e prepared.

.

b. Double agent. The interrogation of DAIS frequently follows a determination or strong - suspicion that t h e double i s "giving the edge" to the a d v e r s a r y service. As i s a l s o t r u e f o r the interrogation of provocateurs, thorough p r e liminary investigation will pay handsome dividends when questioning gets under way. In f a c t , it is a baeic p r k c i p l e of interrogation that the questioner should have a t his d i s posal, before querying s t a r t s , a s much pertinent information a s can be gathered without the knowledge of the prospective

5

i n t e r r ogatee,

d. Swindlers and fabricators a r e usually interrogated f o r prophylactic r e a s o n s , not for counterintelligence information. The purpose i s the prevention o r nullification of d a m a g e t o KUBARK. to other ODYOKE s e r v i c e s Swindlers and f a b r i c a t o r s have little of CI significance to communicate but a r e notoriously skillful t i m e w a s t e r s . Int e r r o g a t i o n of t h e m i s nq-ually inconclusive and. if prolonged,

unrewarding. The professional peddler with s e v e r a l IS contacts may prove an exception; but h e will usually give the edge t o a host security s e r v i c e because otherwise he cannot function with impunity. ., . .'-

B.

Types of Sources: Personality Categories

The number of systems devised f o r categorizing human beings i s l a r g e , and m o s t of them a r e of dubious validity. Various categ o r i c a l s c h e m e s a r e outlined in t r e a t i s e s on interrogation. The two typologies m o s t frequently advocated a r e psychologic -emotional and geographic-cultural. Those who u r g e the f o r m e r a r g u e that the b a s i c emotional-psychological patterns do not v a r y significantly with t i m e , place, o r culture. The l a t t e r school maintains the existence of a national c h a r a c t e r and sub-national categories, and interrogation guides based on t h i s principle recommend approaches tailored t o geographical c u l t u r ~ s . It i s plainly t r u e that the interrogation s o u r c e cannot be under stood in a vacuum, isolated f r o m s o c i a l context. It i s equally t r u e that s o m e of the m o s t glaring blunders in interrogation (and other operational p r o c e s s e s ) have resulted f r o m ignoring t h e s o u r c e ' s background. Moreover, emotional-psychological s chematizations sometimes p r e s e n t . atypical e x t r e m e s r a t h e r than the 'kinds of people commonly encountered by interrogators. Such typologies a l s o c a u s e disagreement even among professional psychiatrists and psychologists. Interrogators who adopt t h e m and who note in an interrogatee one o r two of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of I1Type A" may mistakenly a s s i g n the s o u r c e t o Category A and a s s u m e the r e maining t r a i t s . On the other hand, t h e r e a r e valid objections t o the adoption of cultural-geographic categories f o r interrogation purposes (however valid they may be as KUCAGE concepts). The pitfalls of ignorance of the distinctive culture of the s o u r c e have ' -

,

T h e i d e a l solution would be to avoid all categorizing. Basically, all s c h e m e s f o r labelling people a r e wrong per s e ; applied a r b i t r a r i l y , ' they always produce distortions. Every interrogator knows t h a t a r e a l understanding of the individual i s worth f a r m o r e t h a n a thorough knowledge of this o r that pigeon-hole t o which he h a s been consigned. And f o r interrogation purposes the ways in ' w h i c h he d i f f e r s f r o m t h e a b s t r a c t t y p e may be m o r e significant t h a n t h e ways i n which h e conforms. But KUBARK does not dispose of the t i m e o r personnel t o p r o b e the depths of each s o u r c e ' s individuality. In the opening p h a s e s of interrogation, or in a quick interrogation, we a r e compelled t o make some u s e of the shorthand of categorizing, despite distortions. Like other interrogation aides, a scheme of c a t e g o r i e s i s useful only if recognized f o r what it is--a s e t of l a b e l s t h a t facilitate communication but a r e not the s a m e . a s t h e p e r sons' thus labelled. If an interrogatee l i e s persistently, an i n t e r r o g a t o r m a y r e p o r t and d i s m i s s him a s a "pathological liar. Yet such p e r s o n s may p o s s e s s counterintelligence (or other) inf o r m a t i o n quite equal in value to that held by other sources, and t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r likeliest t o get a t it i s the man who i s not content with labelling but i s a s interested in why the subject l i e s a s in what he l i e s about, . With all of t h e s e r e s e r v a t i o n s , then, and with t h e further observation that those who find these psychological-emotional c a t e g o r i e s pragmatically valuable should u s e them and those who d o not should l e t them alone, the following nine types a r e described. T h e c a t e g o r i e s a r e based upon the fact that a person's past i s always r e f l e c t e d , however dimily, i n his present ethics and behavior. Old dogs can l e a r n new t r i c k s but not new ways of learning them. People - d o change, but what a p p e a r s to be new behavior or a new psychological p a t t e r n i s usually just a variant on the old theme.

It i s not claimed that the classification system presented h e r e i s complete; s o m e interrogatees will not f i t into any one of ., t h e groupings. And like a l l other typologies, the s y s t e m i s plagued . by overiap, s o that s o m e interrogatees. will show c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of m o r e than one group. Above all, the interrogator m u s t r e m e m b e r that finding some of the characteristics of t h e group i n a single s o u r c e does not w a r r a n t an immediate conclusion that the s o u r c e "belongs to" the group, and that e v e n . c o r r e c t labelling i s not the equivalent of under standing people but m e r e l y an aid t o understanding. '

The nine m a j o r groups within the psychological-emotional c a t e gory adopted f o r t h i s handbook a r e the following. The o r d e r l y -obstinate character. People in this category a r e characteristically frugal, orderly, and cold; frequently they a r e quite intellectual. They a r e not impulsive i n behavior. . They tend t o think things through logically and to act deliberately, They often r e a c h decisions v e r y slowly. They a r e f a r l e s s likely t o make r e a l personal s a c r i f i c e s f o r a c a u s e than to use them a s a t e m p o r a r y means of obtaining a permanent personal gain. They a r e s e c r e t i v e and d i s inclined t o confide i n anyone e l s e their plans and plots,. which frequently concern t h e overthrow of s o m e f o r m of authority. They a r e a l s o stubborn, although they may pretend cooperation or even believe that they a r e cooperating. They n u r s e grudges.

1.

.?

9

The orderly-obstinate character considers himself s u p e r i o r t o other people. Sometimes his sense of superiority i s interwoven with a kind of magical thinking that includes all s o r t s of superstitions and fantasies about controlling his environment. He m a y even have a system of morality t h a t i s all his own. He sometimes g r a t i f i e s h i s feeling of s e c r e t superiority by provoking unjust treatment. He a l s o t r i e s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , t o keep open a line of escape by avoiding any r e a l commitment t o anything. He is--and always h a s been--intensely concerned about his personal possessions. He i s usually a tightwad who saves everything, has a strong s e n s e of propriety, and i s punctual and tidy. His money and other possessions have f o r him a personalized quality; 'they a r e p a r t s of himself. He often c a r r i e s around shiny coins, keepsakes, a bunch of keys, and other objects having f o r himself a n actual o r symbolic value.

-....

u s u a i l Y ' t h e orderly-obstinate character h a s a history of active rebellion, in childhood, of persistently d'oing the exact opposite of what h e i s told t o do. As an adult he may have l e a r n e d t o cloak his r e s i s t a n c e and become passive-aggressive, but h i s determination t o get his own way i s unaltered. He h a s m e r e l y l e a r n e d how t o proceed indirectly if necessary. The profound f e a r and h a t r e d of authority, persisting since chil&ood, i s often wellconcealed i n adulthood. F o r example, such a p e r s o n may confess e a s i l y and quickly under interrogation, even t o a c t s that he did not commit, in o r d e r t o throw t h e interrogator off t h e t r a i l of a significant discovery ( o r , m o r e r a r e l y , because of feelings of guilt). The i n t e r r o g a t o r who i s dealing with an orderly-obstinate c h a r a c t e r should avoid t h e r o l e of hostile authority. T h r e a t s and threatening g e s t u r e s , table -pounding, pouncing on evasions o r l i e s , and any s i m i l a r l y authoritative tactics will only awaken i n such a subject h i s old anxieties and habitual defense mechanisms. To attain r a p p o r t , t h e interrogator should be friendly. It will probably prove rewarding if t h e r o o m and the interrogator look exceptionally neat. Orderly-obstinate interrogatees often collect coins o r other objects a s a hobby; t i m e spent in sharing their i n t e r e s t s m a y thaw s o m e of the ice. Establishing rapport is extremely important when . . dealing with t h i s type,

T h e optimistic character. This kind of s o u r c e i s a l m o s t constantly happy-go-lucky, impulsive, inconsistent, and undependable. He s e e m s t o enjoy a continuing s t a t e of well-being. He may be generous t o a fault, giving t o o t h e r s a s he wants to be given to. He may become an alcoholic o r d r u g addict. He i s not able t o withstand v e r y much p r e s s u r e ; h e r e a c t s t o a challenge not by increasing his efforts but r a t h e r by running away t o avoid c o d i c t . His convictions that "something will t u r n up " , that "everything will work out all right", i s based on his need t o avoid his own responsibility for events and depend upon , a kindly fate. 2.

Such a p e r s o n h a s usually had a great d e a l of'over-indulgence in e a r l y life. He is s o m e t i m e s the youngest member of a l a r g e family,

the child of a middle-aged woman (a so-called "change -of -life baby"). If he has met severe frustrations in later childhood, he may be petulant, vengeful, 'and constantly demanding. *;

As interrogation sources, optimistic characters respond best t o a kindly, parental approach. If withholding, they can often be handled effectively by the Mutt-and- Jeff technique discussed l a t e r in this paper. P r e s s u r e tactics o r hostility will make them r e t r e a t inside themselves, whereas r e a s s u r a n c e will bring them out. They tend t o seek promises, t o c a s t the interrogator in the role of protector and problem-solver; and it i s important that the interrogator avoid making any specific promises that cannot be fulfilled, because the optimist turned vengeful i s likely to prove troublesome.

3 . The greedy, demanding character. This kind of person affixes himself t o others like a leech and clings obsessively. Although extremely dependent and passive, he constantly demands that others take c a r e o f . him and gratify his wishes. If he considers himself wronged, he does not seek r e d r e s s through his own efforts but t r i e s t o persuade another His t o take up the cudgels in his behalf--llletls you and him fight loyalties a r e likely t o shift whenever h e feels that the sponsor whom h e has chosen has l e t him down. Defectors of this type.fee1 aggrieved because t h e i r d e s i r e s were not satisfied in their codntGies of origin, but they soon feel equally deprived in a second land and t u r n against its government or representatives in the same way. The greedy and demanding character i s subject t o rather frequent depressions. . H e may direct a d e s i r e for revenge inward, upon himself; i n extreme c a s e s suicide may result. The greedy, demanding character often suffered f r o m v e r y early deprivation of affection or security. As an adult h e continues to seek substitute parents who will c a r e f o r him a s his own, h e f e e l s , did not.

-

The interrogator dealing with a greedy, demanding character must be careful not t o rebuff him; otherwise rapport will be destroyed. On the other hand, t h e interrogator must not accede t o demands which cannot or should not be met. Adopting the tone of an understanding father or big brother i s likely to make the subject responsive. If he makes exorbitant requests, an unimportant favor may provide a s a t i s -

. A,--..

.....

'factory substitute because the demand a r i s e s not f r o m a specific need but a s -an expression of the subject's need f o r security. He i s likely t o find reassuring any manifestation of concern for his wellbeing.

.

.

In dealing with this type- -and t o a considerable extent in dealing with any of the types herein listed--the interrogator must be a w a r e of the limits and pitfalls of rational persuasion. If he seeks t o induce cooperation by an appeal t o logic, he should f i r s t determine whether the source's resistance is based on logic. The appeal will glance off ineffectually if the resistance is totally o r chiefly emotional r a t h e r than rational, Emotional-resistance can be dissipated only by emotional manipulation, 4. The anxious, self -centered character, Although this person is fearful, he i s engaged in a constant struggle t o conceal his f e a r s . He i s frequently a daredevil who compensates for. his anxiety by p r e tending that t h e r e i s no such thing as danger. He may be a stunt f l i e r or circus performer who "provesn himself before crowds, He may a l s o be a Don Juan. He tends t o brag and often lies through hunger f o r approval or praise. As a soldier or officer he may have been decorated f o r bravery; but if so, his comrades may suspect that his exploits resulted f r o m a pleasure in exposing himself t o danger and the anticipated delights of r e wards, approval, and applause. The anxious, self-centered c h a r a c t e r , is usually intensely vain and equally sensitive,

People who show these characteristics a r e actually unusually fearful. The causes of intense concealed anxiety a r e too complex and subtle t o permit discussion of the subject in this paper.

Of greater importance t o the interrogator than the causes i s the opportunity provided by concealed anxiety f o r successful manipulation of the source, His d e s i r e t o i m p r e s s will usually be quickly evident, He i s likely t o be voluble. Ignoring or ridiculing his bragging, or cutting him short with a demand that he get down t o cases, is likely t o make him resentful and t o stop the flow. Playing upon his vanity, especially by praising his courage, will usually be 'a successful tactic if employed skillfully. Anxious, self-centered interrogatees who a r e withholding significant facts, such as contact with a hostile service,

a r e likelier to divulge if made to feel that the truth w i l l not be used to h a r m them and if the interrogator also s t r e s s e s the callousness and stupidity of the adversary in sending s o valiant a person upon , s o ill-prepared a m i s s ion. There is little to be gained and much to be lost by exposing the nonrelcvant lies of this kind of source. Gross lies about deeds of daring, sexual prowess, or other llproofstl of courage and manliness a r e best met with silence o r with friendly but ll~ncommittalreplies unless they consume an inordinate amount of time. If operational use is contemplated, recruitment may sometimes be effected through such queries as, "1 wonder if you would be willing to undertake a dangerous m i s s i o n "

...

The guilt-ridden character. This k'md of person has a strong cxuel, unrealistic conscience. His whole life seems devoted to r e living his feelings of guilt. Sometimes he seems determined to atone; a t other times he insists that whatever went wrong is the fault of somebody else.' In either event he seeks constantly some proof o r external indication that the gum of others is greater than his own. He is often caught up completely in efforts to prove that he has been treated unjustly. In fact, ha may provoke unjust treat-ment in order to assuage his conscience through punishment. Compulsive gamblers who find no r e a l pleasure in w b i n g but do f h d relief Zn losing belong to this class. So do persons who falsely c d c s s to crimes. Sometimes such people actually commit c r i m e s i n order to confess and be punished. Masochists also belong in this category. 5.

s most guilt complexes a r e r e a l or fancied wrongs The c a ~ e of done to parents or others whom the subject felt he ought to love and honor. A s children such people may have been frequently scolded or punished. Or they may have been l'm.odelllchildren wb o r e p r e s s e d all natural hostilities.

&

i

The guilt-ridden character is hard to Interrogate. He may "confess" to hostfle clandestine activity, or other acts of interest to KUBARK, in which h e was not involved. Accusations levelled a t him by the interrogator a r e likely to trigger such false confessions. Or h e m a y remain silent when accused, enjoying the llpunishment. He b a poor subject f o r LCFLUTTER. The complexities of dealing with conscience-ridden hterrogatees vary s o widely from case to case h t it is almost Impossible to list sound general principles. Perhaps

the best advice is that the interrogator, once alerted by information from the screening process (see P a r t YJ) br by the subject's excessive preoccupation with moral judgements, should treat a s suspect and subjective any information provided by the interrogatee. about any matter that is of moral concern to him. Persons w i t h intense guilt feelings m a y cease resistance and cooperate Lf punished in some way, because of the gratification induced by punishment.

., -..,,

'.

.. .

6.

The character wrecked by success is closely related to the guilt-ridden character. This sort of person .cannot tolerate success and goes ,through life failing a t critical points. H e Ls often accident-prone. Typically he has a long history of be'mg promising and of almost completing a significant assignment o r achievement but not bringing it off. The character who & m o t stand success enjoys his ambitions as long a s they remain fant a s ies but somehow ensures that they will not be fulfilled in reality. Acquaintances often feel that his success is just around the corner, but something always intervenes. In actuality this something is a sense of guilt, of the kind described above. The person who avoids success has a conscience which forbids the pleasures of accomplishment and recognition. He frequently projects his guilt feelings and feels that all of his failure.s were someone else's fault. He may have a strong need to - s k f e r and .may seek danger or injury. As interrogatees these people who "cannot stand prosperity" pose no special problem unless the hterrogation impinges upon their feelings of guilt or the reasons f o r their past failures. Then subjective distortions, not facts, w i l l result. The successful interrogator will isolate this a r e a of unreliability.

7. The schizoid or strange character lives in a world of fantasy much of the time. Sometimes he s e e m unable to distinguish reality from the realm of his own creating. The r e a l world seems to him empty and meaningless, in contrast with the mysteriously s ignificaat world that he has made, H e is extremely intolerant of any frustration that occurs in the outer world and deals with it by withdrawal into the interior realm.

;./

S E C

,-

. .

He h a s no r e a l attachments t o others, although he may attach symbolic and private meanings o r values t o other people. ' I

.

Children r e a r e d in homes lacking in ordinary' affection and attention or in orphanages o r state-run communes may become adults who belong t o this. category. Rebuffed i n e a r l y efforts t o attach t h e m s e l v e s to another, they become distrustful of attachments and t u r n inward. Any link t o a group o r country will be undependable and, as a rule, transitory. .At the same t i m e the schizoid c h a r a c t e r needs external approval. Though he r e t r e a t s f r o m r e a l i t y , he does not want t o feel abandoned. As & interrogatee the schizoid character is likely t o l i e readily t o win approval. He will t e l l the interrogator what he thinks the interrogator wants t o hear in order to w i n the award of seeing a smile on the i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s face. Because he is not always capable of distinguishing between fact and fantasy, he may be unaware of lying. The d e s i r e for approval provides the int e r r o g a t o r with a handle. Whereas accusations of lying o r other indications of d i s e s t e e m w i l l provoke withdrawal from the situation teasing the t r u t h out of the schizoid subject may not prpve difficult if he i s convinced t h a t he will not incur favor through misstatements o r disfavor through telling the truth. Like t h e guilt -ridden c h a r a c t e r , the schizoid character m a y be a n unreliable subject for testing by LCFLUTTER because h i s internal needs lead him to confuse fact with fancy. He is a l s o likely t o make a n unreliable agent because of his incapacity t o deal with f a c t s and t o f o r m r e d relationships.

8. The exception believes that the world owes him a great deal. He f e e l s that he suffered a gross injustice, usually e a r l y i n life, and should be repaid. Sometimes the injustice was meted out impersonally, by fate, as a physical deformity, an extremely painful illness o r operation in childhood, or the early 10ss of one parent o r both. Feeling that these misfortunes were undeserved, the exceptions r e g a r d them a s injtlstices that someone or something m u s t rectify. Therefore they claim a s their right privileges not permitted others. When the claim i s ignored or denied, the exceptions become rebellious, a s adolescents often do. They a r e

......- .. ...

convinced t h a t t h e j u s t i c e of the c l a i m i s p i a h f o r ' a l l t o s e e and that any r e f u s a l to g r a n t i t i s willfully malignant. '

--

i ~ ~ ~ c ~ r o g athe t e dexceptions , a r e likely t o m a k e d e m a n d s f o r money, r e s e t t l e m e n t aid, and o t h e r f a v o r s - - d e m a n d s t h a t are. c o m p l e t e l y out of proportion t o the value of t h e i r contributions. Any ambiguous r e p l i e s to such demands will be int e r p r e t e d a s a c q u i e s c e n c e . Of a l l the t y p e s c o n s i d e r e d h e r e , the exception is l i k e l i e s t t o c a r r y an alleged i n j u s t i c e dealt h i m b y KUBARK t o the n e w s p a p e r s o r the c o u r t s . - rIr l Ar A~ C ~ I

The 'best g e n e r a l line to follow in handling those who, believe t h a t they a r e exceptions i s t o l i s t e n attentively (within r e a s o n a b l e t i r n e l i m i t s ) t o t h e i r g r i e v a n c e s a n d t o m a k e no c o m m i t m e n t s that cannot be d i s c h a r g e d fully. D e f e c t o r s f r o m hostile intelligence s e r v i c e s , doubles, p r o v o c a t e u r s , and o t h e r s who have had m o r e t h a n passing contact with a Sino-Soviet s e r v i c e m a y , if they belong t o t h i s c a t e g o r y , prove unusually r e s p o n s i v e t o s u g g e s t i o n s f r o m the i n t e r r o g a t o r that t h e y have been t r e a t e d u n f a i r l y by the other s e r v i c e . Any ~ l a n n e do p e r a t i o n a l u s e of s u c h p e r s o n s should take into account t h e fact t h a t .they have no s e n s e of loyalty t o a common c a u s e and a r e likely t o t u r n aggrievedly a g a i n s t s u p e r i o r s . The a v e r a g e o r n o r m a l c h a r a c t e r - i s not a p e r s o n wholly lacking in the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the o t h e r t y p e s . He m a y , in f a c t , exhibit m o s t o r a l l of t h e m f r o m t i m e t o t i m e . But no one of t h e m i s p e r s i s t e n t l y dominant; the a v e r a g e m a n ' s qualities of o b s t i n a c y , u n r e a l i s t i c o p t i m i s m , anxiety, and the r e s t a r e not o v e r r i d i n g o r i m p e r i o u s except f o r r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t i n t e r v a l s . M o r e o v e r , h i s r e a c t i o n s t o the world a r o u n d him a r e m o r e dependent upon e v e n t s in that world and l e s s t h e product of r i g i d , subjective p a t t e r n s than i s t r u e of the o t h e r t y p e s d i s c u s s e d .

9.

C.

Other C l u e s

,

..'.

The t r u e defector ( a s distinguished f r o m the hostile agent in defector's guise) i s likely to have a h i s t o r y of opposition to authority. The s a d f a c t is that defectors who left t h e i r homelands because they could not g e t along with t h e i r immediate o r ult'm a t e s u p e r i o r s a r e a l s o likely to r e b e l against authorities in the new environment (a f a c t which usually plays an important p a r t in r e defection). T h e r e f o r e defectors a r e likely to be found LL the ranks of the orderly-obstinate, the greedy and demanding, the schizoids, and the exceptions.

'

. .

-..,

Exper innents and s t a t i s tical analyses performed a t the Univers ity of Minnesota concerned the relationships among anxiety and affiliative tendencies ( d e s i r e to b e with other people), on the one hand, and t h e o r d i n a l position ( r a n k in h i r e sequence) on the other. Some of the findings, though n e c e s s a r i l y tentative a n d speculative, have s o m e relevance to interrogation. (30). A s is noted in the bibliography, the investigators concluded that isolation typically c r e a t e s anxiety, that anxiety intensifies the d e s i r e to b e with o t h e r s who s h a r e the s a m e fear, and that only and f'rrst-born children a r e m o r e anxious and l e s s willing o r able to withstand pain thzm later-born children. Other applicable hypotheses a r e that f e a r i n c r e a s e s the aff iliative needs of f i r s t - b o r n a n d only children much m o r e than those of the later-born. T h e s e differences a r e m o r e pronounced in persons f r o m s m a l l f a m i l i e s than in those who grew up in l a r g e families. Finally, only children a r e much l i k e l i e r to hold themselves together and p e r s i s t in anxietyproducing situations than a r e the first-born, who m o r e frequently t r y to r e t r e a t . In the other w j o r r e s p e c t s - intensity of anxiety and emotional n e e d to affiliate no significant dXferences between "firsts1! and llonliesllw e r e dis c o v e r e d

-

>

I t follows that determining the subject's "ordinal pos ition" before questioning begins m a y b e useful to the interrogator. But two cautions a r e in o r d e r . The f i r s t is that the findings a r e , a t this stage, only tentative hypotheses. The second is that even if they prove r a t e f o r l a r g e groups, the data a r e like those in a c t u a r i a l tables; they have no specific predictive value for individuals.

VL

A;

SCREENING AND OTHER PRELIMINARIES

Screening

-

s o m e l a r g e stations a r e able t o conduct p r e l i m i n a r y psychological s c r e e n i n g before int e r r o g a t i o n s t a r t s . T h e purpose of s c r e e n i n g is t o provide the i n t e r r o g a t o r , i n advance, with a reading on t h e type and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n t e r r o g a t e e . It i s recommended that screening be conducted whenever personnel and f a c i l i t i e s p e r m i t , unless it i s r e a s o n a b l y c e r t a i n that the interrogation will be of m i n o r irnportance o r t h a t t h e i n t e r r o g a t e e i s fully cooperative, Screening should be conducted by i n t e r v i e w e r s , not i n t e r r o g a t o r s ; o r a t l e a s t t h e subjects should not be s c r e e n e d . by the s a m e KUBARX p e r s o n n e l who will i n t e r r o g a t e t h e m l a t e r .

Other psychological testing aids a r e b e s t a d m i n i s t e r e d b y a t r a i n e d psychologist. T e s t s conducted on A m e r i c a n POW'S r e turned t o U. S. jurisdiction in Korea during the Big and Little Switch suggest that ~ r o s p e c t i v ei n t e r r o g a t e e s who show n o r m a l emotional r e s p o n s i v e n e s s on the R o r s c h a c h and' r e l a t e d t e s t s a r e l i k e l i e r t o prove cooperative under i n t e r r o g a t i o n than a r e those whose r e s p o n s e s indicate that they a r e apathetic and emotionally

withdrawn o r b a r r e n . E x t r e m e r e s i s t e r s , however, s h a r e the r e s p o n s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of collaborators; they differ in the oa than emotions. n a t u r e and i n t e n s i t y of ~ o t i ~ a t l rzL&e?: a n a l y s i s of objective t e s t r e c o r d s and biographical information is a s a m p l e of 759 Big Switch r e p a t r i a t e s revealed that m e n who had collaborated differed f r o m men who had not in the following ways:. t h e c o l l a b o r a t o r s were older, had completed m o r e y e a r s of school, s c o r e d h i g h e r on intelligence'tests administered a f t e r r e patriation, had s e r v e d longer i n the A r m y prior to capture, and However, the s c o r e d higher on t h e Psychopathic Deviate Scale - pd. 5 p e r c e n t of t h e noncollaborator sample who r e s i s t e d actively who w e r e e i t h e r d e c o r a t e d by the Army o r considered t o be 'reactionaries' by t h e Chinese - differed f r o m the remaining group in p r e c i s e l y the s a m e d i r e c t i o n as t h e collaborator group and could not be distinguished . f r o m t h i s group on any variable except age; the r e s i s t e r s were older t h a n t h e c o l l a b o r a t o r s!' (33)

.. .

