• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation Training Manual 1963
 

Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation Training Manual 1963

on

  • 4,038 views

Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation Training Manual 1963...

Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation Training Manual 1963

good interrogator. At best it can help readers to avoid the
characteris'tic mistakes of poor interrogators.
Its purpose is to provide guidelines for KUBARK
interrogation, and particularly the counterintelligence
interrogation of resistant sources. Designed as an aid for
interrogators and others inmediately concerned, it is based
largely upon the published results of extensive research,
including scientific inquiries conducted by specialists in
closely related subjects.
There is nothing mysterious about interrogation. It
consists of no more than obtaining needed information through
responses to questions. As is true of all craftsmen, some
interrogators are more able than others; and some of their
superiority may be innate. But sound interrogation nevertheless
rests upon a knowledge of the subject matter and on certain
broad principles, chiefly psychological, which are not hard
to understand. The success of good interrogators depends in
large measure upon their use, conscious or not, of these
principles and of processes and techniques deriving from them.
Knowledge of subject matter and of the basic principles will
not of itself create a successful interrogation, but it will make
possible the avoidance of mistakes that are characteristic of
poor interrogation. The purpose, then, is not to teach the
reader how to be a good interrogator but rather to tell him
what he must learn in order to become a good interrogator.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
4,038
Views on SlideShare
4,038
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
126
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation Training Manual 1963 Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation Training Manual 1963 Document Transcript

    • 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 11 1. LEGAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS IV. THE INTERROGATOR . V. THE INTERROGATEE . 15-29 A. T y p e s of Sources: Intelligence C a t e g o r i e s 15-19 B. 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 19-28 C. Other Clues 28-29 VI. SCREENING AND OTHER PRELIMINARIES 30-37 A. Screening 30-33 B. Other P r e l i m i n a r y P r o c e d u r e s 33-37 C. Summary : 37 VII. PLANNING THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION 38-51j A. The Nature of Counterintelligence u Interrogation B. The Interrogation P l a n C. , The SpecFfics 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 SourcesM. . 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 103-104X. INTERROGATORS CHECK LISTXI. DESCRIPTIVE BILIOGRAPHYXII. INDEX
    • I. INTRODUCTIONA. 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 echaracteristic mistakes of poor interrogators. I t s purpose is t o provide guidelines f o r KUBARKinterrogation, and particularly the counterintelligenceinterrogation of resistant sources. Designed a s an aid f o rinterrogators and others i n m e d i a t e l y concerned, it is basedlargely 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 inclosely related subjects. There is nothing mysterious about interrogation. Itconsists of no m o r e than obtaining needed information throughresponses to questions. As is t r u e of all craftsmen, someinterrogators a r e m o r e able than others; and some of theirsuperiority m a y be innate. But sound interrogation neverthelessr e s t s upon a knowledge of the subject m a t t e r and on c e r t a i nbroad principles, chiefly psychological, which a r e not h a r dto understand. The success of good interrogators depends inlarge m e a s u r e upon their use, conscious o r not, of theseprinciples 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 lnot of itself c r e a t e a successful interrogation, but it will makepossible the avoidance of mistakes that a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ofpoor interrogation. The purpose, then, is not t o teach ther e a d e r how t o be a good interrogator but r a t h e r to t e l l himwhat 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 oragent m e m b e r of a n Orbit intelligence or security service o r ofa clandestine Communist organization i s one of the most exactingof 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, pztiienceand toughness of t h e interrogatee. In such c i r c u . s t a n c e s thei n t e r r o g a t o r needs all the help that he can get. And a.principa1s o u r c e of a i d today is scientific findkgs. The intelligences e r v i c e which i s able t o bring pertinent, modern knowledge tob 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 ewhich conducts its clandestine business in eighteenth centuryfashion. 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 theyhave conducted scientific inquiries into many subjects that a r ec l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o interrogation: the effects of debility andisolation, t h e polygraph, reactions t o pain and f e a r , hypnosisand heightened suggestibility, narcosis, etc. This work is of sufficient importance and relevance that it i s no longer possiblet o d i s c u s s interrogation significantly without reference t o thepsychological r e s e a r c h conducted in the past decade. F o r t h i sr 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 beenm 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 andi n t e r p r e t a t i o n of psychological findings. The approach of thepsychologists i s customarily manipulative; that is, theysuggest methods of imposing controls o r alterations uponthe i n t e r r o g a t e e f r o m the outside. Except within theCommunist f r a m e of r e f e r e n c e , they have paid l e s s attentiont 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. Moralconsiderations a s i d e , the imposition of external techniquesof manipulating people c a r r i e s with it the grave riskof l a t e rlawsuits, 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. I , IZI, IV, V, and VI) t o plannijng the.counter- I .intelligence interrogation (Part VII) to the CI interrogation ofresistant sources ( P a r t s V m , IX,and X). The definitions,1ega.l considerations, and.discussions of interrogators andsources, a s well a s Section VI on screening and otherpreliminaries, a r e relevant to all kinds of interrogations.Once it is established that the source i s probably a counter-intelligence target (in other words, i s probably a member ofa foreign intelligence or security service, a Communist, o ra p a r t of any other group engaged in clandestine activitydirected against the national security), the interrogation isplanned and conducted accordingly. The CI interrogationtechniques a r e discussed in an order of increasing intensitya s the focus on source r e s i s t a n t e grows sharper. he lastsection, on dos and donts, i s a return t o the broader viewof the opening p a r t s ; a s a check-list, it is placed last solelyfor convenience.
    • I DEFINITIONS L Most of the intelligence terminology employed h e r e whichm a y once have been ambiguous has been clarified through usageo r through KUBARK instructions. F o r t h i s reason definitionshave been omitted for such t e r m s a s burn notice, defector,escapee, and refugee. Other definitions have been includeddespite a csmmon agreement about meaning if the significanceis 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 anduse of psychological as well as biographic detail. 2. Bona fides: evidence o r reliable information aboutidentity, personal (including intelligence) history, and ,intentions or goo d faith. 3 . Control: the capacity t o generate, a l t e r , o r halthuman behavior by implying, citing, o r using physical orpsychological means to ensure compliance with direction.The compliance may be voluntary or involuntary. Control ofan interrogatee can r a r e l y be established without control ofhis envir onrnent. 4, Counterintelligence interrogation: an interrogation( s e e #7) designed t o obtain information about hostileclandestine activities and persons o r groups engaged therein.KUBARK CI interrogations a r e designed, almost invariably,to yield information about foreign intelligence and securityservices or Communist organizations. Because security is anelement of counterintelligence, interrogations conducted toobtain admis sions of clande stine plans o r activities directedagainst KUBARK or PBPRIMX security a r e also CIinterrogations. 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 of Y-- "A m o r e information. 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 i .ormation from cooperative subjects, n£ 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.