-

E v e n a r o u g h p r e l k n i n a r y estimate, if valid, can be a boon to the i n t e r r o g a t o r because it will permit him t o s t a r t with generally sound t a c t i c s f r o m the beginning - t a c t i c s adapted to the personality of t h e s o u r c e . D r . Moloney h a s e x p r e s s e d the opinion, which we m a y u s e a s a n example of t h i s , that the AVH was able to get what i t wanted f r o m C a r d i n a l Mindszenty because the Hungarian s e r v i c e adapted its i n t e r r o g a t i o n methods to h i s personality. "There c a n be no doubt that Mindszenty's preoccupation with the concept of becoming s e c u r e and powerful through the s u r r e c d e r of self t o the g r e a t e s t power of t h e m all - h i s God idea - predisposed him t o the response e l i c i t e d i n h i s experience with the communist intelligence. F o r him the s u r r e n d e r of self-system t o authoritarian-system was natural, a s was t h e v e r y principle of martyrdom. I ' (28)

.-

The t a s k of screening i s made e a s i e r by the fact that the s c r e e n e r is i n t e r e s t e d i n the subject, not i n the information which h e m a y p o s s e s s . Most people--even many provocation agents who have been t r a i n e d t o r e c i t e a legend--will speak with some freedom about childhood events and familial relationships. And even the provocateur who substitutes a fictitious person f o r his r e a l father .will d i s c l o s e s o m e of his feelings about his father i n the course of detaililig h i s s t o r y about the imaginary substitute. If the s c r e e n e r

has learned to put the potential source a t eas'e, to feel his way along in each case, the source is unlikely to consider that a casual conversation about himself if dangerous,

". '\ ,

'\

The screener is interested in getting the subj.ect to talk about himself. Once the flow starts, the screener should try not to stop it by questions, gestures, or other interruptions until s a i c i e n t information has been revealed to permit a rough determination of type. The subject is likeliest to talk freely if the screener's manner is friendly and patient. His fac'ial express ion should not reveal. special interest in any one statement; he should just s e e m sympathetic and understanding. .Withama short time most people who have begun talking about themselves go back to early experiences, s o that merely by listening and occasionally making a quiet, encouraging r e m a r k the screener can learn a great deal. Routine questions about school teachers, employers, and group leaders, for example, will lead the subject to reveal a good deal of how he feels about his parents, superiors, and others of emotional consequence to him because of associative links in his mind. I t is very helpful if the screener can imaginatively place himself in the subject's position, The more the screener b o w s about the subject's native a r e a and cultural background, the less' likely is he to disturb the subject by a n incongruous remark. Such comments as, "That must have been a bad time for you and your family, " or "Yes, I can see why you were angry, ' I o r "It sounds exciting" a r e sufficiently innocuous not to distract the subject, yet provide adequate evidence of sympathetic interest. Taking the subject's side against his enemies serves the same purpose, and such comments a s "That was unfair; they had no right to treat you that way1' will aid rapport and stimulate further revelations. I t is important that gross abnormalities be spotted during the screening process. Persons suffering from severe mental illness will show major distortions, delusions, or halluc~hationsand w i u usually give bizarre explanations for their behavior. ~ i s r n i i s a o lr prompt r e f e r r a l of the mentally ill to profess ional specialis t i w ill - save time and money. The secbnd and related purpose of screening is to permit an educated guess about the source's probable attitude toward the

i n t e r r o g a t i o n . An e s t i m a t e of whether the i n t e r r o g a t e e will be .cooperative o r r e c a l c i t r a n t i s e s s e n t i a l t o planning b e c a u s e v e r y d i f f e r e n t m e t h o d s a r e used in dealing with t h e s e two t y p e s .

:,

-...

At s t a t i o n s o r b a s e s which cannot conduct s c r e e n i n g in t h e f o r m a l s e n s e , i t i s still worth-while to refa ace any 'important int e r r o g a t i o n with a'n i n t e r v i e w of the s o u r c e , conducted by s o m e o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r and designed t o provide a m a x i m u m of e v a l u a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e interrogation c o m m e n c e s. U n l e s s a s h o c k effect i s d e s i r e d , the t r a n s i t i o n f r o m t h e s c r e e n i n g i n t e r v i e w t o t h e i n t e r r o g s tion situation should not be usually abrupt. At t h e f i r s t m e e t i n g with the i n t e r r o g a t e e it a good i d e a f o r t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r t o spend s o m e t i m e i n t h e s a m e kind of q u i e t , f r i e n d l y exchange that c h a r a c t e r i z e d the s c r e e n i n g i n t e r v i e w . E v e n though t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r now h a s the s c r e e n i n g p r o d u c t , t h e r o u g h c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by type, he needs t o u n d e r s t a n d the s u b j e c t i n h i s own t e r m s . If he i s i m m e d i a t e l y a g g r e s s i v e , he i m p o s e s upon t h e f i r s t i n t e r r o g a t i o n s e s s i o n (and t o a diminishing ex-tent upon s u c c e e d i n g s e s s i o n s ) too a r b i t r a r y a p a t t e r n . As one e x p e r t h a s s a i d , "Anyone who proceeds without c o n s i d e r a t i o n fox the d i s j u n c t i v e power of anxiety in human r e l a t i o n s h i p s will n e v e r l e a r n i n t e r v i e w i n g . " (34)

is

,

B.

Other P r e l i m i n a r y P r o c e d u r e s

The p r e l i m i n a r y handling- of o t h e r types of i n t e r r o g a t i o n s o u r c e s i s usually l e s s difficult, It s u f f i c e s f o r the p r e s e n t p u r p o s e t o l i s t the following p r i n c i p l e s : a

1. All a v a i l a b l e pertinent information* t o be a s s e m b l e d and s t u d i e d b e f o r e t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n itself i s planned, m u c h l e s s conducted. An ounc'e of investigation m a y be worth a pound of questions.

-

A d i s t i n c t i o n should be drawn a s soon a s possible between s o u r c e s who will be sent to s i t e o r g a n i z e d and equipped f o r i n t e r r o g a t i o n and those whose 2.

L

k'Cj /

3

i n t e r r o g a t i o n wi.11 be c o m p l e t e d by the b a s e o r station with which contact i s f i r s t established. .

3 . The suggested procedure for arriving a t a preliminary a s s e s s m e n t of w a l k - i n s r e m a i n s the s a m e .-

. ['(.

,L4 .

--7

i

T h e key p o i n t s a r e r e p e a t e d h e r e f o r e a s e of r e f e r e n c e . T h e s e p r e l i m i n a r y t e s t s a r e d e s i g n e d t o supplement the technical e x a m i n a t i o n of a w a l k - i n ' s d o c u m e n t s , substantive q u e s t i o n s a b o u t c l a i m e d h o m e l a n d o r o c c u p a t i o n , and o t h e r s t a n d a r d i n q u i r i e s . T h e following q u e s t i o n s , if a s k e d , should be posed a s soon a s p o s s i b l e a f t e r the i n i t i a l c o n t a c t , while the walk-in i s s t i l l u n d e r s t r e s s a n d b e f o r e h e h a s adjusted to a r o u t i n e . a. T h e walk-in m a y be a s k e d to identify a l l r e l a t i v e s and f r i e n d s in the a r e a , o r even the c o u n t r y , in w h i c h P B P R I M E a s y l u m is f i r s t r e q u e s t e d . T r a c e s should be r u n s p e e d i l y . P r o v o c a t i o n a g e n t s a r e : s o m e t i m e s d i r e c t e d to "defect" in t h e i r t a r g e t a r e a s , and f r i e n d s o r r e l a t i v e s a l r e a d y in place may be h o s t i l e assets.

At the f i r s t i n t e r v i e w the q u e s t i o n e r should be on the a l e r t f o r p h r a s e s o r concepts c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of i n t e l l i g e n c e o r C P a c t i v i t y and should r e c o r d such l e a d s w h e t h e r i t is planned t o follow t h e m by i n t e r r o g a t i o n on the s p o t b.

d

c . L C F L U T T E R should be used if f e a s i b l e . If n o t , t h e w a l k - i n m a y be a s k e d t o undergo such t e s t i n g a t a l a t e r d a t e . R e f u s a l s should be r e c o r d e d , a s well a s i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t the walk-in h a s been b r i e f e d on the technique by a n o t h e r s e r v i c e . The m a n n e r a s well a s the n a t u r e of t h e w a l k - i n ' s r e a c t i o n to the proposal should be noted.

L

d. If L C F L U T T E R , s c r e e n i n g , i n v e s t i g a t i o n , o r any o t h e r m e t h o d s do e s t a b l i s h a p r i o r i n t e l l i g e n c e h i s t o r y , the following m i n i m a l i n f o r m a t i o n should be obtained: - .--. ..-

5 . . All documents that have a bearing- on the p l z n ~ e d interrogation m e r i t study. Documents f r o m Bloc c o u n t r i e s , o r those which a r e in any r e s p e c t unusual o r unfamiliar,. a r e c u s t o m a r i l y sent to the p r o p e r field o r h e a d q u a r t e r s component f o r technical a n a l y s i s .

6 . If during s c r e e n i n g o r any other p r e - i n t e r r o g a t i o n p h a s e it i s a s c e r t a i n e d that the s o u r c e h a s been interrogated b e f o r e , this 'fact should be made known to the i n t e r r o g a t o r . A g e n t s , f o r e x a m p l e , a r e accustomed to being questioned r e p e a t e d l y and professionally. So a r e p e r s o n s who have been a r r e s t e d s e v e r a l t i m e s . People who have h a d p r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g in being interrogated become sophisticated s u b j e c t s , able to spot uncertainty, obvious t r i c k s , and other w e a k n e s s e s . C.

Summary

Screening and the o t h e r p r e l i m i n a r y p r o c e d u r e s will h e l p . to d e c i d e the i n t e r r o g a t o r - and h i s b a s e , station, w h e t h e r the prospective s o u r c e (1) i s likely t o p o s s e s s useful counterintelligence b e c a u s e of association with a foreign s e r v i c e o r Communist P a r t y and ( 2 ) i s likely t o cooperate voluntarily o r not. A r m e d with these e s t i m a t e s and with whatever insights s c r e e n i n g h a s provided into the p e r s o n a l i t y of the s o u r c e , the i n t e r r o g a t o r i s ready to plan.

, s .

VII

A.

.

PLANNING THE C O U N T E R I N T E L L I G E N C ~ INTERROGATION

T h e N a t u r e of counterintelligence Interrogation

T h e 1ong;range p u r p o s e of CI interrogation i s to get f r o m t h e s o u r c e all the useful counterintelligence information that h e h a s . T h e s h o r t - r a n g e p u r p o s e i s to e n l i s t h i s cooperation t o w a r d t h i s end o r , if h e i s r e s i s t a n t , to d e s t r o y h i s capacity f o r r e s i s t a n c e and r e p l a c e it with a cooperative attitude. The t e c h n i q u e s u s e d in nullifying r e s i s t a n c e , inducing compliance, a n d e v e n t u a l l y eliciting voluntary cooperation a r e discussed in P a r t VIII of t h i s handbook. No two i n t e r r o g a t i o n s a r e the s a m e . E v e r y interrogation i s s h a p e d definitively by the p e r s o n a l i t y of the s o u r c e - and of t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r , b e c a u s e interrogation i s an intensely : i n t e r p e r s o n a l p r o c e s s . The whole p u r p o s e of screening and a m a j o r p u r p o s e of t h e f i r s t stage of the interrogation i s to p r o b e t h e s t r e n g t h s and w e a k n e s s e s of the subject. Only when t h e s e h a v e been e s t a b l i s h e d and understood d o e s it become possible to-plan realistically. P l a n n i n g the CI i n t e r r o g a t i o n of a r e s i s t a n t source r e q u i r e s a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g (whether f o r m a l i z e d o r n o t ) of the dynamics of c o n f e s s i o n . H e r e H o r o w i t z ' s study of the n a t u r e of confession i s p e r t i n e n t . H e s t a r t s by asking why confessions occur a t a l l . "Why not a l w a y s b r a z e n i t out when confronted b y accusation? W h y d o e s a p e r s o n convict himself through a confession, when, a t t h e v e r y w o r s t , no confession would leave hi& a t l e a s t a s w e l l off (and p o s s i b l y b e t t e r off). ?I' He a n s w e r s that c o n f e s s i o n s obtained without d u r e s s a r e usually the product of the following conditions:

..

1. - The p e r s o n i s accused explicitly o r implicitly and f e e l s accused. 2 . A s a r e s u l t h i s psychological f r e e d o m - the extent to which h e f e e l s able to do what he wants to - i s curtailed. T h i s feeling need not correspond to confinement o r any other e x t e r n a l reality

.,

.

.

3 . The a c c u s e d f e e l s defensive because he i s on u n s u r e ground. He does not b o w how much the a c c u s e r knows. A s a r e s u l t the a c c u s e d "has no f o r m u l a f o r p r o p e r behavior, no r o l e if you w i l l , that he can utilize in this situation. 4. He p e r c e i v e s t h e a c c u s e r as r e p r e s e n t i n g authority. U n l e s s h e believes that the a c c u s e r ' s p o w e r s f a r exceed h i s own, h e i s unlikely to f e e l hemmed in and defensive. And if h e " p e r c e i v e s that the accusation i s backed by ' r e a l ' evidence, the r a t i o of e x t e r n a l f o r c e s to h i s own f o r c e s i s i n c r e a s e d a n d the p e r s o n ' s psychological position i s now m o r e p r e c a r i o u s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that in such situations the a c c u s e d tends t o w a r d over r e s p o n s e , o r exaggerated response; to hostility and emotional display; to self-righteousne s s , to counter 1I a c c u s a t i o n , to defense.

...

5 . He m u s t believe that he i s cut off fr.om f r i e n d l y o r supporting f o r c e s . If he d o e s , he himself b e c o m e s the only s o u r c e of h i s " salvation. I

6. "Another condition, which i s m o s t probably n e c e s s a r y , though not sufficient f o r confession, i s that the a c c u s e d p e r s o n f e e l s guilt. A possible r e a s o n i s t h a t a s e n s e of guilt p r o m o t e s self-hostility." It should be equally c l e a r that if the p e r s o n d o e s not f e e l guilt h e i s not in h i s own mind guilty and will not confess to a n a c t which o t h e r s may r e g a r d as evil o r wrong a n d h e , i n f a c t , c o n s i d e r s c o r r e c t . Confession in such a c a s e c a n come only with d u r e s s even where all other conditions previously. mentioned m a y p r e v a i l .

.-.

7. The a c c u s e d , finally, i s pushed f a r enough along the path toward confession that it i s easier f o r h i m to keep going than to t u r n back. He p e r c e i v e s confession a s the only way out of h i s p r e d i c a m e n t and into freedom. (15) ~oiowitz h a s been quoted and summarized a t some length b e c a u s e it i s considered t h a t the foregoing i s a basically sound account of the p r o c e s s e s that evoke confessions f r o m s o u r c e s w h o s e r e s i s t a n c e i s not strong a t the outset, who have not previously-been confronted with detention and interrogation, and who have not been trained by an a d v e r s a r y intelligence o r s e c u r i t y s e r v i c e i n r e s i s t a n c e techniques. A fledgling o r disaffected Communist o r agent, for example, might be brought to confession and cooperation without the use of any external coercive f o r c e s other than the interrogation situation itself, through the above-described progression of subjective events. It is important to understand that interrogation, as both situation and p r o c e s s , does of itself exert significant external p r e s s u r e upon the i n t e r r o g a t e e a s long a s h e i s not permitted to a c c u s t o m himself to it. Some psychologists t r a c e this effect back to infantile relationships. Meerlo, f o r example, s a y s that e v e r y v e r b a l relationship r e p e a t s to some degree the of e a r l y v e r b a l relationships between child and parent. ( 2 7 ) A n i n t e r r o g a t e e , in p a r t i c u l a r , i s likely to s e e the interrogator a s a p a r e n t o r parent-symbol, an object of suspicion and r e s i s t a n c e o r of submissive acceptance. I£ the interrogator i s unaware of t h i s unconcsious p r o c e s s , the r e s u l t can be a confused battle of submerged attitudes, in which the spoken w o r d s a r e often m e r e l y a . c o v e r f o r the unrelated struggle being waged at lower l e v e l s of both personalities. On the o t h e r hand, the i n t e r r o g a t o r who does understand these f a c t s and who b o w s how to t u r n t h e m to h i s advantage may not need to r e s o r t to any p r e s s u r e s g r e a t e r than those that flow directly f r o m the interrogation setting and function. Obviously, many r e s i s t a n t subjects of counterintelligence interrogation cannot be brought to cooperation, o r even to compliance, m e r e l y through p r e s s u r e s which they generate

within t h e m s e l v e s o r through the unreinforced effect of the interrogation situation. Manipulative techniques - still keyed to the individual but brought to b e a r upon h i m f r o m outside himself - then become n e c e s s a r y . It i s a fundamental hypothesis of t h i s handbook that these techniques, which can succeed even with highly r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e s , a r e in e s s e n c e m e t h o d s of inducing r e g r e s s i o n of the personality to whate v e r e a r l i e r and weaker level i s required f o r the dissolution of r e s i s t a n c e and the inculcation of dependence. All of the techniques employed to b r e a k through a n interrogation roadblock,. the e n t i r e s p e c t r u m f r o m simple isolation to hypnosis and n a r c o s i s , a r e essentially ways of speeding up the p r o c e s s of r e g r e s s i o n . As t h e interrogatee slips back f r o m m a t u r i t y toward a m o r e infantile s t a t e , h i s l e a r n e d o r s t r u c t u r e d personality t r a i t s fall away in a r e v e r s e d chronological o r d e r , so t h a t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s m o s t recently acquired - which a r e a l s o the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s drawn upon by the i n t e r r o g a t e e in h i s own defense a r e the f i r s t to go. As Gill a n d B r e n m a n have pointed out, r e g r e s s i o n i s basically a l o s s of autonomy. (13)

-

Another key to the successful interrogation of the r e s i s t i n g s o u r c e i s the provision of a n acceptable rationalization f o r yielding. A s r e g r e s s i o n p r o c e e d s , a l m o s t all r e s i s t e r s f e e l the growing i n t e r n a l s t r e s s that r e s u l t s f r o m wanting simultaneously to conceal and to divulge. To escape the mounting tension, the s o u r c e may g r a s p a t any face-saving r e a s o n f o r compliance - any explanation which will placate both h i s own conscience and the possible w r a t h of f o r m e r s u p e r i o r s and a s s o c i a t e s if he i s r e t u r n e d to Communist control. It i s the b u s i n e s s of the i n t e r r o g a t o r to provide the right rationalization a t the right time. H e r e too the importance of understanding the interrogatee i s evident; the right rationalization m u s t be an excuse o r r e a s o n that i s tailored to the s o u r c e ' s personality. The interrogation p r o c e s s i s a continuum,. and everything that t a k e s place in the continuum influences all subsequent events. The continuing p r o c e s s , being i n t e r p e r s o n a l , i s not

-

/

S E C . E T

r e v e r s i b l e . T h e r e f o r e it i s wrong to open a counterintelligence i n t e r r o g a t i o n e x p e r i m e n t a l l y , intending to abandon unfruitful a p p r o a c h e s one by one until a sound method i s d i s c o v e r e d by chance. T h e f a i l u r e s of the i n t e r r o g a t o r , h i s painful r e t r e a t s f r o m blind a l l e y s , b o l s t e r the confidence of the s o u r c e and i n c r e a s e h i s ability to r e s i s t . While the i n t e r r o g a t o r i s s t r u g g l i n g to l e a r n f r o m the subject the f a c t s that should have b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d b e f o r e interrogation s t a r t e d , t h e subject i s l e a r n i n g m o r e and m o r e about the i n t e r r o g a t o r .

B.

The Interrogation Plan

Planning f o r i n t e r r o g a t i o n i s m o r e i m p o r t a n t than the s p e c i f i c s of t h e plan. Because no two i n t e r r o g a t i o n s a r e a l i k e , the i n t e r r o g a t i o n cannot r e a l i s t i c a l l y b e planned f r o m A t o 2 , i n all i t s p a r t i c u l a r s , a t the outset. But i t can a n d m u s t be planned f r o m A to F o r A to M. T h e chances of f a i l u r e in an unplanned CI interrogation a r e unacceptably high. E v e n w o r s e , a "dash-on-regardless" approach c a n r u i n t h e p r o s p e c t s of s u c c e s s even if sound m e t h o d s a r e used later. T h e intelligence category to which the subject belongs, though n o t d e t e r m i n a n t f o r planning p u r p o s e s , i s s t i l l of s o m e significance. The plan f o r the i n t e r r o g a t i o n of a t r a v e l l e r d i f f e r s f r o m that f o r other types b e c a u s e the t i m e a v a i l a b l e f o r questioning i s often brief. The examination of h i s bona f i d e s , a c c o r d i n g l y , i s often l e s s s e a r c h i n g . He i s usually r e g a r d e d as reasonably r e l i a b l e if h i s identity and f r e e d o m f r o m o t h e r intelligence a s s o c i a t i o n s have been e s t a b l i s h e d , if r e c o r d s checks do not produce d e r o g a t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n , *if h i s account of h i s background i s f r e e of o m i s s i o n s o r d i s c r e p a n c i e s suggesting significant withholding, if h e d o e s not a t t e m p t to elicit information about the q u e s t i o n e r o r h i s s p o n s o r , and if h e willingly p r o v i d e s detailed information w h i c h a p p e a r s r e l i a b l e o r i s established a s such.

.

.

D e f e c t o r s can usually be i n t e r r o g a t e d u n i l a t e r a l l y , a t l e a s t f 0 r . a t i m e . P r e s s u r e f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n will usually come f r o m an ODYOKE intelligence component. The t i m e available f o r u n i l a t e r a l t e s t i n g and exploitation should be calculated a t the o u t s e t , with a f a i r r e g a r d f o r the r i g h t s and i n t e r e s t s of o t h e r m e m b e r s of the intelligence community. The m o s t significant s i n g l e f a c t to b e kept in mind when planning the i n t e r r o g a t i o n of Soviet d e f e c t o r s i s that a c e r t a i n p e r c e n t a g e of t h e m h a v e p r o v e n to be controlled a g e n t s ; e s t i m a t e s of t h i s percentage h a v e r a n g e d - a s high a s J u r i n g a period of s e v e r a l y e a r s a f t e r 1955. ( 2 2 ) KUBARK's l a c k of executive power s i s e s p e c i a l l y significant if the i n t e r r o g a t i o n of a s u s p e c t a g e n t o r of any o t h e r subject who i s expected to r e s i s t i s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A s a g e n e r a l r u l e , it i s difficult to s u c c e e d in the G I i n t e r r o g a t i o n . o f a r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e u n l e s s the interrogating s e r v i c e c 6 c o n t r o l the subject and his environment f o r a s l o n g as p r o v e s n e c e s s a r y . -

C.

The Specifics

1. The Specific P u r p o s e Before questioning s t a r t s , the interrogator h a s c l e a r l y in mind what he wants to l e a r n , why he thinks the source h a s the information, how important it i s , and how it can b e s t be obtained. Any confusion h e r e , o r any questioning based on the p r e m i s e that the purpose will take shape a f t e r the interrogation i s under way, i s almost c e r t a i n to lead to airnle s s n e s s and final f a i l u r e . If the specific goals cannot be discerned c l e a r l y , f u r t h e r investigation i s needed before querying s t a r t s . 2.

Resistance

The kind and intensity of anticipated r e s i s t a n c e i s estimated. I t i s useful to recognize in advance whether the information d e s i r e d would be threatening o r damaging in any way to the i n t e r e s t s of the interrogatee. If s o , the i n t e r r o g a t o r should consider whether the s a m e information, o r confirmation of i t , can be gained f r o m another source. Questioning s u s p e c t s immediately, on a f l i m s y factual b a s i s , will .usually cause ~ t of et i m e , not save it. On the other hand, if the needed information i s not sensitive f r o m the subject's viewpoint,

m e r e l y asking f o r i t i s usually preferable to trying to t r i c k h i m into a d m i s s i o n s and thus creating an unnecessary battle of wits. The p r e l i m i n a r y psychological analysis of the subject m a k e s it e a s i e r to decide whether he i s likely to r e s i s t and, if s o , whether h i s r e s i s t a n c e will be the product of f e a r that h i s p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t s will be damaged o r the r e s u l t of the non-cooperative n a t u r e of orderly-obstinate and related types. The choice of methods to be used in overcoming r e s i s t a n c e i s a l s o d e t e r m i n e d by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the interrogatee.

3.

T h e Interrogation Setting

T h e r o o m i n which the interrogation i s to be conducted should be f r e e of d i s t r a c t i o n s . The colors of walls, ceiling, r u g s , and f u r n i t u r e should not be startling. P i c t u r e s should be m i s s i n g o r d d l . Whether the f u r n i t u r e should include a d e s k depends not upon the i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s convenience but r a t h e r upon the subject1s anticipated r e a c t i o n to connotations of superiority and officialdom. A p l a i n table m a y be preferable. An overs t d f e d chair f o r t h e use of the interrogatee i s sometimes p r e f e r a b l e t o a straight-backed, wooden chair because if he i s made t o stand f o r a lengthy period o r i s otherwise deprived of physical c o m f o r t , the c o n t r a s t i s intensxied and i n c r e a s e d disorientation r e s u l t s . Some t r e a t i s e s on interrogation a r e emphatic about the value of a r r a n g i n g the lighting so that i t s s o u r c e i s behind the interrogator and g l a r e s directly a t the subject. H e r e , t o o , a f l a t r u l e i s unrealistic. The effect upon a cooperative s o u r c e i s inhibitory, and the effect upon a withholding s o u r c e m a y be t o make h i m m o r e stubborn. Like all o t h e r d e t a i l s , t h i s one depends upon the personality of the i n t e r r o g a t e e . Good planning will prevent interruptions. If the r o o m i s a l s o used f o r p u r p o s e s other than interrogation, a "Do Not Disturb" s i g n o r i t s equivalent should hang on the door when questioning i s under way. The effect of someone wandering in b e c a u s e . h e forgot h i s pen o r wants to invite the

/

S E C . . E T

i n t e r r o g a t o r to lunch can be devastating. F o r the s a m e r e a s o n t h e r e should not be a telephone in the r o o m ; i t i s c e r t a i n to r i n g a t p r e c i s e l y the wrong m o m e n t , M o r e o v e r , i t i s a v i s i b l e link ""L - - ..' -: " LU LUG UULYLUC; its p r e s e n c e m a k e s a subject f e e l l e s s cut-

.

off, b e t t e r a b l e to r e s i s t . The i n t e r r o g a t i o n r o o m a f f o r d s ideal conditions f o r photographing the i n t e r r o g a t e e without h i s b o w l e d g e by concealing a c a m e r a behind a p i c t u r e o r e l s e w h e r e .

l£ a new safehouse i s to be u s e d a s t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n s i t e , it should be studied carefully to be s u r e t h a t the t o t a l environment c a n be manipulated as d e s i r e d . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e e l e c t r i c c u r r e n t should be known in advance, s o t h a t t r a n s f o r m e r s o r .other modifying d e v i c e s will be on h a n d . if needed. A r r a n g e m e n t s a r e usually rnade to r e c o r d t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n , t r a n s m i t it to another r o o m , o r do both. M o s t experienced i n t e r r o g a t o r s do not l i k e t o t a k e n o t e s . Not being saddled with t h i s c h o r e l e a v e s t h e m f r e e t o c o n c e n t r a t e on w h a t s o u r c e s s a y , how they s a y i t , and what e l s e they do while talking o r l i s t e n i n g . Another r e a s o n f o r avoiding notetaking i s that i t d i s t r a c t s and s o m e t i m e s w o r r i e s t h e i n t e r r o g a t e e . In the c o u r s e of s e v e r a l s e s s i o n s conducted without note-taking, the subject i s likely t o f a l l into the comfortable illusion t h a t h e i s not talking f o r t h e r e c o r d . Another advantage of t h e tape i s that it'can be played b a c k l a t e r . Upon s o m e s u b j e c t s the shock of h e a r i n g t h e i r own voices unexpectedly i s unnerving. The r e c o r d a l s o p r e v e n t s l a t e r twistinqs o r d e n i a l s of adrnis sions.

A recording i s a l s o a valuable t r a i n i n g aid for i n t e r r o g a t o r s , who by t h i s

.,

'-.

-_

means can study t h e i r m i s t a k e s and their. m o s t effective techniques. Exceptionally instructuve interrogations, o r selected portions t h e r e o f , can a l s o be used in the training of o t h e r s .

If possible, audio equipment should also be used to t r a n s m i t the proceedings to another r o o m , used as a listening .post. The m a i n advantage of t r a n s m i s s i o n i s that i t enables the p e r s o n in charge of the interrogation to note c r u c i a l points and map f u r t h e r strategy, replacing one i n t e r r o g a t o r with another, timing a d r a m a t i c interruption c o r r e c t l y , etc. I t i s a l s o helpful to install a small blinker bulb behind'the subject o r to a r r a n g e some other method of signalling t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r , without the s o u r c e ' s knowledge, that the questioner should l e a v e the r o o m f o r consultation o r that someone e l s e is about to enter.

4.

The P a r t i c i p a n t s

I n t e r r o g a t e e s a r e normally questioned separately. Separation p e r m i t s the use of a number of techniques that would not be possible otherwise. I t a l s o intensifies i n the s o u r c e the feeling of being cut off f r o m friendly aid. Confrontation of two o r Tnore s u s p e c t s with each other i n o r d e r t o produce r e c r i m i n a t i o n s o r admissions i s especially dangerous if not preceded by s e p a r a t e interrogation s e s s i o n s which have evoked compliance f r o m one of the i n t e r r o g a t e e s , o r a t l e a s t significant admissions involving both. Techniques f o r the separate interrogations of linked s o u r c e s a r e discussed in P a r t IX. The number of i n t e r r o g a t o r s used f o r a single interrogation c a s e v a r i e s f r o m one Tnan to a l a r g e team. The s i z e of the t e a m depends on s e v e r a l considerations, chiefly the importance of the c a s e and the intensity of s o u r c e r e s i s t a n c e . Although most s e s s i o n s consist of one interrogator and one i n t e r r o g a t e e , some of the techniques described l a t e r call f o r the p r e s e n c e of two, t h r e e , o r four i n t e r r o g a t o r s . The two-man t e a m , in p a r t i c u l a r , i s subject to unintended antipathies and conflicts not called for by assigned r o l e s . Planning and

subsequent conduct should eliminate such cross-currents before they develop, especially because the source will seek to turn t h e m to h i s advantage. T e a m m e m b e r s who a r e not otherwise engaged can be employed to best advantage at the listening post. Inexperienced interrogators find that listening to the interrogation while it i s in p r o g r e s s can b e highly educational. Once questioning s t a r t s , the interrogator i s called upon to function a t two levels. He i s trying t o do two seemingly contradictory things at once: achieve rapport with' the subject but remain a n essentially detached observer. Or he may. project'himself to the r e s i s t a n t interrogatee as powerful and ominous (in o r d e r to eradicz.te resistance and create the n e c e s s a r y conditions f o r rapport) while rernaining wholly uncommitted a t the deeper level, noting the signilicance of the subject's reactions and the effectiveness of h i s own performance. P o o r interrogators often confuse this bi-level functioning with role-playing, but there i s a vital difference. The interrogator who m e r e l y pretends, in h i s surface performance, to feel a given emotion o r to hold a given attitude toward the source i s likely to be unconvincing; the source quickly senses the deception. Even children a r e very quick to feel this kind , of pretense. To be persuasive, the sympathy o r anger must be genuine; but to be useful, i t must not interfere with the deeper level .of p r e c i s e , unaffected observation. Bi-level functioning i's not difficult o r even unusual; most people act a t times as both p e r f o r m e r and observer unless their emotions a r e so deeply involved in the situakion that the critical faculty disintegrates. Through experience the interrogator becomes adept in this dualism. The interrogator who finds that he has become emotionally involved and is no longer capable of unimpaired objectivity should report the f a c t s so that a substitution can be made. Despite all planning efforts to select an interrogator whose age, - background, s k i l l s , personality, and experiedce make him the best choice f o r the job, it sometimes happens that both questioner and subject f e e l , when they f i r s t meet,

an immediate a t t r a c t i o n o r antipathy which i s so strong that a change of i n t e r r o g a t o r s quickly becomes essential. No i n t e r r o g a t o r should b e reluctant to notify h i s superior when emotional involvement becomes evident. Not the reaction but a f a i l u r e to r e p b r t i t would be evidence of a l a c k of professionalism. Other r e a s o n s f o r changing interrogators should be anticipated and avoided a t the outset. During the f i r s t p a r t of the interrogation the developing relationship between the questioner. and the initially uncooperative source i s m o r e importailt than the information obtained; when this relationship. i s d e s t r o y e d by a change of interrogators, the replacement m u s t s t a r t n e a r l y f r o m scratch. In f a c t , h e s t a r t s with a handicap, because exposure to interrogation will have made the s o u r c e a m o r e effective r e s i s t e r . Therefore the b a s e , station, should not assign a s chief interrogator a p e r s o n whose availability will end before the estimated completion of the c a s e .

5.

The Timing

Before interrogation s t a r t s , the amouht of time probably r e q u i r e d a n d probably available to both interrogator and i n t e r r o g a t e e should be calculated. Lf the subject i s not to be under detention, h i s n o r m a l schedule i s ascertained in advan-ce, so that h e will not have to be released a t a critical point b e c a u s e h e h a s an appointment o r h a s to go to work. Because pulling information f r o m a recalcitrant subject is the h a r d way of doing business, interrogation should not begin until all pertinent f a c t s available f r o m overt and f r o m cooperative s o u r c e s have been assembled.

t

4

-

Interrogation s e s s i o n s with a r e s i s t a n t source who i s under detention should not be held on an unvarying schedule. The capacity f o r r e s i s t a n c e i s diminished by disorientation. The subject nay b e left alone f o r days; and he may be returned to h i s c e l l , allowed to sleep for five minutes, and brought back

-

to a n i n t e r r o g a t i o n which i s conducted as though eight h o u r s h a d i n t e r v e n e d . The p r i n c i p l e i s that sessi0n.s should be s o planned a s to d i s r u p t the s o u r c e ' s s e n s e of chronological o r d e r .

-, .

6.

The Termination

T h e end of a n i n t e r r o g a t i o n should be planned b e f o r e questioning s t a r t s . T h e kinds of q u e s t i o n s a s k e d , the methods e m p l o y e d , and e v e n t h e goals sought m a y b e shaped by what w i l l happen when the end i s r e a c h e d .

.

-

. Lf he i s t o b e r e l e a s e d upon the l o c a l e c o n o m y , p e r h a p s b l a c k l i s t e d as a s u s p e c t e d h o s t i l e a g e n t but n o t subjected to subsequent counterintelligence s u r v e i l l a n c e , i t i s i m p o r t a n t to avoid a n inconclusive ending that h a s w a r n e d the i n t e r r o g a t e e of o u r doubts but h a s e s t a b l i s h e d nothing. T h e p o o r e s t i n t e r r o g a t i o n s a r e t h o s e t h a t t r a i l off into an inconclusive nothingness. A n u m b e r of p r a c t i c a l t e r m i n a l d e t a i l s should a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d i n advance. A r e the s o u r c e ' s d o c u m e n t s to be r e t u r n e d t o him, and w i l l they be a v a i l a b l e i n t i m e ? Is h e to be p a i d ? If h e i s a f a b r i c a t o r o r h o s t i l e a g e n t , h a s h e been photographed and f i n g e r p r i n t e d ? A r e s u b s e q u e n t c o n t a c t s n e c e s s a r y o r d e s i r a b l e , and have r e c o n t a c t p r o v i s i o n s b e e n a r r a n g e d ? H a s a q u i t - c l a i m been o b t a i n e d ?

-

A s w a s noted a t the beginning of t h i s s e c t i o n , t h e s u c c e s s f u l i n t e r r o g a t i o n of a s t r o n g l y r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e o r d i n a r i l y involves two key p r o c e s s e s : the calculated r e g r e s s i o n of the i n t e r r o g a t e e a n d the p r o v i s i o n of an a c c e p t a b l e rationalization. Lf t h e s e two s t e p s h a v e been t a k e n , i t b e c o m e s v e r y i m p o r t a n t to clinch t h e new t r a c t a b i l i t y by m e a n s of c o n v e r s i o n . In o t h e r w o r d s , a s u b j e c t who h a s finally divulged the information sought and who h a s been given a r e a s o n f o r divulging which s a l v e s h i s s e l f - e s t e e m , h i s c o n s c i e n c e , o r both, will often be i n a mood to take the f i n a l s t e p of accepting the i n t e r r o g a t o r l . s v a l u e s and making c o m m o n c a u s e with h i m . L€ o p e r a t i o n a l u s e i s now

/

S E C

,.

contemplated, conversion i s imperative. But even if the source h a s no f u r t h e r value after h i s fund of information h a s been mined, spending s o m e e x t r a t i m e with h i m in o r d e r to replace h i s new s e n s e of e m p t i n e s s with new values can be good insurance. B i i non-Communist s e r v i c e s a r e bothered a t t i m e s by disgruntled e x i n t e r r o g a t e e s who p r e s s demands and t h r e a t e n o r take hostile action if the demands a r e not satisfied. Defectors in p a r t i c u l a r , b e c a u s e they a r e often hostile toward any kind of authority, c a u s e trouble by threatening o r bringing s u i t s in local c o u r t s , a r r a n g i n g publication of vengeful s t o r i e s , o r going to the local police. The f o r m e r interrogatee i s especially likely to be a f u t u r e trouble-maker if during inter rogation he was subjected to a f o r m of compulsion imposed f r o m outside himself. T i m e s p e n t , a f t e r the interrogation ends, in fortifying the s o u r c e ' s s e n s e of acceptance i n the interrogator's world may be only a f r a c t i o n of the t i m e r e q u i r e d to bottle up h i s attempts to gain revenge. M o r e o v e r , conversion may c r e a t e a useful and enduring a s s e t . (See a l s o r e m a r k s in VIII B 4 . )

., ,

....,

VIII.

A.

T H E NON-COERCIVE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION

General Remarks

The t e r m non-coercive i s used above to denote methods of interrogation -that a r e not based upon the coercion of a n unwilling subject through the employment of superior f o r c e originating outs i d e h i m s e l l . However, the non-c oercive interrogation i s not conducted without p r e s s u r e . On the contrary, the goal i s to gene r a t e maximum p r e s s u r e , o r a t least a s much a s i s needed to induce compliance; The difference i s that the p r e s s u r e i s generated inside the i n t e r r o g a t e e . His r e s i s t a n c e is sapped, his urge to yield i s fortified, until i n the e n d he defeats himself. Manipulating the subject psychologically until he becomes c ompliant, without applying external methods of forcing him to submit, sounds h a r d e r than it is. The initial advantage 'lies with the i n t e r r o g a t o r . F r o m the outset, he knows a g r e a t deal m o r e about the s o u r c e than the source knows about him. And he can c r e a t e and amplify a n r e f f e c t of omniscience i n a number of ways. F o r example, he can show the interrogatee a thick file bearing his own name. - E v e n i f the file contains little o r nothing but blank paper, the air of f a m i l i a r i t y with which the i n t e r r o g a t o r . r e f e r s to the subject's background can convince some s o u r c e s that all is known and t h a t r e s i s t a n c e is futile. .

I£ the i n t e r r o g a t e e is under detention, the interrogator can

-

a l s o manipulate his environment. Merely by cutting off all other human contacts, "the i n t e r r o g a t o r monopolizes the social environment of the s o u r c e . "(3) He exercises'the powers of an all-powerful p a r e n t , determining when the source will be sent to bed, when and what he will e a t , whether he will be rewarded f o r good behavior o r punished f o r being bad. The interrogator can and does m a k e the

s u b j e c t ' s world not only unlike the world 'to which he had been . a c c u s t o m e d but a l s o s t r a n g e in itself a w o r l d in which f a m i l i a r p a t t e r n s of t i m e , s p a c e , and s e n s o r y perception a r e overthrown. He can shift the environment abruptly. F o r example, a s o u r c e who r e f u s e s t o t a l k at all c a n be placed in unpleasant s o l i t a r y confinem e n t f o r a t i m e . Then a friendly soul t r e a t s h i m to a n unexpected walk i n the woods. Experiencing relief and exhilaration, t h e s u b j e c t will usually find it impossible not t o respond t o innocuous c o m m e n t s on t h e w e a t h e r and t h e flowers. These a r e expanded t o include r e m i n i s c e n c e s , and soon a precedent of v e r b a l exchange h a s been established. Both t h e G e r m a n s and the Chinese have used t h i s t r i c k effectively..

-

The i n t e r r o g a t o r a l s o chooses the emotional key o r k e y s i n which the i n t e r r o g a t i o n o r any p a r t of i t will be played.

-

B.

B e c a u s e of t h e s e a n d other advantages, ".

-

.--

L

The S t r u c t u r e of the Interrogation

A counterintelligence interrogation c o n s i s t s of f o u r p a r t s : tP.e opening, the ,reconnaissance, the detailed questioning . a n d t h e conclusion-

1.

The Opening

Most r e s i s t a n t i n t e r r o g a t e e s block off a c c e s s to significant counterintelligence in t h e i r posgession f o r one o r m o r e of four r e a s o n s . The f i r s t i s a specific negative r e a c t i o n to the i n t e r r o g a t o r . P o o r initial handling o r a fundamental a n t i pathy can mak- : n lrce uncooperative even if h e h a s nothing s i g n s i c a r t o r damaging to conceal. The second c a u s e i s that i. e , by e a r l y s o m e s o u r c e s a r e r e s i s t a n t "by n a t u r e " conditioning - t o any compliar,ce with authority. The t h i r d is that t h e subject believes that the information sought will be

-

-

'-.

damaging o r incriminating f o r him personally ,hat cooperation with the i n t e r r o g a t o r will have consequences more painful f o r him than the r e s u l t s of non-cooperation. The fourth is ideological r e s i s t a n c e . The source has identified himself with a c a u s e , a political movement o r organization, o r an opposition i ~ t e l l i g e n c eservice. Regardless of his attitude toward the i n t e r r o g a t o r , ' h i s own personality, and his f e a r s f o r the i u t u r e , the person who i s deeply devoted to a hostile c a u s e will ordinarily prove strongly r e s i s t a n t under interrogation.

A principal goal during the opening phase i s to c o n f i r m the personality a s s e s s m e n t obtained through screening a n d t o allow the i n t e r r o g a t o r t o gain a deeper understanding of the source as an individual. Unless time is c r u c i a l , the i n t e r r o g a t o r should not become impatient if the interrogatee w a n d e r s f r o m the purposes of the interrogation and r e v e r t s to p e r s o n a l concerns. Significant f a c t s not produced during s c r e e n i n g m a y be revealed, The screening r e p o r t itself is brought t o life, the type becomes an individual, a s the subject talks. And s o m e t i m e s seemingly rambling monologues about p e r s o n a l m a t t e r s a r e preludes t o significant admissions. Some people cannot bring themselves t o provide information that'puts them in a n unfavorable light until, through a lengthy prefatory rationalization, they f e e l that they have s e t the stage, that the i n t e r r o g a t o r Gill now understand why they acted as they did. If facelsaving i s n e c e s s a r y to the interrogatee, i t will be a waste of t i m e t o t r y t o f o r c e him to cut the p r e l i m i n a r i e s s h o r t and get down t o c a s e s . In his view, he is dealing with t h e important topic, the why. He will be offended and may become wholly uncooperative if faced with insistent demands f o r the naked what. There is another advantage in l e t t i ~ gthe subject t a l k f r e e l y and even ramblingly in the f i r s t stage of i n t e r r o g a tion. The i n t e r r o g a t o r is f r e e t o observe. Human beings communicate a g r e a t deal by non-verbal means. Skilled i n t e r r o g a t o r s , f o r example, listen closely t o voices and l e a r n a g r e a t d e a l f r o m them. An interrogation i s not m e r e l y a

verbal performance; it is a vocal performance, and t h e voice projects tension, f e a r , a dislike of c e r t a i n topics, and other useful pieces of information. It is a l s o helpful to watch the subject's mouth, which i s as a rule much more, revealing than h i s eyes. Gestures and postures a l s o t e l l a s t o r y ; If a subject normally gesticulates broadly at t i m e s and is at other t i m e s physically relaxed but at s o m e point sits stiffly motionless, his posture is likely to be t h e physical i m a g e of his m e n t a l tension. The io'terrogator should make a m e n t a l note of the topic that caused such a reaction. One textbook on interrogation lists the following physical indicators of emotions and recommends that i n t e r r o g a t o r s note them, not as conclusive proofs but as a s s e s s m e n t aids:

(1)

A ruddy o r flushed face is a n indication of a n g e r o r e m b a r r a s s m e n t but not n e c e s s a r i l y of guilt.

(2)

A "cold sweatt1is a strong sign of f e a r and shock.

(3)

A pale face indicates f e a r and usually shows that the interrogator is hitting c l o s e t o the . m a r k .

(4)

A d r y mouth denotes nervousness.

(5)

Nervous tension i s a l s o shown by wringing a handkerchief o r clenching the hands tightly.

(6)

Emotional s t r a i n o r tension m a y cause a pumping of the h e a r t which becomes visible i n the pulse and throat.

(7)

A slight gasp, holding the b r e a t h , o r a n unsteady voice may b e t r a y the subjcct.

(8)

Fidgeting m a y take many f o r m s , all of which arc good indications of nervousnes s

.

:,

-

(9)

A m a n under emotional s t r a i n o r nervous tension will involuntarily draw his elbows to his sides. It i s a protective defense mechanism. '.

(10)

The movement of the:foot when one leg i s c r o s s e d over the knee of the other can s e r v e as an indicator. The circulation of the blood t o the lower l e g is partially cut off, thereby causing a slight lift o r movement of the f r e e foot with each h e a r t beat. This becomes m o r e pronounced and observable as the pulse r a t e i n c r e a s e s .

P a u s e s a r e a l s o significant. Whenever a person i s talking about a subject of consequence t o himself, he goe s through a p r o c e s s of advance self-monitoring, performed at lightning speed. T h i s self-monitoring is m o r e intense if the p e r s o n i s talking t o a s t r a n g e r and especially intense if he is answering the s t r a n g e r ' s questions. Its purpose is t o keep f r o m the questioner any guilty information o r information that would be damaging to the s p e a k e r ' s self-esteem. When questions o r a n s w e r s get close t o sensitive a r e a s , the pre-scanning is likely to c r e a t e m e n t a l blocks. These in turn produce unnatural pauses, meaningless sounds designed t o give the s p e a k e r m o r e time, o r other interruptions. It is not e a s y to distinguish between innocent blocks -- things held back f o r reasons of p e r s o n a l prestige and guilty blocks things the i n t e r r o g a t o r needs to know. But the successful establishment of r a p p o r t - w i l l tend t o eliminate innocent blocks, o r at l e a s t to k e e p t h e m to a minimum.

--

--

The establishment of rapport i s the second principal purpose of the opening phase of the interrogation. Sometimes the i n t e r r o g a t o r knows in advance, as a result of screening, that the subject will be uncooperative At other t i m e s the probability of r e s i s t a n c e is established without screening: detected hostile agents, for example, usually have not only the will t o r e s i s t but also the means, through a cover s t o r y o r other explanation. But the anticipation of withholding i n c r e a s e s r a t h e r than diminishes, the value of rapport. In other w o r d s ,

.

a l a c k of r a p p o r t m a y cause an interrogatee to withhold information that he would otherwise provide f r e e l y , w h e r e a s , the existence of r a p p o r t may induce an interrogatee who is izitizlly determined t o wicAhe?d to change his attitude. The r e f o r e the i n t e r r o g a t o r must not become hostile if confronted with initial hostility, o r i n any other way confirm s u c h negative attitudes as he may encounter at the outset. During this f i r s t phase his attitude should r e m a i n business-like but a l s o quietly (not ostentatiously) friendly and welcoming. Such opening r e m a r k s by subjects as, "1 know what you so-and-so's a r e a f t e r , and I can t e l l you right now that you're not' going t o get it f r o m m e " a r e b e s t handled by a n unperturbed "Why don't you t e l l m e what h a s made you a n g r y ? " At this stage the i n t e r r o g a t o r should avoid being drawn into conflict, no m a t t e r how provocatory may be the attitude o r language of the interrogatee. I£ he m e e t s truculence with neither i n s i n c e r e protestations that hc is the subject's Ifpal" nor a n equal a n g e r but r a t h e r a c a l m i n t e r e s t in what h a s a r o u s e d the subject, the interrogator h a s gained two advantages right at the start. He has established the superiority that he w i l l need l a t e r , as t h e questioning develops, and he h a s i n c r e a s e d the chances of establishing rapport. '

-

How long the opening phase continues depends upon how long it t a k e s to establish r a p p o r t o r t o determine that volunt a r y cooperation is unobtainable. It m a y be l i t e r a l l y a m a t t e r of seconds, o r it m a y be a drawn-out, up-hill battle. Even though the c o s t i n time and patience is sometimes high, the effort t o make the subject f e e l that his questioner is a sympathetic figure should not be abandoned until all reasonable r e s o u r c e s have been exhausted (unless, of course, the i n t e r r o gation does not m e r i t much time). Othelwise, the chances a r e that the interrogation will not produce optimum r e s u l t s . In f a c t , it i s likely t o be a failure, and the i n t e r r o g a t o r should not be dissuaded f r o m the effort to establish rapport by a n inward conviction that no man in 'his right mind would i n c r i m i nate himself by providing the kind of information that i s sought. The h i s t o r y of interrogation i s full of confessions and other self-incriminations that w e r e in e s s e n c e the result of a substitution of the interrogation world f o r the world outside. In

-.i

other words, a s the sights and sounds 'of an outside world fade away, i t s significance f o r the interrogatee tends to do likewise. That world is replaced by the interrogation room, i t s two occupants, and the dynamic relationship between them, As interrogation goes on, the subject tends increasingly t o divulge o r withhold i n accordance with the values of the . interrogation world r a t h e r than those of the outside world (unless the periods of questioning a r e only brief interruptions i n h i s n o r m a l life). In t h i s s m a l l world of two inhabitants a c l a s h of personalities as distinct f r o m a conflict of p u r p o s e s a s s u m e s exaggerated f o r c e , like a tornado in a wind-tunnel. The self-esteem of the interrogatee and of the interrogator becomes involved, and the interrogatee fights t o keep his s e c r e t s f r o m his opponent f o r subjective reasons, because he is g r i m l y determined not t o be the l o s e r , the inferior. If on the o t h e r hand the interrogator establishes rapport, the subject m a y withhold because of other reasons, but his resistance often l a c k s the bitter, last-ditch intensity that r e s u l t s if the contest becomes personalized..