    • 1 1 LEGAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 1. The legislation which founded KUBARK specifically denied :it any law-enforcement o r police powers. y e t detention in acontrolled environment and perhaps f o r a lengthy period isfrequently e s s e n t i a l to a successful counterintelligence interro-gation 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. shouldbe 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 ofthe methods employed, Detention poses the m o s t common of the legal problems. KUBARKhas 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 notalways 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 timea s well a s their own methods to m e l t recalcitrance. KUBARK usually
    • -cannot. Accordingly, unless it is considered that the prospectivei n t e r r o g a t e e is cooperative and will remain s o indefinitely, the f i r s ts 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 .. .., Ito this question. The handling and questioning of defectora a r e subject to theprovis ions of Directlvc No. 4: to i t s r e l a t e d Chief/KUBARKDirecttves, p r i n c i p a l l y ~ - Book DispatchL - and to pertinent I . Those cdncerned with theinterrogation of defectors, escapees, refugees, o r r e p a t r i a t e s shouldknow t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s . 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 ; J 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 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-.... . &3-. : - butbecome d i r e c t l y rzlvclrred. Clandestine activity conducted a b r o a d on 3 : .,.behalf of a f o r e i g n power by a private PBPRIME citizen does f a l l withinKUBARKTs investigative a n d interrogative respanslbilities. However,any investigation; interrogation, o r interview of a PBPRIME citizenwhich is conducted a b r o a d because it is known o r suspected that h e i sengaged in clandestine activities directed against PBPRIME s e c u r i t yi 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 ~ dof h i s deputy. 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 othe Espionage Act, making it henceforth possible to prosecute Ln theF e d e r a l C o u r t s a n y PBPRIME citizen who violates the statutes of thisAct i f o r e i g n countries. ODENVY bas requested that it be informed, in nadvance if t i m e p e r m i t s , if any investigative s t e p s a r e undertaken i nt h e s e cases. Since KUBARK employees cannot be witnesses in court,each investigation m u s t b e conducted I such a manner that evidence n C _obtained m a y b e p r o p e r l v introduced If the c a s e comes to trial. - statespolicy and p r o c e d u r e s f o r the conduct of investigations of PBPRIMEcitizens abroad. Interrogations conducted under compulsion o r d u r e s s a r e especiallylfkely 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 eobtained f o r the hterrogation of any s o u r c e a g a i n s t his will and under anyof the following circumstances: 1 . I bodily harm i s to be inflicted. . f 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 be u s e d to induce acquiescence.
    • T h e CI interrogator dealing with an uncooperative interrogateewho h a s b e e n well-briefed by a hostile service on the legal restrictionsunder 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 willnot hold h i m long, that h e need only r e s i s t f o r a while. NikolayKHOKHLOV, f o r example, reported that before he left for Frankfurtam Main on his assassination mission, the following thoughts coursedthrough 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 toOkolovtch. I know I will not b e tortured and that under the proceduresof w e s t e r n law I c a n conduct mys& boldly. (17) /-?he footnote numeralsin this text a r e keyed to the numbered bibliographYat the end.7 Thei n t e r r o g a t o r who encounters expert r e s istance should hot flurriedapd p r e s s ; if he does, h e is likelier to commit Ulegal a c t s which thes 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 hisside, 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 Lnterrogators manners and grooming, and one pre- s 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 common- denominator 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 cpick recognition of leads; (2) r e a l familiarity with the language to be used; (3) extensive background laowledge about the interrogatccs 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 prc- scheduling 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 intro- duced 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 interrogators 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 communi- catlng his body of specialized information to his questioner; hc is concerned with putting his best foot forward. The question upper- most 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 interroga- tion. 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. ) The skilled interrogator can save a great deal of time by under- standing &e emotional needs of the intcrrogatce. Most people con- fronted 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 clearJ - 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 toprovide f a c t s but to prove that the interrogatee is a respectablem 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 shbuldbe, I1How can I make him want to tell m e what he knows?" r a t h e r . .t a "Hour can I t r a p him into disclos ing what.he koows? If the hnper son being ques t i m e d is genuinely hostile f o r ideologicalreasons, techniques of manipulation a r e In order. BU; theassumption of hostility--or a t l e a s t the use of p r e s s u r e .tacticsa t the f i r s t encounter--may make difficult subjects even out ofthose who wcnild respond to recognition of individuality and anLnitial assumption of good will. Another preliminary comment about the interrogator is thatnormally h e should not personalize. That is, h e should not bepleased, flattered, frustrated, goaded, or otherwise emotionallyand personally affected by the interrogation. A calculated displayof feeling employed f o r a specific purpose is a n exception; buteven under these circumstances the interrogator is in full control.The interrogation situation is intensely inter-personal; i t istherefore all the m o r e n e c e s s a r y to strike a counter-balance byan attitude which the subject clearly recognizes as essentially f a i rand objective. The kind of person who cannot help personalizing,who becomes .emotionally involved m the interrogation situation, m a y habe chance (and even spectacular) successes as a n interrogatorbut 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 goodjudge 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 eable to lnake judgements f r o m casual observations regarding thepersonality 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 his that with r e s p e c t to many kinds of judgments, a t l e a s t some judgesp 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 encountersdifficulties when i t s e e k s to determine who makes better judgments. . . . II(3) Tn brief, the interrogator is likelier to overestimate h i s ability . . hto judge o t h e r = + k cts -d-,rest:kzf,e it, especially tl he hzs badl 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 sin 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 snapjudgments based upon the assuinptiqn of b t e skill in judgmgo t h e r s than f r o m holding such judgments in abeyance until enoughfacts a r e h o w n . T h e r e h a s been a good deal of discussionof interrogatione x p e r t s v s . subject-matter experts. Such facts a s a r e availablesuggest that the l a t t e r have a slight advantage. But f o r counter-intelligence 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 tog u a r d duty o r to other supplementary tasks directly ;elated tointerrogation, 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) i a l s o recommended. s Although t h e r e is s o m e limited validity in the view, frequentlye x p r e s s e d in interrogation p r i m c r s , that the interrogation i se s s e n t i a l l y a batfle of wits, the CI Lnterrogator who encounters askilled and r e s istant interrogatee should r e m e m b e r that a wide * ~ h c n t e r r o g a t o r should be supported whenever possible by iqualified analysts1 review of h i s daily I1tdke"; experience h a s shownthat s u c h a review w i l l r a i s e questions to be put and poLnts to beclarified and lead to a thorough coverage of the subject in hand.
    • variety of aids can be made available. in the 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 . .. C .needed information by any author fied means.