--

The i n t e r r o g a t o r who s e n s e s o r determines in the opening phase that what he is hearing is a legend should r e s i s t the f i r s t , n a t u r a l impulse t o demonstrate its falsity. In some' i n t e r r o gatees the ego-demands, the need to save face, a r e s o i n t e r twined with preservation of the cover s t o r y that calling the man a liar will m e r e l y intensify resistance. It i s better to leave an avenue of escape, a loophole which permits the s o u r c e to c o r r e c t his s t o r y without looking foolish.

If it is decided, much l a t e r in the interrogation, to confront the interrogatee w i t h proof of lying, the following r e l a t e d advice about legal cross-examination may prove helpful

.

"Much depends upon the sequence in which one conducts the cross-examination df a dishonest witness. You should never hazard the important question until you have laid the foundation f o r it in such a way that, when confronted with t h e fact, the witness c a n neither deny n o r explain it. One often

.,

--

.

s e e s the m o s t damaging documentary evidence, i n the f o r m s of l e t t e r s o r affidavits, f a l l absolutely flat as b e t r a y e r s of falsehood, m e r e l y because of the unskillful way i n which t h e y ' ...,. a r e hacdled. I f p'=, fizv9 ia your possession a l e t t e y - w r i t t e n by the witness, i n which he taJses a n opposite position on some part of the c a s e t o the one he has just sworn to, avoid the common e r r o r of showing the witness the l e t t e r f o r identification, and then reading it t o him with the inquiry, 'What have you t o s a y t o t h a t ? ' During the reading of h i s l e t t e r t h e witness will be collecting his thoughts and getting r e a d y his explanations i n anticipation of the question t h a t is t o follow, The and the effect of the damaging l e t t e r will be lost.. c o r r e c t method of using such a l e t t e r is t o lead the witness quietly into repeating the statements he h a s made in h i s d i r e c t testimony, and which his l e t t e r contradicts. Then read it off t o him. The witness has fno explanation7. - He h a s stated the f a c t , t h e r e is nothing to qu&y. "(41) ,

..

2

.

The Reconnaissance

If the i n t e r r o g a t e e is cooperative at the outset o r if r a p p o r t is established during the opening phase and the s o u r c e b e c o m e s cooperative, the reconnaissance stage is needle s s ; the i n t e r r o g a t o r proceeds directly t o detailed questioning. But if the i n t e r r o g a t e e i s withholding, a period of exploration is n e c e s s a r y . Assumptions have normally been made a l r e a d y as t o what he is withholding: that he is a f a b r i c a t o r , o r a n R E agent, o r something e l s e h e deems it important to conceal. Or t h e assumption m a y be that he had knowledge of s u c h activities c a r r i e d out by someone else. At any r a t e , the purpose of the reconnaissance is t o provide a q&ck testing of the assumption and, m o r e importantly, to probe the c a u s e s , extent, and intensity of r e s i s t a n c e . During t h e opening phase the i n t e r r o g a t o r will have c h a r t e d the probable a r e a s of r e s i s t a n c e by noting those topics which c a u s e d emotional o r physical reactions, speech blocks, o r other indicators. He now begins t o probe these a r e a s . E v e r y experienced interrogator h a s noted that i f a n i n t e r r o g a t e e

is withholding, his anxiety i n c r e a s e s a s the questioning n e a r s the m a r k . The s a f e r the topic, the m o r e voluble the source. But as the questions make him increasingly uncomfortaSle, "he interrogatee becomes l e s s communicative o r perhaps even hostile. During the opening phase the i n t e r r o g a t o r has gone along with this protective mechanism. Now, however, he keeps coming back t o e a c h a r e a of sensitivity until he has determined the location of each and the intensity of the defenses. If resistance is slight, m e r e p e r s i s t e n c e may overcome it; and de,tailed questioning m a y follow immediately. But if resistance is strong, a new topic should be introduced, and detailed questioning r e s e r v e d f o r the t h i r d stage. Two dangers a r e especially likely to appear during the reconnaissance. U p to this point the interrogator h a s not continued a line of questioning when r e s i s t a n c e was encountered. Now, however, he does so, and rapport m a y be strained. Some i n t e r r o g a t e e s will take this change personally and tend to personalize the conflict. The interrogator should r e s i s t this tendency. If he succumbs t o it, and becomes engaged in a battle of wits, he may not be able t o accomplish the t a s k at hand, The second temptation to avoid i s the natural inclination t o r e s o r t p r e m a t u r e l y to r u s e s o r coercive techniques i n o r d e r t o s e t t l e the m a t t e r then and there. The b a s i c purpose of the reconnaissance is t o determine the kind and degree of p r e s s u r e that will be needed in the third stage. The i n t e r r o g a t o r should r e s e r v e h i s fire-power until he knows what h e is up-against. 3.

The Detailed Questioning

If r a p p o r t is established and if the interrogatee a. h a s nothing significant to hide, detailed questioning p r e s e n t s only routine problems. The m a j o r routine considerations a r e the following: The interrogator must know exactly what he wants to know. He should have on paper o r f i r m l y i n mind all the questions to which he seeks a n s w e r s . It usually

happens that the source has a relatively l a r g e body of information that h a s little o r no intelligence value and . only a s m a l l collection of nuggets. He will naturally ,-. tend t o t a l k about what he knows b e t , The i ~ t e r r o g a t o r should not show quick impatience, but neither should he allow the r e s u l t s t o get out of focus. The determinant r e m a i n s what we need, not what the interro'gatee c a n m o s t readily provide.

L

".

At t h e -same time i t is n e c e s s a r y t o make e v e r y effort t o keep the subject from learning through the interrogation proces s precisely where our informational gaps lie. This principle i s especially important if t h e i n t e r r o g a t e e i s following his n o r m a l life, going home e a c h evening and appearing only once o r twice a week f o r questioning, o r if his bona fides r e m a i n s i n doubt. Under a l m o s t all circumstances, however, a c l e a r revelation of o u r i n t e r e s t s and knowledge should be avoided. It is usually a poor practice to-hand to even the m o s t cooperative interrogatee an orderly list of questions and s t r i c t u r e does not a s k him t o write t h e answers. apply t o t h e writing of autobiographies o r on informational m a t t e r s not a subject of controversy with t h e source. ) Some t i m e is normally spent on m a t t e r s of little o r no intelligence i n t e r e s t f o r purposes of concealment. The i n t e r r o g a t o r can a b e t the process by making occasional notes -- o r pretending to do s o on i t e m s that s e e m important t o the interrogatee but a r e not of intelligence value. F r o m this point of view a n interrogation c a n be deemed successful if a source who i s actually a hostile agent c a n r e p o r t t o the opposition only the g e n e r a l fields of o u r i n t e r e s t but cannot pinpoint specifics without including misleading information

h his

--

.

It is sound practice t o w r i t e up each interrogation r e p o r t on the day of questioning o r , a t l e a s t , before the next s e s s i o n , s o that defects can be promptly remedied and gaps o r contradictions noted in time.

/b/

S E '

,

It is a l s o a good expedient to have the i n t e r r o g a t e e make notes of topics that should be covered, which o c c u r t o him while discussing the immediate m a t t e r s at i s s u e . The a c t of recording the s t r a y i t e m o r thought on p a p e r fixes it i n the i n t e r r o g a t e e 1 s mind. Usually topics popping up i n the c o u r s e of an interrogation a r e forgotten if not noted; they tend t o disrupt the interrogation plan if c o v e r e d 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. F o r example, the question "Do you know anything about P l a n t X ? " is likelier to d r a w a negative a n s w e r then "Do you have any f r i e n d s who work at Plant X ? o r "Can you d e s c r i b e its e x t e r i o r ? It is important t o determine whether the s u b j e c t l s knowledge of any topic was acquired at f i r s t hand, l e a r n e d indirectly, o r r e p r e s e n t s m e r e l y a n assumption. If the information was obtained indirectly, t h e identities of sub-sources and related information about the channel a r e needed. If s t a t e m e n t s r e s t on assumptions, the f a c t s upon which the conclusions a r e based a r e n e c e s s a r y to evaluation.

As detailed que stioning proceeds, additional biographic data will be revealed. Such i t e m s should b e e n t e r e d into the r e c o r d , but it is n o r m a l l y referable not t o diverge f r o m a n impersonal topic i n o r d e r t o follow a biographic lead. Such leads c a n be taken up l a t e r unless they raise new doubts about bona fides. As detailed interrogation continues , and c specially a t the half-way m a r k , the i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s d e s i r e t o complete the t a s k m a y c a u s e him to be increasingly business-like o r even brusque. He m a y tend to c u r t a i l o r drop t h e u s u a l i n q u i r i e s about the subject ' s well-being w i t h which he opened e a r l i e r s e s s i o n s . He may f e e l like dealing m o r e

a n d m o r e abruptly with reminiscences o r digressions. His i n t e r e s t h a s shifted f r o m the interrogatee himself, who just a while ago was an interesting person, to the a t s k or' getting a t what he knows. But if rapport has been establbhed, the interrogatee w i l l be quick to sense and r e s e n t t h b change of attitude. This point is particularly important tf the interrogatee is a defector faced with bewilder'hg changes and in a highly emotional state. Any interrogatee has his ups and downs, times when he is t i r e d o r half-ill, times when his p ~ r s o n a problems l have l e f t his nerves frayed. The peculiar intimacy of the interrogation situation and the very fact that the interrogator h a s deliberately fostered rapport will d t e n lead the subject to talk about his doubts, f e a r s , and other p e r s o n a l reactions. The interrogator should neither cut off thb flow abruptly nor show impatience unless it takes up an inordinate amount of time o r unless it seems likely that all the talklag about personal m a t t e r s is being used deliberately as a smoke s c r e e n to keep the interrogator f r o m doing h i s job. I£ the interrogatee is believed cooperative, then f r o m the beginning to the end of the p r o c e s s he should feel that the interrogator's interest in him has remained constant. Unless the interi.ogation is soon over, the interrogatee's attitude toward his questioner ts not likely to remain constant. He will feel more a n d m o r e drawn to the questioner o r increasingly antagonistic. As a rule, the best way f o r the interrogator to keep the relationship on a n even keel is to maintain the s a m e quiet, relaxed, and open-minded attitude f r o m s t a r t to f f n b h . Detailed interrogation ends only when (1) all useful counterintelligence information h a s been obtained; (2) diminishing r e t u r n s and m o r e pressing commitments compel a cessation; o r (3) the base, station, a d m i t s f u l l o r partLdl defeat. Term'bation for any reason other than the f i r s t is only temporary. I t is a profound mistdke to write off a successfully resistant interrogatee o r one whose questioning was ended before his potential

was exhausted. KUBARK must keep track of such persons, because people and circumstances change. Until the s o u r c e dies o r tells us everything that he knows that is pertinent to our purposes, his interrogation may.be interrupted, but it has not been f o r years completed,

--

4.

The Conclusion

The end of an interrogation 1s not the end of the interrogator's responsibilities. F r o m the beginning of planning to the end of .questioning it has been necessary to understand and guard a g a i m t the various troubles that a vengeful ex-source can cause. As was pointed out earlier, KUBARK1s lack of executive authority abroad and its operational need f o r facel e s s n e s s make it peculiarly vulnerable to attack in the courts or the press. The best defense against such attacks is prevention, through enlistment or enfor cement of compliance. However r e a l cooperation is achieved, its existence s e e m s to a c t as a deterrent to l a t e r hostility. The initially r e s i s t a n t subject may become cooperative because of a partial identification with the interrogator and his interesta, o r the s o u r c e may make such an identification because of his cooperation. In either event, he is unlikely to cause serious trouble in the future. Real difficulties a r e more frequently created by interrogatees who have succeeded in withholding. The-followhg steps a r e normally a routine p a r t of the conclusion:

'

. 'k

..

C.

Techniques of Non-Coercive Interrogation of Resistant Sources

Zf s o u r c e r e s i s t a n c e is encountered during screening o r during the opening o r reconnaissance phases of the interrogation, noncoercive methods of sapping opposition and strengthening the tendency to yield and t o cooperate may be applied. Although these methods appear h e r e in an approximate o r d e r of increasing p r e s s u r e , i t should not be i n f e r r e d that each i s t o be t r i e d until the key f i t s the lock. On the c o n t r a r y , a large p a r t of the skill and the s u c c e s s of the experienced interrogator l i e s in his ability to match method to source. The use of unsuccessful techniques will of itself i n c r e a s e the i n t e r r o g a t e e l s will and ability to r e s i s t . This principle a l s o affects the decision to employ c o e r c i v e techniques and governs the choice of these methods. I£ i n the opinion of the i n t e r r o g a t o r a totally r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e h a s the s k i l l and determination t o withstand any non-c oercive method o r combination of methods, it is b e t t e r to avoid them completely. The effectiveness of most of the non-coercive techniques depends upon t h e i r unsettling effect. The interrogation situation is i n itself disturbing t o most people encountering it for the f i r s t time. The a i m i s t o enhance this e f f e c t , to disrupt radically the f a m i l i a r emotional

-and psychological a s s o c i a t i o n s of the subject. When this a i m is achieved, r e s i s t a n c e is s e r i o u s l y impaired. T h e r e i s a n interval which m a y be e x t r e m e l y brief -- of suspended animation, a kind of psychological shock o r p a r a l y s i s . It is caused by a t r a u m a t i c o r sub-traumatic experience which explodes, as it w e r e , t h e -,.or?d that is f a m i l i a r t o the s u b j e c t as w e l l as his image of himself within that world. Experienced i n t e r r o g a t o r s recognize this effect when i t a p p e a r s and know t h a t at this moment the s o u r c e is f a r m o r e open t o suggestion, f a r l i k e l i e r t o comply, than he was just before h e experienced t h e shock.

--

Another effect frequently produced by non-coercive (as well a s c o e r c i v e ) methods i s the evocation within the i n t e r r o g a t e e of feelings of guilt. Most p e r s o n s have a r e a s of guilt in t h e i r emotional topographies, a n d a n i n t e r r o g a t o r c a n often c h a r t these a r e a s just by noting r e f u s a l s t o follow c e r t a i n l i n e s of questioning. Whether the s e n s e of guilt h a s r e a l o r i m a g i n a r y c a u s e s does not affect the r e s u l t of intensification of guilt feelings. Making a p e r s o n feel -re and m o r e guilty n o r m a l l y i n c r e a s e s both his anxiety and his urge t o cooperate as a m e a n s of e s c a p e .

In b r i e f , the techniques that follow should m a t c h t h e personality of the individual i n t e r r o g a t e e , a n d t h e i r effectiveness is intensified by good timing and r a p i d exploitation of the moment of shock. (A few of the following i t e m s are drawn f r o m Sheehan. ) (32)

1.

Going Next Door

O d c a s i o n a ~t h~e information needed f r o m a r e c a l c i trant i n t e r r o g a t e e is obtainable f r o m a willing sourcc. The i n t e r r o g a t o r should decide whether a confession is e s s e n t i a l t o his p u r p o s e o r w h e t h e r information which m a y be held by o t h e r s as w e l l as the unwilling s o u r c c is really his goal. The l a b o r of e x t r a c t i n g the t r u t h f r o m unwilling interrogatees should be undertaken only if the same information is not m o r e easily obtainable e l s e w h e r e o r i f operational considerations r e q u i r e self-incrimination.

.

.

2.

Nobody Loves You

.

i n t e r r o g a t e e who i s withholding items of no g r a v e . consequence t o himself m a y sometimes be persuaded t o talk b y . -... the s i m p l e t a c t i c of pointing out that t o date a l l of the information about h i s c a s e has come f r o m persons other than himself. The i n t e r r o g a t o r wants t o be f a i r . He recognizes that some of the denouncers m a y have been biased o r malicious. In any c a s e , t h e r e is bound t o be some slanting of the facts unless the i n t e r r o g a t e e r e d r e s s e s the balance. The source owes it t o himself t o be s u r e that the interrogator h e a r s both s i d e s of the story. . '

3.

The All-Seeing Eye ( o r Confession i s Good f o r the Soul)

The i n t e r r o g a t o r who already knows p a r t of the s t o r y explains t o the s o u r c e that the purpose of the questioning i s not t o gain information; the interrogator knows everything a l r e a d y . His r e a l purpose is t o t e s t the sincerity (reliability, honor, etc. ) of the s o u r c e . The interrogator then a s k s a few questions t o which he b o w s the a n s w e r s . If the subject l i e s , h e is informed f i r m l y a n d dispassionately t h a t he has lied. By skilled manipulation of the known, the questioner can convince a naive subject t h a t all h i s s e c r e t s a r e out and that f u r t h e r r e s i s t a n c e would be not only pointless but dangerous. I£ t h i s technique does not w o r k v e r y quickly, it must be dropped before t h e i n t e r r o g a t e e l e a r n s the t r u e limits of the questioner's knowledge. 4.

The I n f o r m e r

Detention m a k e s a number of t r i c k s possible. One of t h e s e , planting an informant as the s o u r c e ' s cellmate, is s o well-known, . e s p e c i a l l y in Communist countries, that i t s usefulness is i m p a i r e d if not destroyed. L e s s well known i s the t r i c k of planting two informants in the cell. One of them, A, t r i e s now a n d then t o p r y a little information f r o m the s o u r c e ; B r e m a i n s quiet. At the p r o p e r time, and during A ' s absence, B w a r n s the s o u r c e not to t e l l A anything because B s u s p e c t s him of being a n 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 h a s "found1' and suggests that they talk only in whispers at the other end of the room.

5.

News f r o m Home

Allowing an interrogatee to receive carefully selected l e t t e r s f r o m home c a n contribute t o effects desired by the interrogator Allowing the s o u r c e to write l e t t e r s , especially if he c a n be led t o believe that they will be smuggled out without the knowledge of the authorities, may produce information which i s difficult t o extract by d i r e c t questioning.

.

6.

The Witness

If o t h e r s have accused the interrogatee of spying f o r a hostile s e r v i c e o r of other activity which he denies, t h e r e i s a temptation t o confront the r e c a l c i t r a n t source with h i s a c c u s e r o r a c c u s e r s . But a quick confrontation h a s two weaknesses: it is likely to intensify the stubbornness of denials, and it spoils the chance to use m o r e subtle mkthods. One of these is to place the interrogatee in a n outer office and e s c o r t p a s t him, and into the inner office, an a c c u s e r whom he knows personally o r , in fact, any p e r s o n even one who i s friendly to the source and uncooperative with the i n t e r r o g a t o r s -- who is believed to know something about whatever the interrogatee is concealing. It i s 8 a l s oe s s e n t i a l that t h e interrogatee know o r suspect that the witness may be in pos s e s s i o n of the incriminating information. The witne s s i s whisked past the interrogatee; the two a r e not allowed to speak t o e a c h other. A guard and a stenographer r e m a i n in the outer office with the interrogatee. After about a n hour the i n t e r r o g a t o r who h a s been questioning the interrogatec i n past s e s s i o n s opens the door and a s k s the stenographer t o come in, with steno pad and pencils. After a time she r e - e m e r g e s and types m a t e r i a l f r o m h e r pad, making s e v e r a l carbons. She pauses, points at the interrogatee, and a s k s the guard how

--

his name is spelled. She may also ,ask the i'nterrogatee d i r e c t l y f o r the p r o p e r spelling of a s t r e e t , a prison, the name of a Communist intelligence officer, o r any o t h e r . f a c t o r closely linked to the activity of which he i s ,accused. . She takes h e r completed work into the inner office, c o m e s back out, and telephones a request t h a t someone come up t o a c t as l e g a l witness, Another m a n a p p e a r s and e n t e r s the i n n e r office, The person c a s t in the i n f o r m e r ' s r o l e m a y have been l e t out a back door at the beginning of t h e s e p r o ceedings; o r if cooperative, he m a y continue .his role. In e i t h e r event, a couple of i n t e r r o g a t o r s , with o r without the "infoxmer", now e m e r g e f r o m the i n n e r office. In c o n t r a s t t o t h e i r e a r l i e r demeanor, they a r c now relaxed and smiling. The i n t e r r o g a t o r i n charge says to t h e guard, "O.K., Tom, take h i m back. We don't need him a n y m o r e . I ' Even if the i n t e r r o g a t e e now i n s i s t s on teUing h i s side of the s t o r y , he is told t o r e i a x , because the interrogator will get around to h i m t o m o r r o w o r the next day.

A s e s s i o n with the witness m a y be recorded. If t h e witness denounces the interrogatee, t h e r e is no problem. If he does not, the interrogator m a k e s a n effort t o draw him out about a hostile agent recently convicted i n c o u r t o r otherw i s e known t o t h e witness. During t h e next interrogation s e s s i o n with t h e s o u r c e , a p a r t of the taped denunciation can be played back t o him if necessary. O r the w i t n e s s e s ' r e m a r k s about the known spy, edited as n e c e s s a r y , c a n be so back that the interrogatec is persuaded that he is the subject of the r e m a r k s . Cooperative witnesses may be coached to exaggerate s o that if a r e c o r d i n g i s played f o r t h e interrogatee o r a confrontation is a r r a n g e d , the s o u r c e f o r example, a suspected c o u r i e r finds the witness overstating his importance, The w,itness c l a i m s that the interrogatee is only incidentally a courier, that actually he i s the head of a n RXS kidnapping gang. The i n t e r r o g a t o r pretends a m a z c ment and s a y s into the r e c o r d e r , "I thought he was only a c o u r i e r ; and i f . h e had told us the t r u t h , I planned t o l e t him But this is much more s e r i o u s . On the b a s i s of c h a r g e s go

--

--

'

, . .-.

..

like these I ' l l have to hand him over to the local police f o r On hearing these r e m a r k s , the interrogatee may trial. confess the t r u t h about the l e s s e r guilt in o r d e r t o avoid heavier punishment, If he continues t o withhold, the interrogator m a y take his side by stating, ''You know, I'm not at all convinced that so-and-so told a straight story. I f e e l , personally, t h a t he was exaggerating a g r e a t deal. Wasn't h e ? What's the t r u e s t o r y ? "

7.

Jointsuspects

If two o r m o r e interrogation sources a r e suspected of joint complicity in a c t s directed against U. S. security, they should be separated immediately. If time permits, it m a y b e a good i d e a (depending upon the psychological a s s e s s ment of both) t o postpone interrogation f o r about a week. Any anxious inquiries f r o m either can be met by a knowing grin and some such r e p l y as, "We'll get t o you i n due time. T h e r e ' s no h u r r y now, I ' If documents, witnesses, o r other sources yield information about interrogatee A, such remarks a s "B says it was i n Smolensk that you denounced so-and-so t o the s e c r e t policc, Is that right? Was it i n 1937? help to establ i s h i n A's mind t h e i m p r e s s i o n that B is talking.

-

I£the i n t e r r o g a t o r is quite certain of the facts in the c a s e but cannot s e c u r e a n admission f r o m either A or B, a written confession m a y 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 f a c t s , but they a r e distorted; the confession shows ,that A is attempting to throw the e n t i r e responsibility upon B. Edited tape recordings which sound as though -4 had denounced B may also be used f o r the purpose, separately o r in conjunction with the written "confession, " If A is feeling a little ill o r dispirited, he can a l s o be led past a window o r otherwise shown t o B without creating a chance f o r conversation; B is likely to interp r e t A ' s hang-dog look a s 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 ( o r h e a r s ) A ' s "confession. I s If B p e r s i s t s in withholding, the

-

i n t e r r o g a t o r should d i s m i s s him promptly, saying that A's signed confession is sufficient f o r the purpose and that it does not m a t t e r whether B c o r r o b o r a t e s it o r not. At the foilowing s e s s i o n wi$h B, t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r selects some minor m a t t e r , not substantively damaging t o B but nevertheless exaggerated, a n d s a y s , "I'm not s u r e A was really f a i r to you here. Would you c a r e t o t e l l me your side of the s t o r y ? " If B r i s e s to t h i s bait, t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r moves on t o a r e a s of greater significance. The outer-and-inner office routine may a l s o be employed. A, the weaker, is brought into the inner office, and the door is l e f t slightly a j a r o r the t r a n s o m open. B is l a t e r -brought into t h e o u t e r office by a g u a r d and placed where he can h e a r , though not too c l e a r l y . The interrogator begins routine questioning of A, speaking r a t h e r softly and iriducing A t o follow s u i t , Another p e r s o n in the inner office, acting by p r e a r r a n g e ment, t h e n quietly l e a d s A out through another door. Any n o i s e s of d e p a r t u r e are covered by the interrogator, who r a t t l e s t h e a s h t r a y o r moves a table o r l a r g e chair. As soon as the second door is closed again and A is out of earshot, the i n t e r r o g a t o r r e s u m e s his questioning. His voice grows louder and a n g r i e r . He t e n s A t o speak up, that he can hardly h e a r him. He grows abusive, reaches a climax, and then says, "Well, t h a t ' s b e t t e r . Why didn't you say so in the f i r s t place ? ' I The r e s t of the monologue is designed to give B the impression t h a t A h a s now s t a r t e d t o t e l l the truth, Suddenly the interrogat o r pops his head through the doorway and i s angry on seeing B and the guard. "You jerk!" he says t o the guard, "What a r e you doing h e r e ? ' I He r i d e s down the guard's mumbled attempt t o explain the m i s t a k e , shouting, "Get him out of h e r e ! 1'11 take c a r e of you l a t e r ! " When, in the judgment of the interrogator, B is f a i r l y well-convinced that A has broken down and told his story, the i n t e r r o g a t o r m a y e l e c t t o s a y to B, "Now that A h a s come clean with us, I'd like t o l e t him go. But I hate to release one of you before the other; you ought to get out a t the same time. A s e e m s f e e l s that you got him into this t o be p r e t t y a n g r y with you jam, He might even go back t o your Soviet case officer and say

--

., .x

..

. .

-

that you haven't r e t u r n e d because you a g r e e d t o s t a y h e r e and work f o r us. Wouldn't it be better f o r you if I s e t you both f r e e t o g e t h e r ? Wouldn't it be better to t e l l m e your s i d e of the s t o r y ? I '

8.

Ivan Is a Dope

It m a y be useful t o point out to a hostile agent t h a t the c o v e r s t o r y was ill-contrived, that the other s e r v i c e botched the job, that it is typical of the other s e r v i c e t o ignore t h e welfare of its agents. The interrogator m a y personalize this pitch b y explaining t h a t he has been i m p r e s s e d by t h e a g e n t ' s cotirage a n d intelligence, He s e l l s the agent the i d e a that the i n t e r r o g a t o r , not his old s e r v i c e , r e p r e s e n t s a t r u e f r i e n d , who understands him and will look'after h i s welfare.

9.

Joint I n t e r r o g a t o r s

The commonest of the joint i n t e r r o g a t o r techniques i s the Mutt-and- Jeff routine: the brutal, angry, domineering type c o n t r a s t e d with the friendly, quiet type. This routine works b e s t with women, teenagers, and timid men. If t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r who h a s done the bulk of the questioning' up t o this point h a s established a m e a s u r e of r a p p o r t , he should play the f r i e n d l y role. If rapport is absent, and especially if antagonism has developed, the principal i n t e r r o g a t o r m a y take the o t h e r part. The angry interrogator speaks loudly f r o m the beginning; and unless the interrogatee c l e a r l y indicates that he is now ready t o t e l l his story, the a n g r y i n t e r r o g a t o r shouts down h i s a n s w e r s and cuts h i m off. He thumps the table. The quiet i n t e r r o g a t o r should not watch the show unmoved but give subtle indications that he too is somewhat afraid of his colleague. The a n g r y i n t e r r o g a t o r a c c u s e s the subject of o t h e r offenses, any offenses, especially those that a r e heinous o r demeaning. He m a k e s it plain t h a t he personally c o n s i d e r s the i n t e r r o g a t e e the v i l e s t p e r s o n on earth. During the harangue the friendly, quiet i n t e r r o g a t o r b r e a k s in to say, "Wait a minute, J i m . Take it e a s y . " The a n g r y interrogator shouts back, "Shut up! I'm handling this. I've broken crumb-bums before, and I ' l l b r e a k this one, wide open." He e x p r e s s e s h i s disgust by spitting on

.

.

the floor o r holding h i s nose o r any g r o s s gesture. Finally, red-faced and f u r i o u s , he says, "I'm going to take a b r e a k , ., have a couple of stiff drinks. But I'll be back a t two and you, you bum, you b e t t e r be ready t o talk. I ' When the door s l a m s behind him, the second interrogator tells the subject how s o r r y he is, how he h a t e s t o work with a man like that but h a s no choice, how if maybe b r u t e s like that would keep quiet and give a m a n a f a i r chance to t e l l his side of the s t o r y , e t c . , etc.

--

An i n t e r r o g a t o r working alone can a l s o u s e the Mutt-andJeff technique. After a number of t e n s e and hostile s e s s i o n s the i n t e r r o g a t e e is ushered into a different o r refurnished room with comfortable f u r n i t u r e , cigarettes, etc. The i n t e r r o g a t o r invites him to sit down and explains his r e g r e t that the s o u r c e ' s f o r m e r stubbornness f o r c e d the i n t e r r o g a t o r t o u s e such t a c t i c s . Now everything will be different. The interrogator talks man-toman. An A m e r i c a n P O W , debriefed on h i s interrogation by a hostile s e r v i c e t h a t used this approach, h a s described the r e s u l t : "Well, I went i n and t h e r e was a man, a n officer he ' w a s , , , -- h e a s k e d m e t o sit down and was very friendly,. It w a s v e r y t e r r i f i c , I, well, I almost f e l t like I had a f r i e n d sitting t h e r e . I had t o stop e v e r y now and then and r e a l i z e that t h i s m a n w a s n ' t a f r i e n d of mine.. .I a l s o felt a s though I couldn't be r u d e t o him.. It was much m o r e difficult f o r me to - well, I a l m o s t f e l t I had as much responsibility t o t a l k t o him and r e a s o n and justification a s I have t o talk to you right now. "(18)

..

..

.

'Another joint technique c a s t s both i n t e r r o g a t o r s in friendly r o l e s . But w h e r e a s the interrogator i n charge is s i n c e r e , the second i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s manner and voice convey the i m p r e s s i o n that he i s m e r e l y pretending sympathy i n o r d e r to t r a p the i n t e r r o g a t e e . He s l i p s i n a few t r i c k questions of the "Whendid-you-stop-beating-your-wife? " category. The interrogator i n c h a r g e w a r n s his colleague t o desist. When he r e p e a t s the t a c t i c s , the i n t e r r o g a t o r in charge s a y s , with a slight show of a n g e r , "We're not h e r e t o t r a p people but to get at the truth. I suggestl t h a t you leave now. I ' l l handle this. " 3

It i s usually unproductive to c a s t both i n t e r r o g a t o r s in hostile r o l e s

.

If the r e c a l c i t r a n t subject speaks m o r e than one language, it is b e t t e r t o question h i m in the tongue with which he is l e a s t f a m i l i a r as long as the purpose of interrogation is to obtain a confession. After the interrogatee admits hostile intent o r . activity, a switch t o the better-known language will facilitate follow-up.

An a b r u p t switch of languages ,mayt r i c k a r e s i s t a n t source. If a n i n t e r r o g a t e e has withstood a b a r r a g e of questions i n G e r m a n o r Korean, f o r example, a sudden shift to "Who is your c a s e o f f i c e r ? " i n Russian may t r i g g e r the answer b e f o r e the s o u r c e c a n s t o p himself. An i n t e r r o g a t o r quite at home i n the language being used m a y n e v e r t h e l e s s e l e c t t o use a n i n t e r p r e t e r if the i n t e r r o g a t e e does not h o w t h e language t o be used between the i n t e r r o g a t o r and i n t e r p r e t e r and a l s o does not know that the i n t e r r o g a t o r knows his own tongue. The principal advantage h e r e i s that hearing everything tvclice helps the interrogator t o note voice, expression, g e s t u r e s , and other indicators m o r e attentively. This gambit is obviously unsuitable f o r any f o r m of rapid-fire questioning, and i n a n y c a s e it has the disadvantage of allowing the subject t o pull himself together a f t e r each query. It should be used only with a n i n t e r p r e t e r who has been trained i n the t e c hni que

.

It is of b a s i c importance that the interrogator not using a n i n t e r p r e t e r be adept i n the language selected f o r use. Lf he i s not, if s l i p s of g r a m m a r o r a strong accent m a r h i s speech, the r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e will usually f e e l fortified. Almost all people have been conditioned to relate verbal skill to intelligence, education, s o c i a l status, etc. E r r o r s o r mispronunciations a l s o p e r m i t the interrogatee to misunderstand o r feign misunderstanding and thus gain time. He may a l s o r e s o r t t o polysyllabic obfuscat'ions upon realizing the limitations of t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r I s vocabulary.

Spinoza and Mortimer Snerd

If t h e r e i s r e a s o n to suspect that a withholding s o u r c e p o s s e s s e s useful coanterintelligence information but h a s not had a c c e s s t o the upper reaches of the target organization, the policy and command level, continued questioning ,about lofty topics that the s o u r c e knows nothing about may pave the way f o r the extraction of information Zt lower levels, The i n t e r r o g a t e e i s a s k e d about XGB policy, f o r example: the relation of the s e r v i c e t o i t s government, i t s liaison akrangements, etc., etc. His complaints that he knows nothing of such m a t t e r s a r e m e t by flat insistence that he does know, he would have to know, that even t h e most stupid men in his position know. Communist i n t e r r o g a t o r s w h used this tactic against American POW1s coupled it with punishment f o r "don't know" responses typically by forcing the prisoner to stand a t attention until hc gave s o m e positive response. After the process had been continued long enough, the source was asked a question t o which he did h o w the answer. Numbers of Americans have mentioned 'I.. . t h e tremendous feeling of relief you get when he finally a s k s you something you can answer. ' I One said, "I know it s e e m s strange now, but I was positively grateful to them when they switched t o a topic I knew something about. "(3)

-. )

--

The Wolf i n Sheep's Clothing

It h a s been suggested that a successfully withholding s o u r c e might be tricked into compliance if led to believe that he is dealing with the opposition. The success of the r u s e depends upon a successful imitation of the opposition. A c a s e officer previously unknown to the source and skilled in the appropriate language talks with the source under such circumstances that the l a t t e r is convinced that he i s dealing with the opposition. The s o u r c e i s debriefed on what he has told the Americans and what he h a s not told them. The t r i c k is likelier to succeed if the interrogatee h a s not been in confinement but a staged "escape, ' I engineered by a stool-pigeon, might achieve the s a m e end. u s u a i l y the t r i c k i s s o complicated and risky that its employment is not recornrnended.

64

-

Alice in Wonderland The a i m of the Alice in Wonderland o r confusion . technique is t o confound the e x p e c t a t i c ~ s3rd cscditioned reactions of the interrogatee. He is accustomed t o a world that makes some sense, a t l e a s t t o him: a world of continuity and logic, a predictable world. H c clings t o t h i s world t o reinforce his identity and powers of resistance. The confusion technique is designed not only t o obliterate the f a m i l i a r but t o replace it with the weird, Although t h i s method can be employed by a single i n t e r r o gator, it is b e t t e r adapted to use by two o r t h r e e . When the subject e n t e r s the room, the f i r s t interrogator a s k s a doubletalk question one which s e e m s straightforward but is e s s e n t i a l l y nonsensical. Whether the interrogatee t r i e s t o a n s w e r o r not, the second interrogator follows up ( i n t e r r u p ting any attempted response) with a wholly unrelated and equally illogical query. Sometimes two o r m o r e questions a r e a s k e d simultaneously. Pitch, tone, and volume of the i n t e r r o g a t o r s ' voices a r e unrelated to the i m p o r t of the questions. No p a t t e r n of questions and a n s w e r s is permitted t o develop, n o r do the questions themselves r e l a t e logically t o each other. ' In t h i s s t r a n g e a t m o s p h e r e the subject finds that the p a t t e r n of s p e e c h and thought which he has learned to consider normal have been r e p l a c e d by a n e e r i e meaninglessness The i n t e r r o g a t e e may start laughing o r refuse to take the situation seriously. But a s the p r o c e s s continues, day a f t e r day if n e c e s s a r y , the subject begins to t r y to make s e n s e of the situation, which b e c o m e s mentally intolerable. Now he is likely to make significant admissions, o r even t o pour out his story, just to stop t h e flow of babble which assails him. This technique may be especially effective with the orderly, obstinate type.

--

.

Regression There a r e a number of non-coercive techniques f o r inducing r e g r e s s i o n . All depend upon the i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s cont r o l of the environment and, a s always, a p r o p e r matching of method to s o u r c e . Some interrogatees can be r e p r e s s e d by

., .

-....

p e r s i s t e n t manipulation of time, by retarding and advancing ten minutes o r t e n clocks and s e r v i n g m e a l s a t odd times hours a f t e r the last food was given. Day and night a r e jumbled. Interrogation s e s s i o n s a r e similarly unpatterned the subject '. ', m a y b e brought back f o r m o r e questioning just a few minutes a f t e r being d i s m i s s e d f o r the night. Half-hearted efforts t o cooperate c a n be ignored, and c m v e r s e l y he can be rewarded f o r non-cooperation. ( F o r example, a successfully r e s i s t i n g source-m a y become distraught X given some r e w a r d f o r the "valuable contribution" that he h a s made. ) The Alice in Wonderland technique c a n reinforce the effect. Two o r m o r e i n t e r r o g a t o r s , questioning a s a t e a m and in r e l a y s (and thoroughly jumbling the timing of both methods) c a n a s k questions which make it impossible f o r the interrogatee t o give sensible, significant a n s w e r s . A subject who is cut off f r o m the world he knows s e e k s to r e c r e a t e it, in some m e a s u r e , in the new and s t r a n g e environment. He m a y t r y t o keep t r a c k of time, to live i n the f a m i l i a r past, to cling t o old concepts of loyalty, interpersonal to e s t a b l i s h -- with one o r more interrogators relations r e s e m b l i n g those that he has had e a r l i e r with other people, and t o build other bridges back to the known. Thwarting his a t t e m p t s t o do s o is likely t o drive him deeper and d e e p e r into himself, until he is no longer able to control h i s r e s p o n s e s i n adult fashion.

--

.

--

r

The placebo technique is also used t o induce r e g r e s s i o n . The i n t e r r o g a t e e i s given a placebo (a h a r m l e s s s u g a r pill). L a t e r he is told t h a t he h a s imbibed a drug, a t r u t h s e r u m , which will make h i m want to talk and which will a l s o prevent his lying. The subject's d e s i r e t o find a n excuse f o r the compliance that r e p r e s e n t s his sole avenue of escape f r o m h i s d i s t r e s s i n g predicament may make him want to believe that he h a s been drugged and that no one could blame him f o r telling his s t o r y now. Gottschelk observes, "Individuals under i n c r e a s e d s t r e s s a r e m o r e likely to respond to placebos. "(7) Orne h a s discussed an extension of the placebo concept in explaining what he t e r m s the "magic room" technique. "An example. would be the prisoner who i s given a hypnotic suggestion that his hand i s growing warm. However.

..

...

in this instance, the prisoner's hand a c k l l y 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 t o have a slight but noticeably bitter taste. " In discus sing states of heightened suggestibility (which a r e not, however, states of trance) Orne says, "Both hypnosis and some of the drugs inducing hypnoidal states a r e popubrly viewed as situations where the individual i s no longer master of his own fate and therefore not responsible for his actions. It seems possible then that the hypnotic situation, a s distinguished from hypnosis itself, might be used t o relieve the individual of a feeling of responsibility for his own actions and thus lead him t o r e v e a l information, "(7)

.

.

In other words, a psychologically immature source, o r one who has been regressed, could adopt an implication o r suggestion that he bas been drugged, hypnotized, o r otherwise rendered incapable of resistance, even if he recognizes a t some level that the suggestion is untrue, because of his strong d e s i r e t o escape the s t r e s s of the situation by capitulating. These techniques pr ovide the source with the rationalization that he needs.

Whether r e g r ession occurs spontaneously under detention o r interrogation, and whether it is induced by a coercive o r non-coercive technique, it should not be allowed to continue

past the point necessary to obtain compliance. Severe techniques of regression a r e best employed in the presence of a psychiat r i s t , t o insure full r e v e r s a l later. As soon a s he can, the interrogator presents the subject with the way out, the facesaving reason f o r escaping f r om his painful dilemma by yielding. Now the interrogator becomes fatherly. Whether the excuse is that others have already confessed ( I d the other boys a r e doing it1!), that the interrogatee has a chance to redeem himself ("you're really a good boy at heart"), o r that he can't help himself ("hey made you do i t l ' ) , the effective rationalization, the one the source will jump at, is likely t o be elementary. It is a n adultls version of the kxcuses of childhood.

.'.

-. 1

The Polygraph The polygraph can be used f o r purposes. o t h e r than the evaluation of veracity. F o r example, it m a y be used as a n adjunct in testing the range of languages spoken by a n i n t e r r o gatee o r his sophistication in intelligence m a t t e r s , f o r r a p i d scr,eening t o determine b r o a d a r e a s of knowledgeability, and a s an a i d i n the psychological a s s e s s m e n t of s o u r c e s . I t s p r i m a r y function i n a counterintelligence interrogation, however, is t o provide a f u r t h e r m e a n s of testing f o r deception or- withholding. A . r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e suspected of a s s o c i a t i o n with a h o s t i l e clandestine organization should be t e s t e d polygraphidally at l e a s t once. S e v e r a l examinations m a y be needed. As a g e n e r a l r u l e , the polygraph should not be employed a s a m e a s u r e of last r e s o r t . More r e l i a b l e readings will be obtained if t h e i n s t r u m e n t i s used before the subject h a s been placed under i n t e n s e p r e s s u r e , whether such p r e s s u r e is c o e r c i v e o r not. Sufficient information f o r the purpose i s normally available a f t e r s c r e e n i n g and one o r two interrogation s e s s i o n s . Although the polygraph h a s been a valuable a i d , no i n t e r r o g a t o r should f e e l that i t c a n c a r r y h i s respo,r&ibilitv f o r him. -

IJJ kd5 -5

The b e s t r e s u l t s a r e obtained when the CI i n t e r r o g a t o r and t h e polygraph operator work c l o s e l y together i n laying the groundwork f o r technical examination. The o p e r a t o r n e e d s a l l available information about the personality of the s o u r c e , a s w e l l a s the operational background and r e a s o n s f o r suspicion. The CI i n t e r r o g a t o r in t u r n can c o o p e r a t e m o r e effectively and c a n f i t t h e r e s u l t s of technical examination m o r e a c c u r a t e l y into

the totality of his findings if he h a s a basic comprehension of the i n s t r u m e n t and i t s workings. The following discussion i s based upon R. C. Davis' lfPhysiologicalResponses a s a Means of Evaluating Infor mation. " (7) Although improvements appear to be in the offing, the i n s t r u m e n t in widespread use today m e a s u r e s breathing, systolic blood p r e s s u r e , and galvanic skin r e s p o n s e (GSR). "One drawback in the use of r e s p i r a t i o n as a n indicator, " according t o Davis, "is i t s susceptibility to voluntary control. " Moreover, if the s o u r c e "knows that changes in breathing will d i s t u r b all physiologic variables under control of the autonomic division of the nervous s y s t e m , and possibly even some others, a c e r t a i n amount of cooperation o r a c e r t a i n d e g r e e of ignorance is r e q u i r e d f o r l i e detection by physiologic methods to work. " In general, breathing during deception is shallower and the inhibition of breathing slower than in t r u t h telling. s e e m s r a t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of anticipation of a stimulus. "

". . .

'

..

The m e a s u r e m e n t of systolic blood p r e s s u r e provides a . reading on a phenomenon not usually subject t o voluntary control. will typically r i s e by a few m i l l i m e t e r s The p r e s s u r e of m e r c u r y i n r e s p o n s e t o a question, whether it i s answer'ed truthfully o r not. The evidence i s that the r i s e will gene rally be g r e a t e r when (the subject) is lying. " However, discrimina-tion between truth-telling and lying on the b a s i s of both breathing and blood p r e s s u r e i s poor ( a l m o s t nil) in the e a r l y p a r t of the sitting and improves t o a high point l a t e r . ' I

". . .

". . .

The galvanic skin r e s p o n s e is one of the m o s t easily t r i g g e r e d reactions, but r e c o v e r y a f t e r the r e a c t i o n i s slow, i n a routine examination the next question i s likely and 'I. to be introduced before r e c o v e r y i s complete. P a r t l y b e c a u s e of this f a c t t h e r e is an adapting trend in the GSR: with stimuli repeated e v e r y few minutes the response gets s m a l l e r , o t h e r things being equal. "

..

Davis examines t h r e e t h e o r i e s regarding the polygraph. The conditional r e s p o n s e t h e o r y holds that t h e subject r e a c t s to questions that s t r i k e sensitive a r e a s , r e g a r d l e s s of whether he i s telling the t r u t h o r not. Experimentation h a s not sub-

stantiated t h i s theory. The theory of 'conflict p r e s u m e s that a l a r g e physiologic disturbance occurs when the subject i s caught between his habitual inclination to t e l l the truth and his :.. s t r o n g d e s i r e not t o divulge a certain s e t of facts. .Davis suggests'... t h a t if t h i s concept i s valid, it holds only if the conflict is intense. The threat-of -punishment theory maintains that a l a r g e physiologic response accompanies lying because the subject f e a r s the consequence of failing t o deceive. "In common language it might be s a i d that he fails to deceive the machine operator f o r the v e r y r e a s o n that he f e a r s he will fail. The 'fear' would be the v e r y reaction detected. " This third theory is m o r e widely held than the other two. Interrogators should note the inference t h a t a r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e who does not f e a r that detection of lying will r e s u l t i n a punishment of which he is afraid would not, according t o this theory, produce significant responses. Graphology The validity of graphological techniques f o r the analysis of the personalities of r e s i s t a n t interrogatees h a s not been . established. There i s some evidence that graphology i s a useful aid i n fhe e a r l y detection of c a n c e r and of c e r t a i n mental i l l n e s s e s . If the i n t e r r o g a t o r o r his unit decides to have a s o u r c e ' s handwriting analyzed, the s a m p l e s should be submitted t o Headquarters a s soon a s possible, because the analysis is m o r e useful in the preliminary a s s e s s m e n t of the source than in the l a t e r interrogation. Graphology does have the advantage of being one of the v e r y few techniques not requiring the a s s i s t a n c e o r even the a w a r e n e s s of the interrogatee. As with any other aid. the i n t e r r o g a t o r is f r e e t o determine f o r himself whether the a n a l y s i s provides him with new and valid insights, confirms other observations, i s not helpful,. o r is misleading.

-----J.A. 'I'HL

COER G I V E COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION O F RESISTANT SOURCES

A.

Restrictions

The purpose of t h i s p a r t of the handbook is to present b a s i c information about coercive techniques available for use in the interrogation situation. It i s vital that this discussion not be m i s c o n s t r u e d a s constituting authorization f o r the use of c o e r c i o n a t field discretion. As was noted e a r l i e r , t h e r e is no such blanket authorization.

.. .-

5

F o r both ethical and pragmatic reasons no interrogator m a y take upon h h s e l f the unilateral responsibility for using c o e r c i v e methods. Concealing f r o m the interrogator's superiors a n intent to r e s o r t to coercion, o r i t s unapproved employment, does not protect them. It places them, and KUBARK, i n unconsidered jeopardy.

B.

The Theory of Coercion

Coercive procedures a r e designed not only to exploit the r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e ' s i n t e r n a l conflicts and induce h i m to wrestle with himself but a l s o to bring a superior outside f o r c e to b e a r upon the subject's resistance. Non-coercive methods a r e not

likely to succeed if their selection and use is not predicated upon an a c c u r a t e psychological a s s e s s m e n t of the s o u x e . In contrast, the s a m e coercive method may succeed against person6 who a r e v e r y unlike each other, The changes of s u c c e s s r i s e steeply, nevertheless, if the coercive technique i s matched to the sour c e l s personality. Individuals r e a c t differently even t o such seemingly non-discriminatory stimuli as drugs. Moreover, it i s a waste of tirne and energy to apply strong p r e s s u r e s on a hit-or-miss b a s i s if a t a p on the psychological jugular will produce compliance.

A l l coercive techniques a r e designed t o induce r e g r e s s i o n . As HinkLe notes in "The Physiological State of the Interrogation Subject a s i t Affects B r a i n FunctionI1(7), the r e s u l t of e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e s of sufficient intensity i s the l o s s of those defenses , the capacity t o m o s t recently acquired by civilized man: I t , c a r r y out the highest creative activities, t o m e e t new, challenging, and complex situations, to deal with trying i n t e r p e r s o n a l relations, and t o cope with repeated f r u s t r a t i o n s , Relatively s m a l l d e g r e e s of homeostatic derangement, fatigue, pain, s l e e p l o s s , o r anxiety m a y i m p a i r t h e s e functions. " A s a r e s u l t , . "most people who a r e exposed t o coercive procedures will talk and usually r e v e a l s o m e information that they might not have revealed otherwise. 'I

.

-

One subjective reaction often evoked by coercion is a feeling of guilt. Meltzer observes, "In s o m e lengthy i n t e r r o gations, the interrogator may, by virtue of his r o l e as the sole supplier of satisfaction and punishment, a s s u m e the s t a t u r e and importance of a parental figure in the p r i s o n e r ' s feeling and thinking. Although t h e r e m a y be intense h a t r e d f o r the i n t e r r o gator, it is not unusual f o r w a r m feelings a l s o t o develop. This ambivalence i s the basis f o r guilt reactions, and if the i n t e r r o gator nourishes these feelings, the guilt m a y be s t r o n g enough to influence the p r i s o n e r ' s behavior , Guilt m a k e s compliance m o r e likely. I' (7).

...

.. .

F a r b e r s a y s that the response t o coercion typically contains I f . at l e a s t t h r e e important elements: debility, dependency, a&d dread. Prisoners It, have reduced' viability, a r e helplessly dependent c n t h e i r captors f o r the

..

..

s a t i s f a c t ion of t h e i r m a n y basic needs, arid experience the emotional and motivational reactions of intense f e a r and anxiety. Among the / l m e r i c a q POWt. p r e s s u r e d by the Chinese Communists, txe DDD syndrome i n i t s full-blown f o r m constituted a s t a t e of discomfort that was well-nigh intolerable. I ' (11). If the debility-dependency-dread state i s unduly prolonged, however, the a r r e s t e e m a y sink into a defensive apathy f r o m which it i s h a r d t o a r o u s e him,

...