    • V. THE INTERROGATEEA. 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 cate- gories, 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. A r e c o r d s check, including local and H e a d q u a r t e r s traces. b. 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 interrogatedat sufficient length t o p e r m i t a t l e a s t a preliminary testing of bonafides . T h e experience of t h e post-war y e a r s h a s demonstrated thatSoviet d e f e c t o r s ( 1 ) a l m o s t ne;er defect solely o r primarily becauseof inducement by a W e s t e r n s e r v i c e , (2) usually leave the USSR f o rp 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 thatt h e Orbit s e r v i c e s a r e well-aware of the advantages offered by thischannel 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. --a r e Agents m o r e frequently debriefed than interrogated. d a s an analytic tool. If it i s then established o r 5strongly suspected that the agent belongs t o one of the followingcategories., further investigation and, eventually, i n t e ~ r o g a t i o nusually 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 pene- t 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 -- But the r e - bona fide$ 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
    • i n t e r r ogatee, d. Swindlers and fabricators a r e usually interrogatedf o r prophylactic r e a s o n s , not for counterintelligence infor-mation. The purpose i s the prevention o r nullification ofd a m a g e t o KUBARK. to other ODYOKE s e r v i c e sSwindlers and f a b r i c a t o r s have little of CI significance tocommunicate but a r e notoriously skillful t i m e w a s t e r s . In-t 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 - prove an exception; but h e will usually give the may 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 beingsi s l a r g e , and m o s t of them a r e of dubious validity. Various cate-g 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 twotypologies m o s t frequently advocated a r e psychologic -emotional andgeographic-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 cemotional-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 anational c h a r a c t e r and sub-national categories, and interrogationguides based on t h i s principle recommend approaches tailored t ogeographical 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 ethat s o m e of the m o s t glaring blunders in interrogation (and otheroperational 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 sbackground. Moreover, emotional-psychological s chematizationssometimes 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 ofpeople commonly encountered by interrogators. Such typologiesa l s o c a u s e disagreement even among professional psychiatristsand psychologists. Interrogators who adopt t h e m and who note inan 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" maymistakenly 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 adoptionof cultural-geographic categories f o r interrogation purposes (how-ever valid they may be as KUCAGE concepts). The pitfalls ofignorance 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. Basic- ally, 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) in- f 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 persons 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. 1. 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. 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--in- tensely 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 him9 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 ofactive rebellion, in childhood, of persistently doing the exactopposite of what h e i s told t o do. As an adult he may have l e a r n e dt o cloak his r e s i s t a n c e and become passive-aggressive, but h i sdetermination t o get his own way i s unaltered. He h a s m e r e l yl e a r n e d how t o proceed indirectly if necessary. The profound f e a rand h a t r e d of authority, persisting since chil&ood, i s often well-concealed i n adulthood. F o r example, such a p e r s o n may confesse a s i l y and quickly under interrogation, even t o a c t s that he did notcommit, in o r d e r t o throw t h e interrogator off t h e t r a i l of a sig-nificant 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-obstinatec 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 andthreatening 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 asubject h i s old anxieties and habitual defense mechanisms. Toattain r a p p o r t , t h e interrogator should be friendly. It will probablyprove rewarding if t h e r o o m and the interrogator look exceptionallyneat. Orderly-obstinate interrogatees often collect coins o r otherobjects a s a hobby; t i m e spent in sharing their i n t e r e s t s m a y thaws o m e of the ice. Establishing rapport is extremely important when . .dealing with t h i s type, 2. T h e optimistic character. This kind of s o u r c e i s a l m o s tconstantly 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 generoust o a fault, giving t o o t h e r s a s he wants to be given to. He may becomean alcoholic o r d r u g addict. He i s not able t o withstand v e r y muchp r e s s u r e ; h e r e a c t s t o a challenge not by increasing his efforts butr a t h e r by running away t o avoid c o d i c t . His convictions that "some-thing will t u r n up " , that "everything will work out all right", i s basedon his need t o avoid his own responsibility for events and depend upona kindly fate. , Such a p e r s o n h a s usually had a great d e a l ofover-indulgencein 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 petu- lant, 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 .--.. A- , ... .. not seek r e d r e s s through his own efforts but t r i e s t o persuade another t o take up the cudgels in his behalf--llletls you and him fight His 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 demand- ing 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 -
    • -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 subjects need f o r security. He i s likely t o find reassuring any manifestation of concern for his well- being. . . 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 sources 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 personis 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 ror circus performer who "provesn himself before crowds, He may a l s obe a Don Juan. He tends t o brag and often lies through hunger f o r approvalor 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 apleasure 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 o intense concealed anxiety a r e too complex and f subtle t o permit discussion o the subject in this paper. f 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~ncommittal replies unless they consume an inordinate amount of time. If operational use is contemplated, recruitment may some- times be effected through such queries as, "1 wonder if you would be willing to undertake a dangerous m i s s i o n " 5. The guilt-ridden character. This kmd 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 some- body else. In either event he seeks constantly some proof o r external indication that the g m of others is greater than his own. He is often u caught up completely in efforts to prove that he has been treated un- justly. 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 order to confess and be punished. Masochists n also belong in this category. The c a ~ e of most guilt complexes a r e r e a l or fancied wrongs s 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 lm.odelllchildren wb o r e p r e s s e d all natural hostilities. 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. Hei 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 informationfrom the screening process (see P a r t YJ) br by the subjects ex-cessive 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 Lfpunished in some way, because of the gratification induced bypunishment. 6. The character wrecked by success is closely relatedto the guilt-ridden character. This sort of person .cannot toleratesuccess and goes ,through life failing a t critical points. H e Lsoften accident-prone. Typically he has a long history of bemgpromising and of almost completing a significant assignment o rachievement but not bringing it off. The character who & m o tstand success enjoys his ambitions as long a s they remain fan-t a s ies but somehow ensures that they w l not be fulfilled in ilreality. Acquaintances often feel that his success is just aroundthe corner, but something always intervenes. In actuality thissomething is a sense of guilt, of the kind described above. Theperson who avoids success has a conscience which forbids thepleasures of accomplishment and recognition. He frequentlyprojects his guilt feelings and feels that all of his failure.s weresomeone elses 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 pros- ,-perity" 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 success-ful interrogator will isolate this a r e a of unreliability. 