Psychologists and others who w r i t e about physical o r psychological d u r e s s frequently object that under sufficient p r e s s u r e subjects usually yield but that t h e i r ability t o r e c a l l and cormnunicate information accurately is a s impaired as the will to r e s i s t . This pragmatic objection h a s somewhat the s a m e validity f o r a counterintelligence interrogation as f o r any other, But t h e r e is one significant difference. Confession i s a necess a r y prelude to the GI interrogation of a hitherto unresponsive o r concealing s o u r c e , And the u s e of coercive techniques will r a r e l y o r never confuse a n interrogatee s o completely that he does not know whether his own confession i s t r u e o r false. He does not need full m a s t e r y of all his powers of r e s i s t a n c e and d i s c r h i n a t i o n t o know whether he is a spy o r not. Only subjects who have r e a c h e d a point vh e r e they a r e under delusions a r e likely to m a k e f a l s e confessions that they believe. Once a t r u e confession i s obtained, the c l a s s i c cautions apply, The p r e s s u r e s a r e lifted, at l e a s t enough s o that the subject can provide counterintelligence information a s accurately a s pos sible. In fact, the relief granted the subject at this time f i t s neatly into the interrogation plan. He is told that the changed treafrnent i s a r e w a r d f o r truthfulness and an evidence that f r i e n d l y handling will continue a s long a s he cooperates.

-

The profound m o r a l objection t o applying d u r e s s p a s t the point of i r r e v e r s i b l e psychological damage has been stated. Judging the validity of other ethical arguments about coercion exceeds the scope of t h i s paper. What is fully c l e a r , however, is t h a t cont r o l l e d c o e r c i v e manipulation of an i n t e r r ogatee m a y i m p a i r his ability to m a k e fine distinctions but will not a l t e r his ability to a n s w e r c o r r e c t l y such g r o s s questions a s "Are you a Soviet a g e n t ? What i s your assignment now? Who i s your p r e s e n t c a s e officer ?'I

., \

-

When a n interrogator senses that the subject's resistance i s wavering, that his desire t o yield i s growing stronger than his wish to continue his resistance, the time has come t o provide him with the ~ C C E ~ $ S ? ~ Cr2.tFonalization: I a h c e - saving reason o r excuse f o r compliance, Novice interrogators may be tempted t o seize upon the initial yielding triumphantly and to personalize the victory. Such a temptation must be rejected iminediately, An interrogation is not a game played by two people, one to become the winner and the other the Loser. It is simply a method of obtaining correct and useful information, Theref ore the interr ogator should intensify the subject's desire to cease struggling by showing him how he can do s o without seeming t o abandon principle, self-protection, o r other initial causes of resistance. If, instead of pr oviding the right rationalization at the right time, the interrogator seizes gloatingly upon the subject's wavering, opposition will stiffen again,

''\

..,

The following a r e the principal coercive techniques of int e r r ogation: a r r e s t , detention, deprivation of sensory stimuli through solitary confinement o r similar methods, threats and f e a r , debility, pain, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis, narcosis, and induced regression. This section also-discusses the detection of malingering by interrogatees and the provision of appropriate rationalizations f o r capitulating and cooperating, C,

Arrest

The manner and timing of a r r e s t can contribute substantially t o the *err ogator 1s purposes, "What we aim to do i s t o ensure that the manner of a r r e s t achieves, if possible, surprise, and the maximum amount of mental discomfort in order to catch. the . One suspect off balance and t o deprive him of the initiative. should therefore a r r e s t him a t a moment when he least expects it and when his mental and physical resistance is a t its lowest, The ideal time at which t o a r r e s t a person is in the early hours of the morning because surprise i s achieved then, and because a person's resistance physiologically a s well a s psychologically is a t i t s lowest,. ,, If a person cannot be arrested in the early hours,, , then the next best time i s in the evening..

.

..

D.

Detention

If, through the cooperation of a liaison service h r by uniarrangements have been made f o r the confinement lateral &sil of a resistant source, the circumstances of detention a r e a r ranged to enhance within the subject his feelings of being cut off from the laown and the reassuripg, and of being plunged into the strange. Usually his own clothes a r e immediately taken away, because famil'rar clothing reinforces identity and thus the capacity for resistance. (Prisons give close hair cuts and issue prison garb for the same reason. ) If the interrogatee is. especially proud o r neat, it may be useful to give him an outfit ihat is one or two sizes too large and to fail to provide a belt, s o that he must hold his pants up. 1

The point is that man's sense of identity depends upon a conrinuity in his surroundings, habits,. appearance, actions, relations with others, e tc. Detention permits the interrogator to cut through these links and throw the interrogatee back upon his own unaided internal resources. Little is gained Lf confinement merely replaces one routine with another. Prisoners who lead monotonously unvaried lives cease to' care about their utterances, dress, and cleanliness. They become dulled, apathetic, and depressed." (7) And apathy can be a very effective defense against interrogation. Control of the soukce's environment permits the interrogator to

". . .

determine his diet, sleep pattern, and other fundamentals. Manipulating these into irregularities, s o that the subject become s disorientated, is v e r y likely to create feelings - of f e a r and helplessness Hinkle points out, "People who enter prison with attitudes of foreboding, apprehension, and he!.plessnes s generally do l e s s well than those who enter with assurance &d a conviction that they can deal with anything that they may encounter Some people who a r e afraid of losing sleep, o r who do not wish to ; " (7) l o s e sleep, soon succumb to sleep 10ss

:..

.

....

. ..

In short, the prisoner should not be provided a routine to which he can adapt and f r o m which he can draw some comfort-o r a t l e a s t a sense of his own identity. Everyone has read of p r i s o n e r s who were reluctant to leave their cells after prolonged incarceration. Little is known about the duration of confinement calculated to make a subject shift from anxiety, coupled with a d e s i r e for sensory stimuli and human companionship, to a passive, apathetic acceptance of isolation and an ultimate pleasure in this negative state. Undoubtedly the rate of change is determined a l m o s t entirely by the psychological characteristics of the individual, In any event, it is advisable to keep the subjekt upset by constant disruptions of patterns.

.

F o r this reason, it is useful to determine whether the interrogattee has been jailed before, how often, under what circumstances, for how long, and whether he was subjected to e a r l i e r interrogation. Familiarity with confinement and even with isolation reduces the effect.

E i

\

.

Deprivation of Sensory Stimuli

The chief effect of a r r e s t and detention, and particularly of solitary confinement, is to deprive the subject of many or m o s t of the sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and tactile sensations to which he has grown accustomed. John C. Lilly examined eighteen autobiographical accounts written by polar explorers and solitary s e a f a r e r s . He found ' I . , that isolation p e r s e acts on m o s t persona a s a powerful s t r e s s In all cases of survivors of isolation at s e a o r in the polar night, it was the f i r s t exposure which caused

.

....

.....

the g r e a t e s t f e a r s a n d hence the g r e a t e s t danger of giving way to s y m p t o m s ; previous experience i s a powerful aid in going ahead, despite the symptoms. "The symptoms most commonly produced b y isolation a r e superstition, intense love of any other living thing, perceiving inanimate objects as alive, hallucinations, and delus ions. (26) The a p p a r e n t r e a s o n f o r these effects is that a person cut off f r o m e x t e r n a l s t i m u l i t u r n s h i s a w a r e n e s s inward, upon himself, a n d then p r o j e c t s the contents of his own unconscious outwards, s o that h e endows h i s f a c e l e s s environment with his own a t t r i b u t e s , f e a r s , and forgotten memories. Lilly notes, "It is obvious that inner f a c t o r s in the mind tend to be projected outward, that s o m e of the mind's activity which is usually realitybound now b e c o m e s f r e e to turn t o phantasy and ultimately to hallucination a n d delus ion. I'

A n u m b e r of e x p e r i m e n t s conducted a t McGill University, the National Institute of Mental Health, a n d other s i t e s have a t tempted to c o m e as c l o s e as possible to the elimination of s e n s o r y s timuli, o r to m a s k i n g remaining stimuli, chiefly sounds, by a s t r o n g e r but wholly monotonous overlay. The r e s u l t s of 'these experiments have l i t t l e applicability to interrogation because the c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e d i s s i m i l a r . Some of the findings point toward hy-potheses that s e e m - relevant to interrogation, but conditions like those of detention f o r purposes of counterintelligence interrogation have not b e e n duplicated f o r experimentation. A t the National Institute of Mental Health two subjects were suspended with the body and all but the top of the head It. i m m e r s e d in a tank containing slowly flowing water a t 34.5' C (94.5' F). Both subjects wore black-out masks, which enc l o s e d the whole h e a d but allowed breathing and nothing else. The sound l e v e l was e x t r e m e l y low; the subject h e a r d only his own breathing and s o m e f a i n t sounds of water f r o m the piping. Neither subject stayed & the tank longer than t h r e e hours. Both passed quickly f r o m n o r m a l l y d i r e c t e d thinking through a tension resulting f r o m unsatisfied hunger f o r s e n s o r y stimuli and concentration upon the few available s e n s a t i o n s to private r e v e r i e s and fantasies and eventually to visual i m a g e r y somewhat resembling hallucinations.

..

...

-

.

"In our experiments, we notice that after i m m e r s i o n the day apparently i s s t a r t e d over, i. e . , the subject feels a s if he h a s r i s e n f r o m bed afresh; this effect p e r s i s t s , and the subject finds he i s out of step with the clock for the r e s t of the day. "

.

.

Drs. Wexler , Mendelson, Leiderman, and Solomon conducted a somewhat similar experiment on seventeen paid volunteers. These subjects were I t . . .placed i n a tank-type The vents r e s p i r a t o r with a specially built m a t t r e s s . of the r e s p i r a t o r were left open, so that the subject breathed f o r himself. His a r m s and legs were enclosed i n comfortable but rigid cylinders to inhibit movement and tactile contact. The subject l a y on his back and was unable to s e e any p a r t ' of h i s body. The motor of the r e s p i r a t o r was run constantly, producing a dull, repetitive auditory stimulus. The r o o m admitted no natural light, and artificial light was m i n i m a l and constant. I ' (42) Although the established time limit was 36 hours and though a l l physical needs were taken c a r e of, only 6 of the 17 completed the stint. The other eleven soon asked f o r release. F o u r of these terminated the experiment because of anxiety and panic; seven did s o because of physical discomfort. The .results confirmed e a r l i e r findings that (1) the deprivation of sensory stimuli induces s t r e s s ; (2) the s t r e s s becomes unbearable for most subjects; ( 3 ) the subject h a s a growing need f o r physical and social stimuli; and (4) some subjects progressively lose touch with r e a l i t y , focus inwardly, and produce delusions, hallucinations, and other pathological effects.

...

In summarizing some scientific reporting on s e n s o r y and perceptual deprivation, Kubzansky offers the following observations : f

\

"Three studies suggest that the m o r e well-adjusted o r 'normal' the subject i s , the m o r e he i s affected by deprivation of s e n s o r y stimuli. Neurotic and psychotic subjects a r e either comparatively unaffected o r show d e c r e a s e s in anxiety, hallucinations, etc. I ' (7)

'\

..

These findings suggest - but by no m e a n s prove - the following theorie s about solitary confinement and isolation: '

I.

The m o r e complete?y the place of confinement e l i m i n a t e s s e n s o r y stimuli, the m o r e rapidly and deeply will the i n t e r r o g a t e e be affected. Results produced only after weeks o r months of imprisonment in an ordinary cell can be duplicated i n h o u r s o r days i n a cell which has no light ( o r weak a r t i f i c i a l light which never v a r i e s ) , which is sound-procfed, i n which o d o r s a r e eliminated, etc. An environment still m o r e subject t o control, such a s water-tank or iron lung, i s even m o r e effective

.

An e a r l y effect of such an environment is anxiety. How soon i t a p p e a r s and how strong i t i s depends upon t h e psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the individual. 2.

3. The i n t e r r o g a t o r can benefit f r o m the subject's As the i n t e r r o g a t o r becomes linked in the subject's anxiety. mind with the r e w a r d of lessened anxiety, human contact, and meaningful activity, and thus with providing relief for gr,owing discomfort, the questioner a s sumes a benevolent role. (7) 4. The deprivation of stimuli induces r e g r e s s i o n by depriving the -subject's mind of contact with an outer world and t h u s forcing it i n upon itself. At the s a m e t i m e , the calculated provision of stimuli during interrogation tends t o m a k e the = e g r e s s e d subject view the interrogator a s a f a t h e r figure. The r e s u l t , normally, i s a strengthening of the subject's tendencies toward compliance.

F.

T h r e a t s and F e a r

The t h r e a t of coercion usually weakens o r d e s t r o y s r e s i s t a n c e m o r e effectively than coercion itself. The t h r e a t to inflict pain, f o r example, can trigger f e a r s m o r e damaging than t h e immediate sensation of pain. In fact, most people under e stimate t h e i r capacity to withstand pain. The s a m e principle holds f o r other f e a r s : sustained long enough, a strong f e a r of anything vague or unknown induces r e g r e s s i o n ,

-

..

whereas the materialization of the f e a r , the infliction of some f o r m of punishment, is likely to come a s a relief. he subject . ., finds that he can hold out, and his resistances a r e strengthened. ' , ... "3.ngeneral, direct physical brutality c r e a t e s only resentment, hostility, and further defiance. " (18) The effectiveness of a threat depends not only on what s o r t of person the interrogatee i s and whether he believes that his questioner can .and w i l l c a r r y the threat out. but also on the interrogator's reasons for threatening. If the ,interrogator threatens. because he is angry, the subject frequently senses the fear of failure underlying the anger and i s strengthened i n his own resolve t o r e s i s t . Threats delivered coldly a r e m o r e effective than those shouted in rage. It is especially important that a t h r e a t not be uttered i n response t o the interrogatee's own expressions of hostility. These, i f ignored, can induce feelings of guilt, whereas r e t o r t s in kind relieve the subject's feelings. Another r e a s o n why t h r e a t s induce compliance not evoked by the inflection of duress is that the threat grants 'the interrogatee t i m e for compliance. It is not enough that a r e s i s t a n t source should lx placed under the tension of f e a r ; he must also discern an acceptabie escape route. Biderman observes, "Not only can the shame o r guilt of defeat i n the encounter with the interrogator be involved, but also the more fundamental injunction t o protect one's self-autonomy o r A simple defense against t h r e a t s to the self f r o m 1 1 ' the anticipation of being forced t o comply 'is, of course, t o To the extent that comply 'deliberately' or 'voluntarily'. the foregoing interpretation holds, the m o r e intensely motivated the f i t e r r o g a t e g is to r e s i s t , the m o r e intense i s the p r e s s u r e toward e a r l y compliance from such anxieties, for the greater i s the t h r e a t to self-esteem which i s involved in contemplating t h e possibility of being 'forced to' comply " (6) In brief, the threat is like a l l other coercive techniques in being most effective when so used a s to foster r e g r e s s i o n and when joined with a suggested way out of the dilemma, a rationalization acceptable t o the interrogatee.

...

...

f

. .. .

x

The t h r e a t of death has often been 'found t o be worse than useless. It "has the highest position in law a s a defense, but in many 5 i i t e ~ ~ o g a t i osituations n it i s a highly ineffective threat. Many prisoners, in fact, have refused t o yield i n the face of such threats who have subsequently been 'broken' by other procedures. " ( 3 ) The principal r e a s o n i s that the ultimate threat i s likely to induce s h e e r hopelessness if the interrogatee does not believe that i t i s a t r i c k ; he f e e l s that he is a s likely to be condemned a f t e r compliance as before. The threat of death i s also ineffective'when used against hard-headed types who r e a l i z e that silencing them forever would defeat the i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s purpose. If the threat is recognized a s a bluff, it w i l l not only fail but also pave the way t o failure f o r l a t e r coercive r u s e s used by the interrogator.

No r e p o r t of scientific investigation of the effect of debility upon the interrogatee's powers of resistance h a s been discovered. F o r centuries interrogators have employed various methods of inducing physical weakness: prolonged constraint; prolonged exertion; e x t r e m e s of heat, cold, o r m o i s t u r e ; and deprivation o r d r a s t i c reduction of food o r sleep. Apparently the assumption i s that lowering the source ' s physiological resistance w i l l lower his psychological capacity f o r opposition. If this notion were valid, however, it might reasonably be expected that those subjects who a r e physically weakest a t the beginning of an interrogation would be the quickest to capitulate, a concept not supported by experience. The available evidence suggests that resistance i s sapped principally by psychological r a t h e r than physical p r e s s u r e s . The t h r e a t of debility f o r example, a brief deprivation of food - m a y induce much m o r e anxiety than prolonged hunger, which w i l l r e s u l t after a while in apathy and, p e r h a p s , eventual delusions or hallucinations. In b r i e f , i t a p p e a r s probable that the techniques of inducing debility become counter-productive at an e a r l y stage. The discomfort, tension, and r e s t l e s s s e a r c h for an avenue of escape a r e

-

followed by withdrawal symptoms, a turning away f r o m external stimuli, and a sluggish unresponsiveness.

.

. ,

Another objection to the deliberate inducing of debility i s that prolonged exertion, l o s s of sleep, etc. , themselves become patterns t o which the subject adjusts through apathy. The interrogator should use his power over the resistant subject's physical environment t o disrupt patterns of response, not t o c r e a t e them. Meals and sleep granted irregularly, in m o r e than abundance or l e s s than adequacy, the shifts occuring on no discernible time pattern, will normally disorient a n interrogatee and sap h i s will t o r e s i s t m o r e effectively than a sustained deprivation leading t o debility. -

.

H.

Pain

Everyone is aware that people react v e r y differently to pain. The reason, apparently, is not a physical difference in the intensity of the sensation itself. Lawrence E. Hinkle observes, "The sensation of pain s e e m s t o be roughly equal in a l l men, that is to say, a l l people have approximately the same threshold a t which they begin to feel pain, and when carefully graded stimuli a r e applied to them, their estimates of severity a r e Yet.. when men a r e v e r y approximately the same.. highly motivated.. .they have been known t o c a r r y out r a t h e r complex tasks while enduring the most intense pain. " He also states, "In general, it appears that whatever may be the r o l e of the constitutional endowment i n determining the reaction to pain, it is a much l e s s important determinant than is the attitude of the man who experiences the pain. (7)

..

.

The wide range of individual reactions to pain may be partially explicable in t e r n of early conditioning. The person whose f i r s t encounters with pain were frightening and intense may be m o r e violently affected by i t s later i d l i c t i o n than one whose original experiences were mild. Or the r e v e r s e may be t r u e , and the man whose childhood familiarized him with pain may dread

S EA C

T

-:

-

i t l e s s , - and r e a c t l e s s , than one whose d i s t r e s s i s heightened by f e a r of the unknown. The individual r e m a i n s the determinant.

It h a s been plausibly suggested that, whereas pain inflicted on a p e r s o n f r o m outside himself m a y actually foc-ES o r intensify his will t o r e s i s t , his r e s i s t a n c e i s likelier t o be sapped by pain which he s e e m s to inflict upon himself. "In the simple t o r t u r e situation the contest i s one between and he c a n frequently the individual and his tormentor (. endure). When the individual i s told t o stand a t attention f o r long periods, a n intervening factor i s introduced. The immediate s o u r c e of pain i s not the interrogator but the victim himself. The motivational strength of the individual As i s likely t o exhaust i t s e l f in t h i s internal encounter.. long a s the subject r e m a i n s standing, he is attributing to his captor the power t o do something worse t o him, but t h e r e i s actually no showdown of the ability of the interrogator to do so.." (4)

. ..

..

h t e r r o g a t e e s who a r e withholding but who feel qualms of guilt and a s e c r e t d e s i r e t o yield a r e likely t o become intractable if m a d e t o endure pain. The r e a s o n i s that they can then i n t e r p r e t the pain a s punishment and hence a s expiation. T h e r e a r e a l s o p e r s o n s who enjoy pain and i t s anticipation and who will keep back illformation that they might otherwise divulge if they a r e given r e a s o n to expect that withholding will r e s u l t i n the punishment that they want. P e r sons of considerable m o r a l o r intellectual s t a t u r e often find in pain inflicted by o t h e r s a confirmation of the belief that t h e y a r e i n the hands of i n f e r i o r s , and their r e s o l v e not to submit i s strengthened.

-

Intense pain is quite likely to produce f a l s e confessions, concocted a s a m e a n s of escaping f r o m d i s t r e s s . A t i m e consuming delay r e s u l t s , while investigation i s conducted and the a d m i s s i o n s a r e proven untrue. During t h i s r e s p i t e the i n t e r r o g a t e e c a n pull himself together. He m a y even use the t i m e to think up new, m o r e complex "admissions" that take s t i l l longer t o disprove. KUBARK i s especially vulnerable to such t a c t i c s because the interrogation i s conducted for the s a k e of information and not f o r police purposes.

If a n i n t e r r o g a t e e i s caused to suffer pain r a t h e r l a t e in t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o c e s s and a f t e r o t h e r t a c t i c s have ., f a i l e d , h e i s a l m o s t c e r t a i n to conclude that the i n t e r r o g a t o r i s becoming d e s p e r a t e . He may then decide that if h,e c a n j u s t hold out a g a i n s t this final a s s a u l t , he will win the struggle a n d h i s f r e e d o m . And h e i s likely to be right. ~ n t e r r o ~ a t e e s who have withstood pain a r e m o r e difficult to handle by o t h e r . methods. T h e effect h a s been not to r e p r e s s the subject but t o r e s t o r e h i s confidence and maturity. I.

. Heightened

Suggestibility and Hypnosis

In r e c e n t y e a r s a number of hypotheses about hypnosis h a v e been advanced by psychologists and o t h e r s in the guise of p r o v e n p r i n c i p l e s . Among these a r e the f l a t a s s e r t i o n s that a p e r s o n connot b e hypnotized against h i s will; that while hypnotized h e cannot be induced t o divulge information that h e w a n t s urgently t o conceal; and that h e will not undertake, in t r a n c e o r through post-hypnotic suggestion, actions t o which h e would n o r m a l l y have s e r i o u s m o r a l o r ethical objections. If t h e s e a n d r e l a t e d contentions w e r e proven valid, hypnosis would have s c a n t value f o r the i n t e r r o g a t o r . But d e s p i t e the f a c t that hypnosis h a s been a n object of s c i e n t i f i c inquiry f o r a v e r y long t i m e , none of t h e s e t h e o r i e s h a s y e t b e e n t e s t e d adequately. Each of t h e m i s in conflict w i t h s o m e o b s e r v a t i o n s of fact. In any event, an interrogation handbook cannot and need not include a lengthy d i s c u s s i o n of hypnosis. T h e c a s e officer o r i n t e r r o g a t o r needs to know enough about the subject to understand the c i r c u m s t a n c e s under w h i c h h y p n o s i s c a n be a useful tool, so that he can r e q u e s t e x p e r t a s s i s t a n c e appropriately. O p e r a t i o n a l p e r s o n n e l , including i n t e r r o g a t o r s , who chance to have s o m e lay experience o r skill in hypnotism should not t h e m s e l v e s u s e hypnotic techniques f o r interrogation o r o t h e r o p e r a t i o n a l p u r p o s e s . T h e r e a r e two r e a s o n s f o r t h i s position. T h e f i r s t i s that hypnoti.sm used as a n operational tool by a p r a c t i t i o n e r who i s not a psychologist, p s y c h i a t r i s t , o r M. D. can produce i r r e v e r s i b l e psychological d a m a g e . The

.'. .

lay practitioner does not h o w enough to u s e the technique safely. .The second reason i s that an unsuccessful attempt to hypnotize a subject f o r purposes of interrogation, o r a successful attempt not adequately covered by post-hypnotic a m n e s i a o r other protection, can easily lead to l u r i d and e m b a r r a s s i n g publicity o r legal charges.

.

Hypnosis i s frequently called a s t a t e of heightened suggestibility, but the phrase i s a description r a t h e r than a definition. Merton M. Gill a n d M a r g a r e t B r e n m a n s t a t e , "The psychoanalytic theory of hypnosis c l e a r l y implies , where it d a e s not explicitly s t a t e , that hypnosis i s a f o r m inductionbf hypno sisJ of r e g r e s s i o n . " And they add, I t . i s the p r o c e s s of bringing about a r e g r e s s i o n , while the hypnotic state i s the established r e g r e s s i o n . (13) It i s suggested that the interrogator will find t h i s definition the m o s t useful. The problem of overcoming the r e s i s t a n c e of a n uncooperative interrogatee i s essentially a p r o b l e m of inducing r e g r e s s i o n to a level a t which the r e s i s t a n c e can no longer be sustained. Hypnosis i s one way of r e g r e s s i n g people.

..

Martin T . O r n e h a s written a t some length about hypnosis and interrogation. Almost all of h i s conclusions a r e tentatively negative. Concerning the r o l e played by the will o r attitude of the interrogatee, Orne s a y s , "Although the c r u c i a l experiment h a s not yet been done, t h e r e i s little o r no evidence to indicate that t r a n c e can be induced against a p e r s o n ' s wishes." He adds, I ! . . .the actual o c c u r r e n c e of the t r a n c e state i s related t o the wish of the subject to e n t e r hypnosis." And he a l s o o b s e r v e s , .whether a subject will o r will not e n t e r t r a n c e depends upon h i s relationship with the hyponotist r a t h e r than upon the technical procedure of trance induction. These views a r e probably representative of those of many psychologists, but they are not definitive. As Orne could be himself l a t e r points out, the interrogatee given a hypnotic drug with appropriate v e r b a l suggestions to talk about a given topic. Eventually enough of the drug

". .

". . .

would be given to cause a shoxt period of unconsciousness. When the subject wakesn, the interrogator could then r e a d f r o m h i s 'note;' of the hypnotic interview the information. presumably told him. I ' (Orne had previously pointed cz.l.t, *. that this technique requires that the interrogator p o s s e s s significant information about the subject without the subject's knowledge.) "It can readily be s e e n how'this.. .maneuver.. would facilitate the elicitation of information in subsequent interviews. ' I (7) Techniques of inducing t r a n c e in r e s i s t a n t subjects through preliminary administration of so-called silent drugs (drugs which the subject does not know h e has .taken) o r through other non-routine methods of induction a r e s t i l l under investigation. Until m o r e f a c t s a r e known, the question of whether a r e s i s t e r can be hypnotized involuntarily m u s t go unanswered.