7. The schizoid or strange character lives in a world offantasy much of the time. Sometimes he s e e m unable to dis-tinguish reality from the realm of his own creating. The r e a lworld seems to him empty and meaningless, in contrast withthe mysteriously s ignificaat world that he has made, H e isextremely intolerant of any frustration that occurs in the outerworld 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 attachsymbolic and private meanings o r values t o other people. I . Children r e a r e d in homes lacking in ordinary affectionand attention or in orphanages o r state-run communes may be-come adults who belong t o this. category. Rebuffed i n e a r l yefforts t o attach t h e m s e l v e s to another, they become distrustfulof attachments and t u r n inward. Any link t o a group o r countrywill be undependable and, as a rule, transitory. .At the samet i m e the schizoid c h a r a c t e r needs external approval. Thoughhe 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 ol i e readily t o win approval. He will t e l l the interrogator whathe thinks the interrogator wants t o hear in order to w i n the awardof seeing a smile on the i n t e r r o g a t o r s face. Because he is notalways capable of distinguishing between fact and fantasy, he maybe unaware of lying. The d e s i r e for approval provides the in- .. - .. .... ...t e r r o g a t o r with a handle. Whereas accusations of lying o r otherindications of d i s e s t e e m w i l l provoke withdrawal from the situationteasing the t r u t h out of the schizoid subject may not prpve difficultif he i s convinced t h a t he will not incur favor through misstatementso r disfavor through telling the truth. Like t h e guilt -ridden c h a r a c t e r , the schizoid characterm a y be a n unreliable subject for testing by LCFLUTTER be-cause 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 hisincapacity 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 greatdeal. He f e e l s that he suffered a gross injustice, usually e a r l yi n life, and should be repaid. Sometimes the injustice was metedout impersonally, by fate, as a physical deformity, an extremelypainful illness o r operation in childhood, or the early 10ss of oneparent o r both. Feeling that these misfortunes were undeserved,the exceptions r e g a r d them a s injtlstices that someone or some-thing m u s t rectify. Therefore they claim a s their right privilegesnot permitted others. When the claim i s ignored or denied, theexceptions 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 andthat 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 d , - rIr l Ar A C ~ I ~ t e exceptions a r e likely t o m a k ed 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 st 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 con-tributions. Any ambiguous r e p l i e s to such demands will be in-t 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 , theexception 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 yKUBARK t o the n e w s p a p e r s o r the c o u r t s . 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 (withinr 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 noc 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 mhostile 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 swho have had m o r e t h a n passing contact with a Sino-Soviets 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 unusuallyr 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 havebeen 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 d p e r a t i o n a l ou 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 haveno 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 naggrievedly a g a i n s t s u p e r i o r s . 9. 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 . C. Other C l u e s
    • The t r u e defector ( a s distinguished f r o m the hostile agent in defectors 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 ultm 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 frrst-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 anxiety- producing 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 subjects "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 SCREENING AND OTHER PRELIMINARIESA; Screening - s o m e l a r g e stations a r eable 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 in-t 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 thei 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 screeningbe conducted whenever personnel and f a c i l i t i e s p e r m i t , unless iti 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 irn-portance 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 thes 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 at r a i n e d psychologist. T e s t s conducted on A m e r i c a n POWS r e -turned t o U. S. jurisdiction in Korea during the Big and LittleSwitch suggest that ~ r o s p e c t i v e n t e r r o g a t e e s who show n o r m a l iemotional 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 el 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 thosewhose 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 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?: than emotions. oa 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 intelligencetests 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 s c o r e d higher on t h e Psychopathic Deviate Scale - pd. .. . However, the 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 Mindszentys 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 ease, 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 screeners manner is friendly and patient. His facial 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 him- self in the subjects position, The more the screener b o w s about the subjects 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 subjects 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 r l 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 sources 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 ef o r m a l s e n s e , i t i s still worth-while to refa ace any important in-t e r r o g a t i o n with an 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 eo 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 ofe 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 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 is usually 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) B. Other P r e l i m i n a r y P r o c e d u r e s - The kCj / 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 us- 3 ually 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 con- ducted. An ounce of investigation m a y be worth a pound of questions. 2. A d i s t i n c t i o n should be drawn a s soon a s possible be- tween s o u r c e s who will be sent to - L 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
    • -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 whichcontact i s f i r s t established. . . 3 . The suggested procedure for arriving a t a preliminarya 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 - .- [(- . ,4 L . --7 i LT 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 ep 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 technicale 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 sa 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 di 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 poseda 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-ini 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. b. 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 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.
    • - 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 , s .those which a r e in any r e s p e c t unusual o r unfamiliar,. a r ec 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 componentf 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 np 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 interrogatedb 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 questionedr e p e a t e d l y and professionally. So a r e p e r s o n s who have beena 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 gin being interrogated become sophisticated s u b j e c t s , able tospot 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 pthe i n t e r r o g a t o r - and h i s b a s e , station, . to d e c i d ew 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 usefulcounterintelligence b e c a u s e of association with a foreigns e r v i c e o r Communist P a r t y and ( 2 ) i s likely t o cooperatevoluntarily o r not. A r m e d with these e s t i m a t e s and withwhatever 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 yof 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.
    • VII . PLANNING THE C O U N T E R I N T E L L I G E N C ~ INTERROGATIONA. 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 mt h e s o u r c e all the useful counterintelligence information thath 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 cooperationt 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 capacityf 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. Thet 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 inP 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 interrogationi 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 oft 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 anda 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 top 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 whent 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 becomepossible 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 sa 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 dynamicsof 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 confessioni 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 sw 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 thatc o n f e s s i o n s obtained without d u r e s s a r e usually the productof the following conditions:
    • 1. - The p e r s o n i s accused explicitly o r implicitly and f e e l saccused. 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 lreality . 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 eground. He does not b o w how much the a c c u s e r knows. A s ar 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 eif 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 sown, h e i s unlikely to f e e l hemmed in and defensive. And ifh 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 thep 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 si n t e r e s t i n g to note that in such situations the a c c u s e d tendst o w a r d over r e s p o n s e , o r exaggerated response; to hostilityand emotional display; to self-righteousne s s , to countera c c u s a t i o n , to defense. ... 1I 5 . He m u s t believe that he i s cut off fr.om f r i e n d l y o rsupporting f o r c e s . If he d o e s , he himself b e c o m e s the onlys 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 nf 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 sself-hostility." It should be equally c l e a r that if the p e r s o nd o e s not f e e l guilt h e i s not in h i s own mind guilty and will notconfess 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 dh 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 comeonly 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 thepath toward confession that it i s easier f o r h i m to keep goingthan to t u r n back. He p e r c e i v e s confession a s the only way outof h i s p r e d i c a m e n t and into freedom. (15) ~ o i o w i t z a s been quoted and summarized a t some length hb e c a u s e it i s considered t h a t the foregoing i s a basically soundaccount of the p r o c e s s e s that evoke confessions f r o m s o u r c e sw h o s e r e s i s t a n c e i s not strong a t the outset, who have notpreviously-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 rs 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 rdisaffected Communist o r agent, for example, might be broughtto confession and cooperation without the use of any externalcoercive 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 bothsituation and p r o c e s s , does of itself exert significant externalp 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 permittedto a c c u s t o m himself to it. Some psychologists t r a c e this effectback to infantile relationships. Meerlo, f o r example, s a y s thate v e r y v e r b a l relationship r e p e a t s to some degree theof 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 interrogatora s a p a r e n t o r parent-symbol, an object of suspicion andr e s i s t a n c e o r of submissive acceptance. I£ the interrogatori s unaware of t h i s unconcsious p r o c e s s , the r e s u l t can be aconfused battle of submerged attitudes, in which the spokenw 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 strugglebeing waged at lower l e v e l s of both personalities. On theo 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 sand who b o w s how to t u r n t h e m to h i s advantage may not needto 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 directlyf r o m the interrogation setting and function. Obviously, many r e s i s t a n t subjects of counterintelligenceinterrogation cannot be brought to cooperation, o r even tocompliance, 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 theinterrogation situation. Manipulative techniques - still keyedto the individual but brought to b e a r upon h i m f r o m outsidehimself - then become n e c e s s a r y . It i s a fundamentalhypothesis of t h i s handbook that these techniques, which cansucceed 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 em e t h o d s of inducing r e g r e s s i o n of the personality to what-e v e r e a r l i e r and weaker level i s required f o r the dissolutionof r e s i s t a n c e and the inculcation of dependence. All of thetechniques employed to b r e a k through a n interrogationroadblock,. the e n t i r e s p e c t r u m f r o m simple isolation tohypnosis and n a r c o s i s , a r e essentially ways of speeding upthe p r o c e s s of r e g r e s s i o n . As t h e interrogatee slips backf 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 dchronological 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 recentlyacquired - 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 bythe 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. AsGill 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 al o s s of autonomy. (13) Another key to the successful interrogation of the r e s i s t i n gs o u r c e i s the provision of a n acceptable rationalization f o ryielding. 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 lthe 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 wantingsimultaneously to conceal and to divulge. To escape themounting tension, the s o u r c e may g r a s p a t any face-savingr e a s o n f o r compliance - any explanation which will placateboth h i s own conscience and the possible w r a t h of f o r m e rs 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 Communistcontrol. 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 providethe right rationalization a t the right time. H e r e too theimportance of understanding the interrogatee i s evident; theright rationalization m u s t be an excuse o r r e a s o n that i stailored to the s o u r c e s personality. The interrogation p r o c e s s i s a continuum,. and everythingthat t a k e s place in the continuum influences all subsequentevents. 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 counterintelligencei 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 unfruitfula 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 sf 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 andi 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 ss 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 haveb 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 sl 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 thes 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 ea 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 mA 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 dm u s t be planned f r o m A to F o r A to M. T h e chances off a i l u r e in an unplanned CI interrogation a r e unacceptablyhigh. E v e n w o r s e , a "dash-on-regardless" approach c a nr 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 eused 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 ofs o m e significance. The plan f o r the i n t e r r o g a t i o n of at 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 examinationof 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 . Hei 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 andf 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 beene 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 yi n f o r m a t i o n , * f h i s account of h i s background i s f r e e of io 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 ro 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 informationw 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 tl 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 usuallycome f r o m an ODYOKE intelligencecomponent. 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 andexploitation should be calculated a t the o u t s e t , with a f a i rr 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 theintelligence community. The m o s t significant s i n g l e f a c t to b ekept 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 si 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 controlleda 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 ) KUBARKs l a c k of executive power s i s e s p e c i a l l y significantif 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 subjectwho 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 lr 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 ar 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 lthe 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 yin mind what he wants to l e a r n , why he thinks the source h a s theinformation, 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 ethat the purpose will take shape a f t e r the interrogation i s underway, 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 rinvestigation 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 sestimated. I t i s useful to recognize in advance whether theinformation d e s i r e d would be threatening o r damaging in anyway 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 rshould consider whether the s a m e information, o r confirmationof i t , can be gained f r o m another source. Questioning s u s p e c t simmediately, on a f l i m s y factual b a s i s , will .usually cause~ t of e i m e , not save it. On the other hand, if the needed tinformation i s not sensitive f r o m the subjects viewpoint,
    • m e r e l y asking f o r i t i s usually preferable to trying to t r i c kh i m into a d m i s s i o n s and thus creating an unnecessary battleof wits. The p r e l i m i n a r y psychological analysis of the subjectm 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 thath 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 thenon-cooperative n a t u r e of orderly-obstinate and relatedtypes. The choice of methods to be used in overcomingr 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 theinterrogatee. 3. T h e Interrogation Setting T h e r o o m i n which the interrogation i s to be conductedshould 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 bem 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 kdepends not upon the i n t e r r o g a t o r s convenience but r a t h e r uponthe subject1s anticipated r e a c t i o n to connotations of superiorityand officialdom. A p l a i n table m a y be preferable. An over-s t d f e d chair f o r t h e use of the interrogatee i s sometimesp r e f e r a b l e t o a straight-backed, wooden chair because if hei s made t o stand f o r a lengthy period o r i s otherwise deprivedof 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 ddisorientation r e s u l t s . Some t r e a t i s e s on interrogation a r eemphatic 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 effectupon a cooperative s o u r c e i s inhibitory, and the effect upona 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 personalityof the i n t e r r o g a t e e . Good planning will prevent interruptions. If ther 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 thedoor when questioning i s under way. The effect of someonewandering 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 nt 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 tor 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 . ., -. LU LUG - .. L U "link "- "L - U U L Y-: C ; - 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 rphotographing 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 byconcealing 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 ns i t e , it should be studied carefully to be s u r e t h a t the t o t a lenvironment 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 tt 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 . ifneeded. 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 ei 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 texperienced 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 beingsaddled 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 onw 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 dowhile talking o r l i s t e n i n g . Another r e a s o n f o r avoiding note-taking 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 th e i s not talking f o r t h e r e c o r d . Another advantage of t h e tapei s that itcan 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 ofadrnis 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 behindthe 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. projecthimself 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 subjects 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 is 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 mt cooperative s o u r c e s have been assembled. 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.4 - 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 sourceh 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 inon-Communist s e r v i c e s a r e bothered a t t i m e s by disgruntlede 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 hostileaction 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 localpolice. The f o r m e r interrogatee i s especially likely to be af u t u r e trouble-maker if during inter rogation he was subjectedto a f o r m of compulsion imposed f r o m outside himself. T i m es p e n t , a f t e r the interrogation ends, in fortifying the s o u r c e ss e n s e of acceptance i n the interrogators world may be only af 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 gainrevenge. M o r e o v e r , conversion may c r e a t e a useful andenduring a s s e t . (See a l s o r e m a r k s in VIII B 4 . )