.

O.me a l s o holds that even if a r e s i s t e r can be hypnotized, his resistance does not cease. He postulates 'I.. that only in r a r e interrogation subjects would a sufficiently deep trance be obtainable to even attempt to induce the subject to discuss m a t e r i a l which he is unwilling to discuss In the wakLng state. The kind of Lnformation which can be obtained in these r a r e instances is s t i l l a n unanswered question." He adds that it is doubtful that a subject in trance could be made to reveal information which h e wished to safeguard. But h e r e too Orne s e e m s somewhat too cautious o r p e s s h i s t i c . Once an interrogatee is in a hypnotic trance, his understanding of reality becomes subject to manipulation. F o r example, a KUBARK interrogator could tell a suspect double agent in trance that the KGB is conducting the questioning, and thus invert the whole f r a m e of reference. I n other words, Orne i s probably right in holding that m o s t r e c a l c i t r a n t subjects will continue effective resistance as long as the f r a m e of r e f e r e n c e is undisturbed. But once the subject is tricked into believing that h e is talking to friend r a t h e r than foe, o r that divulgLng the truth is the best way to s e r v e h i s own purposes, his r e s i s t a n c e will be replaced by cooperation. The value of hypnotic trance is not that i t permits the interrogator to impose his will but rather that it can be u s e d to convince the interrogatee that there is no valid reason not to be forthcoming.

.

A t h i r d objection r a i s e d by.Orne and o t h e r s i s that m a t e r i a l elicited during t r a n c e i s not reliable. Orne s a y s , . i t h a s been shown that the accuracy of such information.. would not be guaiant-eed since subjects in hypnosis a r e fully capable of lying. ' I Again, the observation i s c o r r e c t ; no known manipulative method g u a r a n t e e s veracity. But if hypnosis i s employed not a s an immediate instrument f o r digging out the truth but r a t h e r a s a way of making the subject want to align himself with h i s i n t e r r o g a t o r s , the objection evaporates.

.

". .

Hypnosis o f f e r s one advantage not inherent in other i n t e r r o g a t i o n techniques o r aids: the post-hypnotic suggestion. Under favorable c i r c u m s t a n c e s it should be possible to a d m i n i s t e r a silent drug to a r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e , persuade h i m a s the d r u g t a k e s effect that he i s slipping into a hypnotic t r a n c e , place h i m under a c t u a l hypnosis a s consciousness i s returning, shift h i s f r a m e of r e f e r e n c e so that h i s reasons f o r r e s i s t a n c e become r e a s o n s f o r cooperating, interrogate h i m , and conclude the s e s s i o n by implanting the suggestion that when he e m e r g e s f r o m t r a n c e h e will not r e m e m b e r anything about what h a s happened. T h i s sketchy outline of possible u s e s of hypnosis 'in the interrogation of r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e s h a s no higher goal than to r e m i n d operational personnel that the technique m a y provide the answer to a p r o b l e m not otherwise soluble. To repeat: hypnosis i s distinctly not a do-it-yourself project. T h e r e f o r e the i n t e r r o g a t o r , b a s e , o r center that i s considering i t s use m u s t anticipate t h e timing sufficiently not only to s e c u r e the obligatory h e a d q u a r t e r s p e r m i s s i o n but also to allow f o r an e x p e r t ' s t r a v e l t i m e and briefing.

J.

Narcosis

J u s t a s the t h r e a t of pain may m o r e effectively induce compliance than i t s infliction, so an interrogatee's mistaken belief that h e h a s been drugged may make h i m a m o r e useful interrogation subject than h e would be under narcosis. Louis A. Gottschalk c i t e s a group of studies a s indicating "that 30 to 50 p e r cent of irrdividuals a r e placebo r e a c t o r s , that i s , respond

with symptomatic relief to taking an inert substance. " . ( 7 ) In the inter rogation situation, moreover, the effectiveness of a placebo may be enhanced because of i t s ability to placate the conscience. The subject's p r i m a r y source of r e s i s t a n c e to confession o r divulgence may be pride, p a t r i o t i s m , p e r s o n a l loyalty to s u p e r i o r s , o r f e a r of retribution if he i s r e t u r n e d to their hands. Under such circumstances h i s n a t u r a l d e s i r e to escape f r o m s t r e s s by complying with the i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s wishes may become decisive if h e i s provided . an acceptable rationalization f o r compliance. "I w a s drugged" i s one o'f the b e s t excuses.

.

.

-

Drugs a r e no more the answer t o the i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s p r a y e r than the polygraph, hypnosis, o r other aids. Studies and r e p o r t s "dealing with the validity of m a t e r i a l extracted indicate that t h e r e i s 1 0 drug f r o m reluctant informants. w h i c h can f o r c e every informant to r e p o r t all the information h e h a s . Not only may the inveterate criminal psychopath l i e under the influence of d r u g s which have been t e s t e d , but the relatively n0rkm.l and well-adjusted individual may a l s o successfully disguise factual data." ( 3 ) Gottschalk r e i n f o r c e s the l a t t e r observation in mentioning an experiment involving d r u g s which indicated that "the m o r e n o r m a l , well-integrated individuals could l i e better than the guilt-ridden, neurotic subjects. (7) .

..

I

Nevertheless, drugs can be effective in overcoming r e s i s t a n c e not dissolved by other techniques. A s h a s already been noted, the so-called silent drug (a pharmacologically potent substance given to a person unaware of i t s administration) can make possible the induction of hypnotic t r a n c e in a previously unwilling subject. Gottschalk s a y s , "The judicious choice of a drug with minimal side effects, i t s matching to the subject's personality, careful gauging of dosage, and a s e n s e of timing. .[make] silent administration a hard-to-equal ally f o r the hypnotist intent on producing self-fulfilling and ine scapable suggestions. the drug effects should prove. compelling to the subject since the perceived sensations originate entirely within himself. ' I (7)

.

,

..

..

P a r t i c u l a r l y important i s the reference to matching the drug to the personality of the interrogatee. The effect of m o s t d r u g s depends m o r e upon the personality of the subject than upon the physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the d r u g s themselves. If the approval of Headquarters h a s been obtained and i i a doctor i s a t hand f o r administration, one of the m o s t important of the i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s functions i s providing the doctor with a full and a c c u r a t e description of the psychological make-up of the i n t e r r o g a t e e , to facilitate the b e s t possible choice of a drug. ,

P e r s o n s burdened with feelings of shame or guilt a r e likely to unburden t h e m s e l v e s when drugged, especially if t h e s e feelings have been reinforced by the interrogator. A n d like the placebo, the drug provides a n excellent rationalization of helple s s n e s s for the interrogatee who w ants to yield but h a s hitherto been unable to violate h i s own values o r loyalties. Like other coercive media, d r u g s may affect the content of what a n interrogatee divulges. Gottschalk notes that c e r t a i n drugs "may give r i s e to psychotic manifestations such a s hallucinations, illusions , delusions, o r disorientation" , so that "the verbal m a t e r i a l obtained cannot always be considered valid." (7) F o r t h i s r e a s o n d r u g s (and the other aids discussed in t h i s section) should not be used persistently to facilitate the interrogative debriefing that follows capitulation. Their function i s to cause capitulation, to aid in the shift f r o m resistance to cooperation. Once t h i s shift h a s been accomplished, coercive techniques should be abandoned both f o r m o r a l reasons and because they a r e unnecessary and even counter-productive. T h i s discussion does not include a l i s t of drugs that have been employed f o r interrogation purposes o r a discussion of their p r o p e r t i e s because these a r e medical considerations within the province of a doctor rather than an interogator

.

.

L

.'.

K.

The Detection of Malingering '.

.

The detection of malingering i s obviously not a n . .interrogation technique , coercive o r o t h e r w i s e . ~ u t ht e h i s t o r y of interrogation i s studded with t h e s t o r i e s of p e r s o n s who have a t t e m p t e d , often successfully, t o evade t h e mounting p r e s s u r e s of interrogation by feigning p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l i l l n e s s . KUBARK i n t e r r o g a t o r s may encounter seemingly s i c k o r i r r a t i o n a l i n t e r r o g a t e e s a t t i m e s a n d p l a c e s which m a k e it difficult o r next-to-impossible t o s u m m o n m e d i c a l o r other professional a s s i s t a n c e . B e c a u s e a f e w t i i s m a y m a k e it p o s s i b l e f o r the i n t e r r o g a t o r t o distinguish between the m a l i n g e r e r and t h e p e r s o n who is genuinely i l l , a n d b e c a u s e both i l l n e s s and m a l i n g e r i n g a r e s o m e t i m e s produced by coercive i n t e r r o g a t i o n , a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n of t h e topic h a s been included h e r e . Most p e r s o n s who feign a mental o r physical i l l n e s s do not b o w enough about it to deceive the well-informed. M a l c o l m L. M e l t z e r s a y s , "The detection of m a l i n g e r i n g depends t o a g r e a t extent o n the s i m u l a t o r ' s f a i l u r e . to understand adequately t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the r o l e h e Often h e p r e s e n t s s y m p t o m s which a r e i s feigning. exceedingly r a r e , existing rnainly in t h e f a n c y of t h e l a y m a n . One such s y m p t o m i s the delusion of misidentification, c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the. .belief that h e i s some powerful o r h i s t o r i c p e r s o n a g e . T h i s s y m p t o m i s v e r y unusual i n t r u e p s y c h o s i s , but is used by a n u m b e r of s i m u l a t o r s . In schizophrenia, the o n s e t tends to be g r a d u a l , d e l u s i o n s do not spring up full-blown over night; i n simulated d i s o r d e r s , the o n s e t i s usually f a s t and delusions m a y be r e a d i l y available. T h e feigned psychosis often contains m a n y contradictory and inconsistent s y m p t o m s , r a r e l y existing tends to go to e x t r e m e s in h i s together. T h e -lingerer p r o t r a y a l of h i s s y m p t o m s ; h e e x a g g e r a t e s , o v e r d r a m a t i z e s , g r i m a c e s , s h o u t s , i s o v e r l y b i z a r r e , and c a l l s a t t e n t i o n to himself in o t h e r w a y s . . .

...

.

.

"Another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the m a l i n g e r e r i s t h a t h e w ill usually s e e k to evade o r postpone examination. A study

,

of the behavior of lie-detector subjects, f o r example, showed t h a t p e r sons l a t e r 'proven guilty1 showed c e r t a i n s i m i l a r i t i e s of behavior. The guilty p e r s o n s w e r e reluctant to take the t e s t , and they t r i e d in v a r i o u s ways to p o s t p e ~ ecr delz? it. They often appeared highly anxious and s o m e t i m e s took a h o s t i l e attitude toward the t e s t and the examiner. Evasive t a c t i c s s o m e t i m e s a p p e a r e d , such as sighing, yawning, . m o v i n g about, a l l of which foil the examiner by obscuring the recording. Before the examination, they f e l t i t n e c e s s a r y to explain why t h e i r r e s p o n s e s might mislead the examiner into thinking they w e r e lying. Thus the p r o c e d u r e of subjecting a s u s p e c t e d - m a l i n g e r e r to a lie-detector t e s t might evoke behavior which would r e i n f o r c e the suspicion of fraud. (7) Meltzer a l s o n o t e s that m a l i n g e r e r s who a r e not professional. psychologists can usually be exposed through Rorschach tests. An important e l e m e n t in malingering is the f r a m e of m i n d of the examiner. A p e r s o n pretending madness awakens i n a professional examiner not only suspicion but a l s o a d e s i r e to expose the f r a u d , w h e r e a s a well p e r s o n who p r e t e n d s to be concealing mental i l l n e s s and who p e r m i t s only a m i n o r symptom o r two to peep through i s m u c h l i k e l i e r to c r e a t e in the expert a d e s i r e to expose t h e hidden sickness.

-

~eltzeo r b s e r v e s that simulated m u t i s m and a m n e s i a can usually be distinguished f r o m the t r u e s t a t e s by n a r c o a n a l y s i s . The r e a s o n , however, i s t h e r e v e r s e of the. popular misconception. Under the influence of appropriate d r u g s the m a l i n g e r e r will p e r s i s t in not speaking o r in not r e m e m b e r i n g , w h e r e a s the symptoms of the genuinely afflicted will t e m p o r a r i l y disappear. Another technique i s to p r e t e n d to take the deception seriously, e x p r e s s g r a v e concern, and t e l l the "patient" that the only remedy f o r h i s i l l n e s s is a s e r i e s of e l e c t r i c shock t r e a t m e n t s o r a f r o n t a l lobotomy.

.

. . . .

i n t e r r o g a t o r a c c e s s to the information he s e e k s , he i s not o r d i n a r i l y concerned with the attitudes of the source. Under s o m e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , however, this pragmatic indifference can be short-sighted. If the interrogatee r e m a i n s semihostile o r r e m o r s e f u l a f t e r a successful interrogation h a s ended, l e s s time may be r e q u i r e d to complete h i s conversion (and conceivably t o c r e a t e an enduring a s s e t ) than might be needed to deal with h i s antagonism if he i s m e r e l y squeezed and forgotten.

.

.

X.

INTERROGATOR'S CHECK LIST

.

.\ .

T h e questions t h a t follow a r e intended as r e m i n d e r s f o r the interrogator and his superiors.

1. Have l o c a l ( f e d e r a l o r o t h e r ) l a w s affecting KUBARK's c o n d u c t of a u n i l a t e r a l o r joint i n t e r r o g a t i o n b e e n c o m p i l e d a n d learned? 2. I f the i n t e r r o g a t e e is to b e held, how long m a y h e b e legally detained?

3 . A r e i n t e r r o g a t i o n s conducted b y o t h e r ODYOKE d e p a r t m e n t s a n d a g e n c i e s with foreign c o u n t e r i n t e l l i g e n c e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s being c o o r d i n a t e d with KUBARK if s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of c h i e f / K u B A ~ KD i r e c t i v e o r ChieffKUBARK D i r e c t i v e ‘? H a s a planned KUBARK i n t e r r o g a t i o n s u b j e c t t o the same p r o v i s i o n s been appropriately coordinated? 4. Have applicable KUBARK r e g u l a t i o n s a n d d i r e c t i v e s b e e n -, t h e r e o b s e r v e d ? T h e s e include l a t e d Chief/ KUBARK Directives, . pertinent , a n d the provisions g o v e r n i n g d u r e s s which a p p e a r in v a r i o u s p a r a g r a p h s of t h i s handbook.

5. Is the prospe,ctive Lnterrogatee a P B P R I M E c i t i z e n ? If so, h a v e the a d d e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n s l i s t e d on v a r i o u s p a r a g r a p h s b e e n duly noted? 1

3

6 . Does the i n t e r r o g a t o r s s e l e c t e d f o r the t a s k m e e t the f o u r c r i t e r i a of (a) adequate training a n d e x p e r i e n c e , (b) g e n u - h e f a m i l i a r i t y with the language to b e used, ( c ) knowledge of t h e g e o g r a p h i c a l / c u l t u r a l a r e a concerned, a n d (d) psychologicdl c o m p r e h e n s i o n of the interrogatee ?

5

- -

..

.A

.-.I ...:-

.-

4

.. .

7. - H a s the prospkctive interrogatee been screened? What

:r

a r e h i s m a j o r psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? Does h e belong to one of the nine m a j o r categories listed in pp. 19-28? Which? '

8. Has all available and pertinent information about the s u b j e c t been a s s e m b l e d and studied?

Is the s o u r c e 1 -, o r will questioning be completed elsewhere? If a t a base o r station, w i l l the interrogator, interrogatee, and facilities be available f o r the t i m e e s t i m a t e d a s n e c e s s a r y to the completion of the .process? Zf h e is to be s e n t to a center, has the approval of the center o r of ~ e a d ~ u a r t ebrese n obtained?

9.

L

..

-

p.'

P5J

*.

...

-

..

....,

.

....

.. . .. ... ..

".:

10. Have all appropriate documents c a r r i e d by the prospective i n t e r r o g a t e e b e e n subjected to technical a n a l y s i s ?

I

Has a check of logical overt s o u r c e s been conducted? I s the interrogation n e c e s s a r y ?

U.

. -. ___ ..

12. Have f i e l d a n d headquarters t r a c e s been run on the potential i n t e r r o g a t e e and persons closely associated with him by .emotional, family, o r b u s i n e s s t i e s ?

.. 13. Has a preliminary a s s e s s m e n t of bona fides been c a r r i e d o u t ? With what r e s u l t s ? 14. If an a d m i s s i o n of p r i o r association w.ith one o r m o r e f o r e i g n intelligence s e r v i c e s o r Communist parties o r fronts has b e e n obtained, have full particulars.been acquired and reported? 15. H a s LCFLUTTER been administered? As e a r l y a s p r a c t i c a b l e ? M o r e tha-n once? When? 16. Is it e s t i m a t e d that the prospective interrogatee is likely to p r o v e cooperative o r r e c a l c i t r a n t ? If r e s i s t a n c e is expected, what is its anticipated source: fear, patriotism, personal considerations, political co nvictions, stubbornness, other 3

S E

. 5 .

.

..:.--.

17, .What is the purpose of the h t e r r o g a t i o n ? 18.

Has an interrogation plan been prepared?

20.

I s a n appropriate setting for interrogation available?

21. Weill the interrogation sessions be r e c o r d e d ? Is the eqiiipment available? Installed? 22, Have arrangements been made .to feed, bed, and guard the subject as n e c e s s a r y ? 23, Does the interrogation plan c a l l f o r m o r e than one int e r r o g a t o r ? If so, have roles been assigned and schedules prepared? 24. Is the interrogational environment fully subject to the i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s manipulation and control? 25. What disposition is plannedfor the interrogatee a f t e r the questioning ends? 26. I s it possible, early in the questioning, to determine the subject's p e r s o n a l response to the interrogator o r i n t e r r o g a t o r s ? What i s t h e interrogator's reaction to the subject? Is t h e r e a n emotional r e a c t i o n strong enough to d i s t o r t r e s u l t s ? If so, can the i n t e r r o g a t o r be replaced? 27. If the s o u r c e is resistant, w i l l noncoercive o r coercive techniques b e u s e d ? What is the reason f o r the choice?

28. Has the subject been interrogated e a r l i e r ? ticated about interrogation techniques? 29.

Is he sophis-

Does the irnpression made by the Lnterrogatee during the

opening-phase of the interrogation confirm or c o d i c t with the preliminary a s s e s s m e n t formed before interrogation started? If there a r e significant differences, what a r e they and how do they affect the plan f o r the remainder of the questioning?

30. During the opening phase, have'the subject's voice, eyes, mouth, gestures, silences, o r other visible clues suggested a r e a s of sensitivity? If 80, on what topics? 31.

Has r a p p o r t been established during the opening phase?

32. Has the opening phase been .followed by a reconnaissance? What a r e the key a r e a s of resistance? What tactics and how much p r e s s u r e will 5e required to overcome the resistance? Should the estimated duration of 'mterrogation be revised? If so, a r e f u r t h e r arrangements n e c e s s a r y f o r cofitinued detention, liaison support, guarding, o r other purposes ? 33. In the view of the interrogator, what is the emotional reaction of the subject to the interrogator? Why? 34. A r e interrogation reports being prepared a f t e r each session, f r o m notes o r tapes ? /

35. What disposition of the interrogatee is to be made a f t e r question'mg ends ? If the subject is suspected of being .a hostile agent and if interrogation has not produced confession, what m e a s u r e s w i l l be taken to ensure that he is not left to operate as before, unhindered and unchecked?

.-

<. -

..

<--,.

..-. .. ..

:.

36. A r e any promises made to the interrogatee unfulfilled when questioning ends ? Is the subject vengeful? Likely to t r y to s t r i k e back? How?

37. If one o r m o r e of the non-coercive techniques discussed on pp. 52-81 have been selected f o r use, how do they match the subject's personality? 38. A r e coercive techniques to be employed? If so, have all field personnel in the interrogator's direct chain of command

..

.-. ;

been-notified?

39.

Have they approved?

H a s p r i o r Headquarters permission been obtained?

41. A s above, f o r confinement. If the interrogatee i s to be confined, c a n KUBARK control h i s environment fully? Can the n o r m a l routines b e disrupted f o r interrogation purposes?

42. -1s solitary confinement t o - b e u s e d ? Why? Does the place of confinement permit the practical elimination of s e n s o r y stimuli? 43. A r e t h r e a t s to b e employed? A s p a r t of a plan? Has the nature of the t h r e a t been matched to that of the i n t e r r o g a t e e ? 44. If hypnosis o r drugs a r e thougtt necessary, h a s Headq u a r t e r s b e e n given enough advance notice ? Has adequate allowance been made f o r t r a v e l time and other prelLmLnaries? 45. I s the interrogatee suspected of malingering? If the interrogator is uncertain, a r e the s e r v i c e s of a n e x p e r t available?

46. A t the conclusion of the 'mterrogation, h a s a comprehensive s u m m a r y r e p o r t been p r e p a r e d ?

49.

Was the interrogation a e u c c e s s ?

50.

A failure? Why?

Why?

'

.

XL

,

.'..

DESCRIPTIVE BIBLIOGRAPEU ,

This bibliography i s selective; most of the books and a r t i c l e s consulted during the preparation of this study have not been included h e r e . T h o s e that have n o r e a l bearing on the counter'mtelligence interrogation of r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e s have been left out. Also omitted a r e some s o u r c e s considered elementary, inferior, o r unsound. I t i s not c l a i m e d that what r e m a i n s is comprehensive a s well as selective, f o r the n u m b e r of published works having some relevance even to the r e s t r i c t e d subject is o v e r a thousand. But It is believed that all the i t e m s l i s t e d h e r e m e r i t reading by KUBARK persomiel concerned with interrogatibn, 1. Anonymous ( 1 , Interrogation, undated. This paper i s a one-hour l e c t u r e on the subject. I t is thoughtful, forthright, a n d b a s e d on extensive experience. I t deals only with interrogation following a r r e s t and detention. Because the scope is n e v e r t h e l e s s broad, the d i s c u s s i o n is b r i s k b u t necessarily l e s s than profound. 2. Barioux, Max, "A Method f o r the Selection, Training, and Evaluation of I n t e r v i e w e r s , Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring 1952, Vol. 16, No. I. This a r t i c l e deals with the problems of interviewers conducting public opinion polls. It i s of only slight value f o r Lnterrogat o r s , although it does suggest pitfalls produced by asking questions that suggest t h e i r own a n s w e r s .

3 . Biderman, A l b e r t D . , A Study f o r Development of Improved Interrogation Techniques: Study SR 177-D (U), S e c r e t , final r e p o r t of Contract A F 18 (600) 1797, Bureau of Social Science R e s e a r c h Lnc., Washington, D. C . , M a r c h 1959. Although this book (207 pages of text) i s principally concerned with lessons derived f r o m the interrogation of A m e r i c a n POW'S by Communist s e r v i c e s and with the problem of r e s i s t i n g interrogation, it a l s o deals with the interrogation of r e s i s t a n t subjects. It h a s the added advantage of incorporating the findings and '

b

' .

views of a number of scholars and specialists in subjects closely r e l a t e d to interrogation. A s the frequency of citation indicates, this book was one of the m o s t useful works consulted; few KUBARK '*. " ., i n t e r r o g a t o r s would fail.to profit f r o m readlng it. I t a l s o contains a descriminating but undescribed bibliography of 343 items.

4. Biderman, Albert D. , "Communist Attempts to E l i c i t F a l s e Confession f r o m A i r F o r c e P r i s o n e r s of War", Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, September 1957, Vol. 33. An excellent a.nalys is of the psychological p r e s s u r e s applied by Chinese Communists to A m e r i c a n POW'S to extract "confessionsll f o r propaganda purposes.

5. Biderman, Albert D., "Communist Techniques of Coercive Interrogationll, A i r Intelligence, July 1955, Vol. 8, No. 7. This s h o r t a r t i c l e does not discuss details. Its subject is closely r e l a t e d to that of item 4 above; but the focus is on interrogation r a t h e r than the elicitation of I'confes sions". Biderman, Albert D. , "Social Psychological Needs a n d ' ~ n v o l u n t a r y 'Behavior a s Illustrated by Compliance in I n t e r r ~ g a t i o n ~ ~ , Sociometry, June 1960, Vol. 23. This interesting a r t i c l e i s directly relevant. I t provides a useful insight into the interaction between interrogator and interrogatee. I t should be compared'with Milton W. Horowitz's "Psychology of Confessionll ( s e e below). '

1

f

6.

7. B iderman, Albert D. and Herbert Z immer, The Manipulation of Human Behavior, John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York and London, 1961. This book of 3 0 4 pages consists of a n introduction by the editors and seven c h a p t e r s by the following specialists: Dr. Lawrence E. Hinkle Jr. , "The Physiological State of the Interrogation Subject a s it Affects B r a i n FunctionI1; Dr. Philip E. Kubzansky, "The Effects of Reduced Environmental Stimulation on Human Behavior: A ReviewH; Dr. Louis A. Gottschalk, "The Use of Drugs in 1nterrogation1l;Dr. R. C . Davis, llPhysiological Responses a s a Means of Evaluating Inforrnation1I (this chapter deals with the polygraph); Dr. Martin T. Orne, !!The Potential Uses of Hypnosis in Interrogation"; D r s . Robert R. Blake and J a n e S. Mouton, "The Experimental Investigation of I n t e r p e r s o n a l Influence"; and Dr. Malcolm L. Meltzer, I1Countermanipulation through Malingering. 11 Despite the editors prelLminary announcement that the book h a s "a particular f r a m e of reference; the interrogation of a n unwilling subject", the s t r e s s is on the listed psychological specialties;

and interrogation g e t s comparitively s h o r t shr.ift. Nevertheless, the KUBARK i n t e r r o g a t o r should read this book, especially the chapters by D r s . Orne and Meltzer. He will find that the book is by scientists f o r s c i e n t i s t s and that the contributions consistently demonstrate too theoretical an understanding of interrogation p e r se. H e will a l s o find that practically no valid experimentation the r e s u l t s of which w e r e unclassified and available to the authors has been conducted under interrogation conditions. Conclusions a r e suggested. a l m o s t invariably, on a b a s i s of extrapolation. B u t the book does contain m u c h useful information, a s frequent references in this study show. The combined bibliographies contain a total of 771 items.