    • VIII. T H E NON-COERCIVE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION A. 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 out- s 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 gen- e 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 subjects 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 environ- - ment of the s o u r c e . "(3) He exercisesthe 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 rp 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 confine-m 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 unexpectedwalk i n the woods. Experiencing relief and exhilaration, t h e s u b j e c twill usually find it impossible not t o respond t o innocuous c o m m e n t son t h e w e a t h e r and t h e flowers. These a r e expanded t o includer 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 beenestablished. Both t h e G e r m a n s and the Chinese have used t h i s t r i c keffectively.. 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 nwhich 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 e c a u s e of t h e s e a n d other advantages, ". - .-- - LB. 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 econclusion- 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 signifi- cant 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 - 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 " i. e , by e a r l y 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 cooperationwith the i n t e r r o g a t o r will have consequences more painfulf o r him than the r e s u l t s of non-cooperation. The fourth isideological r e s i s t a n c e . The source has identified himselfwith a c a u s e , a political movement o r organization, o r anopposition i ~ t e l l i g e n c eservice. Regardless of his attitudetoward the i n t e r r o g a t o r , h i s own personality, and his f e a r sf o r the i u t u r e , the person who i s deeply devoted to a hostilec a u s e will ordinarily prove strongly r e s i s t a n t under interroga-tion. A principal goal during the opening phase i s to c o n f i r mthe personality a s s e s s m e n t obtained through screening a n d t oallow the i n t e r r o g a t o r t o gain a deeper understanding of thesource 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 sf r o m the purposes of the interrogation and r e v e r t s to p e r s o n a lconcerns. Significant f a c t s not produced during s c r e e n i n g m a ybe 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. Ands o m e t i m e s seemingly rambling monologues about p e r s o n a lm a t t e r s a r e preludes t o significant admissions. Some peoplecannot bring themselves t o provide information thatputs themin a n unfavorable light until, through a lengthy prefatory rationalization, they f e e l that they have s e t the stage, that thei 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 awaste 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 - He will be offended and may become why. wholly uncooperative if faced with insistent demands f o r the naked what. There is another advantage in l e t t i ~ g the subject t a l kf 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 beingscommunicate a g r e a t deal by non-verbal means. Skilledi 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 na 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 evoice projects tension, f e a r , a dislike of c e r t a i n topics, andother useful pieces of information. It is a l s o helpful to watch :,the subjects mouth, which i s as a rule much more, revealingthan h i s eyes. Gestures and postures a l s o t e l l a s t o r y ; Ifa subject normally gesticulates broadly at t i m e s and is atother t i m e s physically relaxed but at s o m e point sits stifflymotionless, his posture is likely to be t h e physical i m a g e ofhis m e n t a l tension. The ioterrogator should make a m e n t a lnote of the topic that caused such a reaction. One textbook on interrogation lists the following physicalindicators of emotions and recommends that i n t e r r o g a t o r snote 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 stalking about a subject of consequence t o himself, he goe s througha p r o c e s s of advance self-monitoring, performed at lightningspeed. T h i s self-monitoring is m o r e intense if the p e r s o n i stalking t o a s t r a n g e r and especially intense if he is answeringthe s t r a n g e r s questions. Its purpose is t o keep f r o m thequestioner any guilty information o r information that would bedamaging to the s p e a k e r s self-esteem. When questions o ra n s w e r s get close t o sensitive a r e a s , the pre-scanning islikely to c r e a t e m e n t a l blocks. These in turn produce unnaturalpauses, meaningless sounds designed t o give the s p e a k e r m o r etime, o r other interruptions. It is not e a s y to distinguishbetween 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 principalpurpose of the opening phase of the interrogation. Sometimesthe 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 theprobability of r e s i s t a n c e is established without screening:detected hostile agents, for example, usually have not onlythe will t o r e s i s t but also the means, through a cover s t o r y o rother explanation. But the anticipation of withholding i n c r e a s e sr 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 withholdinformation 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 -i .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 confrontedwith initial hostility, o r i n any other way confirm s u c hnegative attitudes as he may encounter at the outset. Duringthis f i r s t phase his attitude should r e m a i n business-like buta 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-sos a r e a f t e r , and I can t e l l you right now thatyoure not going t o get it f r o m m e " a r e b e s t handled by a nunperturbed "Why dont 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 rlanguage 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 subjects 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 hew 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 howlong it t a k e s to establish r a p p o r t o r t o determine that volun-t 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 ro seconds, o r it m a y be a drawn-out, up-hill battle. Even fthough the c o s t i n time and patience is sometimes high, theeffort t o make the subject f e e l that his questioner is asympathetic figure should not be abandoned until all reasonabler 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 ethat the interrogation will not produce optimum r e s u l t s . Inf 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 shouldnot 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 substi- tution of the interrogation world f o r the world outside. In
    • -other words, a s the sights and sounds of an outside world fadeaway, i t s significance f o r the interrogatee tends to do like-wise. That world is replaced by the interrogation room, i t stwo occupants, and the dynamic relationship between them, ., .As interrogation goes on, the subject tends increasingly t odivulge 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 interruptionsi 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 ac 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. Theself-esteem of the interrogatee and of the interrogator becomesinvolved, and the interrogatee fights t o keep his s e c r e t s f r o mhis opponent f o r subjective reasons, because he is g r i m l ydetermined not t o be the l o s e r , the inferior. If on the o t h e rhand the interrogator establishes rapport, the subject m a ywithhold because of other reasons, but his resistance oftenl a c k s the bitter, last-ditch intensity that r e s u l t s if the contestbecomes 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 openingphase 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 mana liar will m e r e l y intensify resistance. It i s better to leavean avenue o escape, a loophole which permits the s o u r c e to fc 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, toconfront the interrogatee w i t h proof of lying, the followingr e l a t e d advice about legal cross-examination may provehelpful . "Much depends upon the sequence in which one conductsthe cross-examination df a dishonest witness. You shouldnever hazard the important question until you have laid thefoundation f o r it in such a way that, when confronted with t h efact, 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 sof 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=, ia your possession a l e t t e y - w r i t t e n fizv9by the witness, i n which he taJses a n opposite position on somepart of the c a s e t o the one he has just sworn to, avoid thecommon e r r o r of showing the witness the l e t t e r f o r identifica-tion, and then reading it t o him with the inquiry, What haveyou 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 ewitness will be collecting his thoughts and getting r e a d y hisexplanations i n anticipation of the question t h a t is t o follow,and the effect of the damaging l e t t e r will be lost.. .. Thec 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 readit 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 ifr a p p o r t is established during the opening phase and the s o u r c eb 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 explora-tion is n e c e s s a r y . Assumptions have normally been madea 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 toconceal. Or t h e assumption m a y be that he had knowledge ofs 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 ofthe 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 questioningn e a r s the m a r k . The s a f e r the topic, the m o r e voluble thesource. But as the questions make him increasingly un-comfortaSle, "he interrogatee becomes l e s s communicativeo r perhaps even hostile. During the opening phase thei 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 sensi-tivity until he has determined the location of each and theintensity of the defenses. If resistance is slight, m e r ep e r s i s t e n c e may overcome it; and de,tailed questioning m a yfollow immediately. But if resistance is strong, a new topicshould be introduced, and detailed questioning r e s e r v e d f o r thet h i r d stage. Two dangers a r e especially likely to appear during thereconnaissance. U p to this point the interrogator h a s notcontinued 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 topersonalize the conflict. The interrogator should r e s i s t thistendency. I he succumbs t o it, and becomes engaged in a fbattle of wits, he may not be able t o accomplish the t a s k athand, The second temptation to avoid i s the natural inclinationt 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 rt 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 thereconnaissance is t o determine the kind and degree of p r e s s u r ethat will be needed in the third stage. The i n t e r r o g a t o r shouldr e s e r v e h i s fire-power until he knows what h e is up-against.3. The Detailed Questioning a. If r a p p o r t is established and if the interrogatee 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 ofinformation that h a s little o r no intelligence value andonly a s m a l l collection of nuggets. He will naturallytend 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 ,-. . L ". ,should not show quick impatience, but neither should heallow the r e s u l t s t o get out of focus. The determinantr e m a i n s what we need, not what the interrogatee c a nm o s t readily provide. 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 yeffort t o keep the subject from learning through theinterrogation proces s precisely where our informationalgaps lie. This principle i s especially important if t h ei n t e r r o g a t e e i s following his n o r m a l life, going homee a c h evening and appearing only once o r twice a week f o rquestioning, o r if his bona fides r e m a i n s i n doubt. Undera l m o s t all circumstances, however, a c l e a r revelationof o u r i n t e r e s t s and knowledge should be avoided. Itis usually a poor practice to-hand to even the m o s tcooperative interrogatee an orderly list of questions anda s k him t o write t h e answers. h his s t r i c t u r e does notapply t o t h e writing of autobiographies o r on informa-tional 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 nointelligence 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 . 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
    • - I is a l s o a good expedient to have the i n t e r r o g a t e e tmake notes of topics that should be covered, which o c c u rt 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 rfixes it i n the i n t e r r o g a t e e 1 s mind. Usually topicspopping up i n the c o u r s e of an interrogation a r e forgottenif not noted; they tend t o disrupt the interrogation plani c o v e r e d by way of digression on the spot. f Debriefing questions should usually be, couched toprovoke a positive answer and should be specific. Thequestioner should not accept a blanket negative withoutprobing. F o r example, the question "Do you know any-thing about P l a n t X ? " is likelier to d r a w a negativea n s w e r then "Do you have any f r i e n d s who work at PlantX ? 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 sknowledge of any topic was acquired at f i r s t hand, l e a r n e dindirectly, o r r e p r e s e n t s m e r e l y a n assumption. If theinformation was obtained indirectly, t h e identities ofsub-sources and related information about the channel a r eneeded. If s t a t e m e n t s r e s t on assumptions, the f a c t supon which the conclusions a r e based a r e n e c e s s a r y toevaluation. As detailed que stioning proceeds, additionalbiographic data will be revealed. Such i t e m s should b ee 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 referablenot t o diverge f r o m a n impersonal topic i n o r d e r t ofollow a biographic lead. Such leads c a n be taken upl a t e r unless they raise new doubts about bona fides. As detailed interrogation continues , and c speciallya 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 completethe t a s k m a y c a u s e him to be increasingly business-likeo r even brusque. He m a y tend to c u r t a i l o r drop t h eu s u a l i n q u i r i e s about the subject s well-being w i t h whichhe 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 thea t s k or getting a t what he knows. But if rapport has beenestablbhed, the interrogatee w i l l be quick to sense andr e s e n t t h b change of attitude. This point is particularlyimportant tf the interrogatee is a defector faced withbewilderhg changes and in a highly emotional state.Any interrogatee has his ups and downs, times when he ist i r e d o r half-ill, times when his p ~ r s o n a problems have ll e f t his nerves frayed. The peculiar intimacy of theinterrogation situation and the very fact that the interro-gator h a s deliberately fostered rapport will d t e n leadthe subject to t l about his doubts, f e a r s , and other akp e r s o n a l reactions. The interrogator should neither cutoff thb flow abruptly nor show impatience unless it takesup an inordinate amount of time o r unless it seems likelythat all the talklag about personal m a t t e r s is being useddeliberately as a smoke s c r e e n to keep the interrogatorf 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 thep r o c e s s he should feel that the interrogators interest inhim has remained constant. Unless the interi.ogation is soon over, the interrogatees attitude toward his ques- tioner ts not likely to remain constant. He will feel more a n d m o r e drawn to the questioner o r increasingly antago- nistic. 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 usefulcounterintelligence information h a s been obtained; (2)diminishing r e t u r n s and m o r e pressing commitmentscompel a cessation; o r (3) the base, station,a d m i t s f u l l o r partLdl defeat. Termbation for any reasonother than the f i r s t is only temporary. I t is a profoundmistdke to write off a successfully resistant interrogateeo 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 k .. interrupted, f o r years--but it has not been completed,4. The Conclusion The end of an interrogation 1s not the end of the interro-gators responsibilities. F r o m the beginning of planning tothe end of .questioning it has been necessary to understand andguard a g a i m t the various troubles that a vengeful ex-sourcecan cause. As was pointed out earlier, KUBARK1s lack ofexecutive authority abroad and its operational need f o r face-l e s s n e s s make it peculiarly vulnerable to attack in the courtsor the press. The best defense against such attacks is pre-vention, through enlistment or enfor cement of compliance.However r e a l cooperation is achieved, its existence s e e m s toa c t as a deterrent to l a t e r hostility. The initially r e s i s t a n tsubject may become cooperative because of a partial identi-fication with the interrogator and his interesta, o r the s o u r c emay make such an identification because of his cooperation.In either event, he is unlikely to cause serious trouble in thefuture. Real difficulties a r e more frequently created byinterrogatees who have succeeded in withholding. The-followhg steps a r e normally a routine p a r t of theconclusion:
    • 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 duringthe opening o r reconnaissance phases of the interrogation, non-coercive methods of sapping opposition and strengthening the tendencyto yield and t o cooperate may be applied. Although these methodsappear h e r e in an approximate o r d e r of increasing p r e s s u r e , i tshould 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 thelock. 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 ofthe 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 ethe 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 etechniques and governs the choice of these methods. I£ i n theopinion 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 land determination t o withstand any non-c oercive method o r combina-tion of methods, it is b e t t e r to avoid them completely. The effectiveness of most of the non-coercive techniques dependsupon t h e i r unsettling effect. The interrogation situation is i n itselfdisturbing t o most people encountering it for the f i r s t time. The a i mi 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 isachieved, 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 ofpsychological 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 thatis 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 thatworld. 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 opent 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 sc 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 o feelings fof guilt. Most p e r s o n s have a r e a s of guilt in t h e i r emotionaltopographies, 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 justby 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 thes 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 tof intensification of guilt feelings. Making a p e r s o n feel -re andm 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 ocooperate 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 personalityof the individual i n t e r r o g a t e e , a n d t h e i r effectiveness is intensifiedby good timing and r a p i d exploitation of the moment of shock. (Afew 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 ~h e information needed f r o m a r e c a l c i - t~ 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 informa-tion 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 someof the denouncers m a y have been biased o r malicious. In anyc a s e , t h e r e is bound t o be some slanting of the facts unless thei 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 ohimself t o be s u r e that the interrogator h e a r s both s i d e s of thestory. .