., .

.-..

13. Gill, Merton, Inc., and M a r g a r e t Brenman, Hypnosis and R elated States: Psychoanalytic Studies in Regression, international Universities P r e s s Inc. , New Y ork, 1959. This book is a scholarly and comprehensive examination of hypnosis. The approach is basically Freudian but the a u t h o r s a r e neithe; narrow nor doctrinaire. The book d i s c u s s e s the induction of hypnosis, the hypnotic s t a t e , theories of induction and of the hypnotic condition, the concept of regression- as a b a s i c element in hypnosis, relationships between hypnosis and d m g s , sleep, fugue, etc., and the u s e of hypnosis'in psychotherapy. Interrogators may find the comparison between hypnos is and llbrainwashLngllin chapter 9 m o r e r e l e v a n t than o t h e r parts. ~ h e ' b o o ki s recommended, however, not because it contains any discussion of the employment of hypnosis in interrogation ( i t does not) but . b e c a u s e i t provides the interrogator with sound information about what hypnosis can. and cannot do. 14. Hinkle, Lawrence E. Jr. a n d Harold G , Wolff, llCommunist Interrogation and Indoctrination of Enemies of the State1!, AMA Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, August 1956, Vol. 76, No. 2. This a r t i c l e s u m m a r i z e s the physiological and psychological reactions of A m e r i c a n p r i s o n e r s to Co~llmunistdetention and interrogation. I t m e r i t s reading but not study, chiefly because of the vast differences between-~orrrmunistinterrogati'on of A m e r i c a n POW'S and KUBARK interrogation of known o r suspected personnel of Communist s e r v i c e s o r parties.

15. Horowitz, Milton W. , "Psychology of Confession. I ' J o u r n a l of C r i m i n a l Law, Criminology, and P o l i c e Science, JulyAugust 1956, Vol. 47. The author lists the following p r i n c i p l e s of ., confession: (1)the subject f e e l s accused; (2) h e is confronted b y a u t h o r i t y wielding power g r e a t e r than h i s own; (3) he beli'eves t h a t evidence damaging t o h i m is available t o o r p o s s e s s e d b y the a u t h o r i t y . (4) t h e a c c u s e d is cut off f r o m friendly support: ( 5 ) self-hostility i s g e n e r a t e d ; a n d (6) confession t o authority p r o m i s e s relief. ~ l t h o u ~ h t h e a r t i c l e is e s s e n t i a l l y a speculation r a t h e r than a r e p o r t of v e r i f i e d f a c t s , it m e r i t s close reading. Inbau, F r e d E. and John E. Reid, L i e Detection a n d 16. C r i m i n a l Investigation, Williams and Wilkins Co. , 1953. The f i r s t p a r t of t h i s book c o n s i s t s of a discussion of the ~ - o l.y-g r a- p h . It w i l l b e m o r e useful t o t h e KUBARK i n t e r r o g a t o r than the second, which d e a l s with t h e elements of c r i m i n a l interrogation.

17. KHOKHLOV, Nicolai, In the Name of Conscience, David ,%Kay Co., New York, 1959. This e n t r y is included chiefly b e c a u s e of t h e c i t e d quotation. I t does provide, however, s o m e i n t e r e s t i n g i n s i g h t s into t h e affitudes of a n interrogatee. 18. KUBARK, Communist Control Methods, Appendix 1: "The Use of Scientific Design and Guidance D r u g s and Hypnosis i n C o m m u n i s t Interrogation and Indbctrination P r o c e d u r e s . " S e c r e t , no date. The appendix r e p o r t s a study of whether Communist i n t e r r o g a tion methods included s u c h a i d s a s hypnosis and d r u g s . Although e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n in t h e s e a r e a s i s , o f . c o u r s e , conducted i n C o m m u n i s t c o u n t r i e s , the study found no evidence that s u c h methods a r e u s e d in C o m m u n i s t i n t e r r o g a t i o n s - - o r that they would be n e c e s s a r y . 19. KUBARK (XUSODA), Communist Control Techniques, . S e c r e t , 2 A p r i l 1956. This study i s a n a n a l y s i s of the m e t h o d s u s e d by C o m m u n i s t State police in the a r r e s t , interrogation, a n d indoctrination af p e r s o n s r e g a r d e d a s enemies of the s t a t e . T h i s p a p e r , l i k e o t h e r s which d e a l with Communist interrogation techniques, m a y b e useful t o any KUBARK i n t e r r o g a t o r charged with questioning a f o r m e r m e m b e r of a n ' o r b i t intelligence o r s e c u r i t y s e r v i c e but d o e s not d e a l with i n t e r r o g a t i o n conducted without police powers.

,A

S E "

I

- 20.

KUBm,

S e c r e t , undated.

Hostile Control and I n t e r r o g a t i o n Techniques.

This paper c o n s i s t s of 2 8 p a g e s and two annexes.

It p r o v i d e s c o u n s e l t o KUBARK personnel on how to r e s i s t i n t e r r o g a t i o n c o n d u c t e d by a hostile s e r v i c e . Althclugh it icc?xlas sensible :.. a d v i c e on r e s i s t a n c e , i t does not p r e s e n t a n y new information about th;.%, t h e o r i e s o r p r a c t i c e s of interrogation.

23. Laycock, Keith, "Handwriting- Analysis as 'an A s s e s s merit Aid, " Studies i n Intelligence, Surnmer 1959, Vol; 3, No. 3 . A d e f e n s e of graphology by a n "educated a m a t e u r . " Although the a r t i c l e i's i n t e r e s t i n g , it d o e s not p r e s e n t t e s t e d evidence t h a t the a n a l y s i s of a s u b j e c t ' s handwriting would be a useful aid t o a n i n t e r r o g a t o r . R e c o m m e n d e d , n e v e r t h e l e s s , f o r i n t e r r o g a t o r s u n f a m i l i a r with the subject.? 24. Lefton, R o b e r t J a y , "Chinese C o m m u n i s t 'Thought Reform.': Confession and Reeducation of W e s t e r n Civilians, " B u l l e t i n of the New York Academy of Medicine, S e p t e m b e r 1957, Vol, 33. A sound a r t i c l e about Chicom brainwashing techniques. The i n f o r m a t i o n w a s compiled f r o m first-hand i n t e r v i e w s with p r i s o n e r s who h a d been s u b j e c t e d to the p r o c e s s . Recommended a s background reading.

Levenson, B e r n a r d and Lee'Wiggins, A Guide f o r 25. Intelligence Interviewing of Voluntary F o r e i g n Sources, Official Use M y , Officer Education R e s e a r c h Laboratory, ARDC, Maxwell Air F o r c e B a s e (Technical Memorandum OERL-TM-54-4. ) A good, though generalized, t r e a t i s e on interviewing techniques. As the title shows, the subject is different f r o m that of the p r e s e n t study.

:,

'.. .,

26. Lilly, John C., "Mental Effects of Reduction of Ordinary Levels of P h y s i c a l Stimuli on Intact Healthy P e r s o n s . Psychological R e s e a r c h R e p o r t #5, A m e r i c a n P s y c h i a t r i c Association, 1956. After presenting a s h o r t s u m m a r y of a few autobiographical accounts w r i t t e n about relative isolation a t s e a (in s m a l l Goats) o r polar regions, the author d e s c r i b e s two experiments designed to m a s k o r d r a s t i c a l l y reduce m o s t s e n s o r y stimulation. The effect was t o speed up the r e s u l t s of t h e m o r e u s u a l s o r t of isolation (for example, s o l i t a r y confinement), Delusions and hallucinations, preceded by o t h e r symptoms, appeared a f t e r s h o r t periods. The author does not discuss the possible relevance of his findings t o interrogation. 27, Meerlo, J o o s t A. M., The Rape of the Mind, World P.ublishing Go., Cleveland, 1956, This book's p r i m a r y value f o r the i n t e r r o g a t o r is that it will make him a w a r e of a number of elements i n the r e s p o n s e s of a n i n t e r r o g a t e c which are not directly related to the questions a s k e d o r the interrogation setting but a r e instead the product of ( o r a r e at least influenced by) all questioning that the subject h a s undergone e a r l i e r , especially as a child. F o r many i n t e r r o g a t e e s the i n t e r r o g a t o r becomes, f o r b e t t e r o r w o r s e , the p a r e n t o r authority symbol. Whether. the subject is submissive o r belligerent m a y be d e t e r m i n e d i n p a r t by his childhood relationships with his p a r e n t s . Because t h e same f o r c e s a r e at work i n the interrogator, the i n t e r r o gation m a y b e chiefly a cover f o r a deeper l a y e r of exchange o r conflict between the two. F o r the i n t e r r o g a t o r a p r i m a r y value of this book (and of much r e l a t e d psychological and psychoanalytic work) is t h a t it m a y give him a deeper insight into himself.

28, Maloney', James C l a r k , "Psychic Self- Abandon and %ortion of Confessions, " International Journal of Psychoanalysis, J a n u a r y / F e b r u a r y 1955, Vol. 36. This s h o r t a r t i c l e r e l a t e s the psychological r e l e a s e obtained through confession ( i , e., the s e n s e of well-being following s u r r e n d e r a s a solution to a n otherwise unsolvable

-

conflict) with religious experience generally and s o m e t e n Buddhistic p r a c t i c e s p a r t i c u l a r l y . The i n t e r r o g a t o r will find little h e r e that i s not m o r e helpfully d i s c u s s e d i n other s o u r c e s , including Gill and B r e n m a n ' s Hypnosis and Related States. Marginal. .,

-

Oatis, William N., "Why I Confes'sed, " Life, 21 September 29. 1953, Vol. 35. Of s o m e m a r g i n a l value b e c a u s e i t c p m b i n e s the w r i t e r ' s p r o f e s s i o n of innocence ("I a m not a s p y and n e v e r was") with a n account of how he was brought t o "confess" to espionage within t h r e e d a y s of his a r r e s t . Although Oatis w a s periodically deprived of s l e e p (once f o r 42 h o u r s ) and forced to stand until w e a r y , the C z e c h s obtained the "confession" without t o r t u r e o r s t a r v a t i o n and without sophisticated techniques. Rundquist, E.A., -!!The A s s e s s m e n t of Graphology, I ' 36. Studies i n Intelligence, Secret, S u m m e r 1959, Vol. 3, No. 3. The' a u t h o r concludes that scientific testing of graphology is needed to p e r m i t a n objective a s s e s s m e n t of the c l a i m s m a d e in its behalf. This a r t i c l e should b e r e a d i n conjunction with No. 23, above. 31. Schachter , Stanley, The Psychology of Affiliation: E x p e r i m e n t a l Studies of the Sources of G r e g a r i o u s n e s s , Stanford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Stanford, California, 1959. A r e p o r t of 133 pages, chiefly c o n c e r n e d with e x p e r i m e n t s and s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s p e r f o r m e d at t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota by D r . ~ c h a c h t e rand colleagues. The p r i n c i p a l findings c o n c e r n relationships among anxiety, s t r e n g t h of affiliative t e n d e n c i e s , and the o r d i n a l position (i. e. , r a n k in b i r t h sequence a m o n g siblings). Some tentative conclusions of significance f o r i n t e r r o g a t o r s a r e reached, the following among them:

a. "One of the consequences of isolation a p p e a r s t o be a psychological s t a t e which in i t s e x t r e m e f o r m r e s e m b l e s a full-blown anxiety attack. I ' (p. 12. ) Anxiety i n c r e a s e s the d e s i r e t o be with o t h e r s who b. s h a r e t h e s a m e fe.ar. P e r s o n s who a r e f i r s t - b o r n o r only c h i l d r e n a r e typically m o r e nervous o r afraid than those b o r n l a t e r . F i r s t b o r n s and onlies a r e a l s o "considerably l e s s willing o r able to withstand pain than a r e late r - b o r n c h i l d r e n . I ' (p. 49. ) C.

.

In b r i e f , this book p r e s e n t s hypotheses of i n t e r e s t to i n t e r r o g a t o r s , but much f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed to t e s t validity and applicability. 32. Sheehan, Robert, Police Interview and Interrogations and -:, . t h e P r e p a r a t i o n and Signing of Statements. A 23-page pamphlet, unclassified and undated, that d i s c u s s e . ~some techniques and t r i c k s that can be used in counterintelligence interrogation. The style i s sprightly, but m o s t of the m a t e r i a l i s only slightly related t o KUBARK's interrogation problems. Recommended a s background reading.

H. Schein, "Projective 33, Singer, Marg a r e t Thaler and Edgar T e s t Responses of P r i s o n e r s of W a r Following Repatriation. " Psychiatry, 1958, Vol. 21. T e s t s conducted on American ex-POW1s returned during the Big and Little Switches in Korea showed differences in c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between non-collaborators and c o r r a b o r a t o r s . The l a t t e r showed m o r e typical and humanly responsive reactions to psychological testing than the f o r m e r , who- tended t o be m o r e apathetic and emotionally b a r r e n o r withdrawn, Active r e s i s t e r s , however, often showed a pattern of r e a c t i o n o r responsiveness like that of collaborators. Rorschach t e s t s provided clues, with a good statistical incidence of reliability, f o r differentation between collaborators and non-collaborators. The t e s t s and r e s u l t s d e s c r i b e d a r e worth noting in conjunction with the screening p r o c e d u r e s recommended i n this paper. Sullivan, H a r r y Stack, The Psychiatric Interview, W. W. 34. Norton and Co., New York, 1954. Any interrogator reading this book will be s t r u c k by p a r a l l e l s between the psychiatric interview and the interrogation. The book is a l s o valuable because the author, a p s y c h i a t r i s t of considerable repute, obviously had a deep understanding of the n a t u r e of the inter-personal relationship and of resistance.

-

35. U.S. Army, Office of the Chief of Military History, Russian Methods of Interrogating Captured Personnel in World War 11, Secret, Washington, 1951. A comprehensive t r e a t i s e on Russian intelligence and police s y s t e m s and on the history of Russian t r e a t ment of captives, m i l i t a r y and civilian, during and following World W a r PI. The appendix contains some specific c a s e s u m m a r i e s of physical t o r t u r e by the s e c r e t police. Only a s m a l l p a r t of the book deals with i n t e r rogation. Background reading.

.

,

'%

.-

- ..

-:

36;

U, S. Army, 7707 European Comrnand Intelligence Center, Guide f o r Intelligence Interrogators of ~ a ' s t e r nCases, Secret, April 1958. This specialized study is of some marginal value f o r KUBARK . i n t e r r o g a t o r s dealing with Russians and other Slavs.

. '\

.',

37. U. S. Army, The Army Intelligence School, F o r t Holabird,

Techniques of Interrogation, ~ n s t r u c t o r solder I-6437/A, J a n u a r y t orture, " 1956. This folder consists largely of an article, " ~ i t h o u T by a G e r m a n ex-interrogator, Hans Joachim Scharff. Both the prel i m i n a r y discuss ion and the Scharff a r t i c l e ( f i r s t published -inArgosy, May 1950) a r e exclusively concerned with the. interrogation of P O W Is. Although Scharff claims .that the methods used by G e r m a n Military Intelligence against captured U. S. A i r F o r c e personnel were a l m o s t i r r e s i s t i b l e , the basic technique cons is ted of i m p r e s s ing upon the p r i s o n e r the false conviction that his information was a l r e a d y known to the G e r m a n s in full detail. The success of this method depends upon circumstances that a r e usually lacking in the peacetime interrogation of a staff o r agent member of a hostile intelligence service. T h e a r t i c l e m e r i t s reading, nevertheless, b e c a u s e i t shows and organization. vividly the advantages that result f r o m good &-ing

". . .

,

38. U. S, Army, Counterintelligence Corps, F o r t Holabird, Interrogations, Restricted, 5 September 1952. B a s i c coverage of m i l i t a r y interrogation. Among the subjects d i s c u s s e d ' a r e the interrogation of witnesses, suspects, POW'S, and refugees, a n d the employment of i n t e r p r e t e r s and of the polygraph. Although this text does not concentrate upon the basic problems confronting KUBARK interrogators, it will r e p a y reading.

I \

39. U. S. A m y , Counterintelligence Corps, F o r t Holabird, Investigative Subjects Department, Interrogations, Restricted, 1 May 1950. This 70-page booklet on counterintelligence interrogation is basic, succinct, practical, and sound. R e c o m e n d e d f o r close reading.

I.S

Wellman, F r a n c i s L., The A r t of C r o s s - E m m i n a t i o n , 41. Garden City Publishing Co. (now Doubleday), New York, originally . 1903, 4th edition, 1948. Most of this book is but i n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to . t h e subject of t h i s study; it i s p r i m a r i l y concerned with tripping up w i t n e s s e s a n d i m p r e s s i n g juries Chapter VIII, "Fallacies of Testimony, ' I is w o r t h reading, however, because s o m e of i t s warnings a r e applicable.

...?. .

.I

.

42. Wexler, Donald, J a c k Mendelson, H e r b e r t L e i d e r m a n , and P h i l i p Solomon, "Sensory ~ e ~ r i v a t i o n A. , M. A, A r c h i v e s of Neurology a n d P s y c h i a t r y , 1958, 79, pp. 225;233. This a r t i c l e r e p o r t s a n e x p e r i m e n t designed t o t e s t the r e s u l t s of eliminating m o s t s e n s o r y s t i m u l i and m a s k i n g o t h e r s . P a i d volunteers spent p e r i o d s f r o m 1 hour a n d 38 minutes t o 36 h o u r s in a t a n k - r e s p i r a t o r . The r e s u l t s included inability t o c o n c e n t r a t e effectively, daydreaming and fantasy, illusions., delusions, and hallucinations. The suitability of t h i s p r o c e d u r e as a m e a n s of speeding up the effects of s o l i t a r y confinement upon r e c a l c i t r a n t s u b j e c t s h a s not b e e n considered.

....

;. . .. .-.

-

I

2.

OTHER BIBLIOGRAPHIES

The following bibliographies on interrogation w e r e noted d b r i n g the p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s study. 1. B r a i n w a s h i n g , A Guide to the L i t e r a t u r e , p r e p a r e d by the Society f o r t h e Invesfigation of Human Ecology, I n c . , F o r e s t H i l l s , New York, December 1960. A wide v a r i e t y of m a t e r i a l s i s r e p r e s e n t e d : scholarly and scientific r e p o r t s , g o v e r n m e n t a l a n d organizational r e p o r t s , l e g a l d i s c u s s i o n s , b i o g r a p h i c a l a c c o u n t s , f i c t i o n , journalism, and miscellaneous. T h e n u m b e r of i t e m s in e a c h category i s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , 139, 2 8 , 7 , 75, 10, 14, a n d 19, a total of 418. o n e o r two sentence d e s c r i p t i o n s follow the t i t l e s . T h e s e a r e r e s t r i c t e d t o a n indication of content and do not e x p r e s s value judgements. The f i r s t s e c t i o n c o n t a i n s a n u m b e r of especially useful r e f e r e n c e s . 2. C o m p r e h e n s i v e Bibliography of Interrogation T e c h n i q u e s , P r o c e d u r e s , and E x p e r i e n c e s , A i r Intelligence Information R e p o r t , Unclassified, 10 June 1959. T h i s bibliography of 158 i t e m s dating between 1915 and 1957 c o m p r i s e s "the m o n o g r a p h s on t h i s subject available in the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s a n d a r r a n g e d in alphabetical o r d e r by a u t h o r , o r i n t h e a b s e n c e of a n a u t h o r , by title. " No d e s c r i p t i o n s a r e included, except f o r explanatory sub-titles. T h e m o n o g r a p h s , i n s e v e r a l languages, a r e not categorized. T h i s collection is e x t r e m e l y heterogeneous. Most of the . i t e m s a r e of s c a n t o r p e r i p h e r a l value to the i n t e r r o g a t o r . 3. Inter r o g a t i o n Methods and Technique s , KUPALM, L - 3 , 0 2 4 , 9 4 1 , J u l y 1959, Secret/NOFORN. T h i s bibliography of 114 i t e m s i n c l u d e s r e f e r e n c e s to four categories: books a n d p a m p h l e t s , a r t i c l e s f r o m p e r i o d i c a l s , c l a s s i f i e d documents, a n d m a t e r i a l s f r o m c l a s s i f i e d periodicals. No d e s c r i p t i o n s

(except sub-titles) a r e included. The range i s b r o a d , s o that a number of nearly-irrelevant titles a r e included (e. g . , Employment psychology: the Interview, Interviewing in social r e s e a r c h , and "Phrasing questions; the question of b i a s in interviewing", f r o m Journal of Marketing). 4. Survey of the Literature on Interrogation Techniques, KUSODA, 1 March 1957, Confidential. Although now somewhat dated because of the sigriilicant work done since i t s publication, this bibliography r e m a i n s the best of those l i s t e d . I t groups i t s 114 i t e m s in four categories: Basic Recommended Reading, Recommended Reading, Reading of Limited o r Marginal Value, and Reading of No Value. A brief description of each i t e m i s included. Although some element of subjectivity inevitably tinges these brief, c r i t i c a l a p p r a i s a l s , they a r e judicious; and they a r e a l s o r e a l t i m e - s a v e r s f o r i n t e r r o g a t o r s too busy to plough through the a c r e s of print on the specialty.

INDEX

A

Page

A b n o r m a l i t i e s , spotting of Agents A l i c e in Wonderland technique All-Seeing .Eye technique Anxious, self-centered character Arrests A s s e s s m e n t , definition of

B i - l e v e l functioning of i n t e r r o g a t o r B iographic data Bona f ide s , definition of

C h a r a c t e r w r e c k e d b y s u c c e s s , the C o e r cive i n t e r r o g a t i o n .C onclusion of i n t e r r o g a t i o n Conf e s s ion Confinement

i

i'

Confrontation of s u s p e c t s C o n t r o l , definition of Conversion C oordination of i n t e r r o g a t i o n s C ounterintelligence interrogation, definition of C r o s s-examination

see Termination 38-41, 67, 84 see also Depr ivation of Sensory Stimuli 86-87 47 4 51

7 4-5 58-59

Page Debility Debriefing , definition of Defectors D eprivation of s e n s o r y stimuli D e tailed que stioning Detention of i n t e r r o g a t e e s D i r e c t i v e s governing interrogation D o cument s of d e f e c t o r s Double agent Drugs

Duress

Eliciting, definition of E nvir onment , manipulation of Escapees Espionage Act E x c e p t i o n , t h e , a s psychological type

Fabricators F a l s e confessions F i r s t children

Galvanic skin r e s p o n s e and the polygraph Going Next Door technique Graphology G reedy-demanding c h a r a c t e r

see Narcosis s e e also Coercive Inter rogation

--......

Page Guilt, feelings of Guilt-r idden c h a r a c t e r

Heightened suggestibility and hypnosis

Indicators of emotion, physical Indirect A s s e s s m e n t P r o g r a m I n f o r m e r techniques Intelligence interview, definition of Interpreters Interrogatee s , emotional needs of Interrogation, definition of Interrogation, planning of Interrogation setting I n t e r r o g a t o r , d e s i r a b l e characteristics of I n t e r r o g a t o r ' s check l i s t Isolation Ivan I s A Dope technique

Joint Interrogations Joint i n t e r r o g a t o r s , techniques suitable f o r Joint s u s p e c t s Judging human nature , fallacies about

Khokhlov, Nikolai

.Language considerations

Page LCFLUTTER L e g a l considerations affecting KUBARK CI interrogations Listening p o s t f o r i n t e r r o g a t i o n s Local l a w s , i m p o r t a n c e of

Magic r o o m technique M a l i n g e r i n g , detection of Matching of i n t e r r o g a t i o n method to. s o u r c e M indszenty, Cardinal, interrogation of M u t t a n d Jeff technique

Narcosis N ews f r o m Home technique Nobody L o v e s You technique Non-coercive i n t e r r o g a t i o n

ODENBY , coordination with Only c h i l d r e n Opening the. i n t e r rogation Optimistic character Orderly-obstinate c h a r a c t e r Ordinal position 0 rganization of handbook, explanation of Outer and inner office technique

Pain P a u s e s , significance of PBPRIME c i t i z e n s , i n t e r r o g a t i o n of

Page Penetration agents 1 e r sonality , categories of P e r sonalizing , avoidance of Placebos P lanning the counterintelligence interrogation Police p o w e r s , KUBARK1s lack of Policy considerations affecting KUBARK GI inter rogations P olygraph Post-hypnotic suggestion P robing P rovocateur P urpose of handbook

Rapport, establishment of Rationalization Reconnaissance R ecording of interrogations Refugees Regression

R elationship, i n t e r r o g a t o r - interrogatee Repatriates R e p o r t s of interrogation Resistance of i n t e r r o g a t e e s R e s i s t a n c e to interrogation Respiration r a t e and the polygraph

Schizoid c h a r a c t e r Screening Separation of i n t e r r o g a t e e s Silent d r u g s Spinoza and M o r t i m e r Snerd technique

Page S t r u c t u r e of the interrogation Swindlers Systolic blood p r e s s u r e and the polygraph

Techniques of non-coercive interrogation T e r m i n a t i o n of interrogation T h e o r y of coercive interrogation T h r e a t s and f e a r Timing T r a n s f e r of interrogatee to host service Transferred sources Trauma T raveler s

W alk- i n s Witness techniques Wolf in Sheep's Clothing technique

53-65 18-19 80