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 yexplains t o the s o u r c e that the purpose of the questioning i s nott 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 questionst o which he b o w s the a n s w e r s . If the subject l i e s , h e isinformed f i r m l y a n d dispassionately t h a t he has lied. Byskilled manipulation of the known, the questioner can convincea 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 stechnique does not w o r k v e r y quickly, it must be droppedbefore 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 questionersknowledge. ..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 oft h e s e , planting an informant as the s o u r c e s cellmate, is s owell-known, . e s p e c i a l l y in Communist countries, that i t susefulness is i m p a i r e d if not destroyed. L e s s well known i sthe 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 sabsence, 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 bebroken down if he shows the source a hidden microphonethat he h a s "found1 and suggests that they talk only inwhispers at the other end of the room.5. News f r o m Home Allowing an interrogatee to receive carefully selectedl e t t e r s f r o m home c a n contribute t o effects desired by theinterrogator . Allowing the s o u r c e to write l e t t e r s , especiallyif he c a n be led t o believe that they will be smuggled out with-out the knowledge of the authorities, may produce informationwhich 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 ahostile s e r v i c e o r of other activity which he denies, t h e r e i sa temptation t o confront the r e c a l c i t r a n t source with h i sa c c u s e r o r a c c u s e r s . But a quick confrontation h a s twoweaknesses: it is likely to intensify the stubbornness ofdenials, and it spoils the chance to use m o r e subtle mkthods. One of these is to place the interrogatee in a n outeroffice and e s c o r t p a s t him, and into the inner office, ana 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 withthe i n t e r r o g a t o r s -- who is believed to know something aboutwhatever the interrogatee is concealing. It i s 8 a l s oe s s e n t i a lthat t h e interrogatee know o r suspect that the witness may bein pos s e s s i o n of the incriminating information. The witne s si s whisked past the interrogatee; the two a r e not allowed tospeak t o e a c h other. A guard and a stenographer r e m a i n inthe outer office with the interrogatee. After about a n hourthe i n t e r r o g a t o r who h a s been questioning the interrogatec i npast s e s s i o n s opens the door and a s k s the stenographer t o comein, with steno pad and pencils. After a time she r e - e m e r g e sand 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 interrogateed 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, thename 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 upt 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 thei 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 yhave 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. Ine 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 tt 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 dont need him a n y m o r e . I Even if thei 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 , heis told t o r e i a x , because the interrogator will get around toh 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 ewitness 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 himout about a hostile agent recently convicted i n c o u r t o r other-w i s e known t o t h e witness. During t h e next interrogations 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 canbe 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 beso back that the interrogatec is persuaded that he isthe subject of the r e m a r k s . Cooperative witnesses may be coached to exaggerates 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 aconfrontation is a r r a n g e d , the s o u r c e -- f o r example, asuspected c o u r i e r -- finds the witness overstating hisimportance, The w,itness c l a i m s that the interrogatee isonly incidentally a courier, that actually he i s the head ofa n R S kidnapping gang. The i n t e r r o g a t o r pretends a m a z c - Xment and s a y s into the r e c o r d e r , "I thought he was only ac 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 himgo 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
    • -like these I l l have to hand him over to the local police f o rtrial. On hearing these r e m a r k s , the interrogatee mayconfess the t r u t h about the l e s s e r guilt in o r d e r t o avoidheavier punishment, If he continues t o withhold, theinterrogator m a y take his side by stating, You know,Im not at all convinced that so-and-so told a straightstory. I f e e l , personally, t h a t he was exaggerating ag r e a t deal. Wasnt h e ? Whats 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 suspectedof joint complicity in a c t s directed against U. S. security,they should be separated immediately. If time permits, itm 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. Anyanxious inquiries f r o m either can be met by a knowing grinand some such r e p l y as, "Well 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 sourcesyield information about interrogatee A, such remarks a s "Bsays 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 estab-l i s h i n As 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 writtenconfession m a y be prepared and As signature may be repro-duced on it. (It is helpful if B can recognize As signature, butnot essential, ) The confession contains the salient f a c t s , butthey a r e distorted; the confession shows ,that A is attemptingto throw the e n t i r e responsibility upon B. Edited tape record-ings which sound as though -4 had denounced B may also beused f o r the purpose, separately o r in conjunction with thewritten "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 Bwithout creating a chance f o r conversation; B is likely to inter-p r e t A s hang-dog look a s evidence of confession and denuncia-tion. (It is important that in all such gambits, A be the weaker of the two, emotionally and psychologically, ) B then reads ( o rh 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 Assigned confession is sufficient f o r the purpose and that it doesnot 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 , .x ..not substantively damaging t o B but nevertheless exaggerated,a n d s a y s , "Im not s u r e A was really f a i r to you here. Wouldyou 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 sbait, 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 dooris 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 -broughtinto 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 ques-tioning of A, speaking r a t h e r softly and iriducing A t o follows 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, whor 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 soonas the second door is closed again and A is out of earshot, thei n t e r r o g a t o r r e s u m e s his questioning. His voice grows louderand a n g r i e r . He t e n s A t o speak up, that he can hardly h e a rhim. He grows abusive, reaches a climax, and then says, "Well, t h a t s b e t t e r . Why didnt 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 impressiont 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 interroga-t 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 guards mumbled attempt t o explain the m i s t a k e , shouting, "Get him out of h e r e ! 111 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, Id 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 t o be p r e t t y a n g r y with you-- f e e l s that you got him into this jam, He might even go back t o your Soviet case officer and say
    • -that you havent 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 andwork f o r us. Wouldnt it be better f o r you if I s e t you bothf r e e t o g e t h e r ? Wouldnt 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 thec o v e r s t o r y was ill-contrived, that the other s e r v i c e botchedthe job, that it is typical of the other s e r v i c e t o ignore t h ewelfare of its agents. The interrogator m a y personalize thispitch 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 scotirage a n d intelligence, He s e l l s the agent the i d e a that thei 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 lookafter 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 sthe Mutt-and- Jeff routine: the brutal, angry, domineeringtype c o n t r a s t e d with the friendly, quiet type. This routineworks b e s t with women, teenagers, and timid men. If t h ei n t e r r o g a t o r who h a s done the bulk of the questioning up t othis point h a s established a m e a s u r e of r a p p o r t , he should playthe f r i e n d l y role. If rapport is absent, and especially ifantagonism has developed, the principal i n t e r r o g a t o r m a y takethe o t h e r part. The angry interrogator speaks loudly f r o m thebeginning; and unless the interrogatee c l e a r l y indicates thathe 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 shoutsdown 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! Im handling this. Ive 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, "Im going to take a b r e a k ,have a couple of stiff drinks. But Ill be back a t two -- and .,you, you bum, you b e t t e r be ready t o talk. I When the doors l a m s behind him, the second interrogator tells the subject hows o r r y he is, how he h a t e s t o work with a man like that but h a sno choice, how if maybe b r u t e s like that would keep quiet andgive 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-and-Jeff technique. After a number of t e n s e and hostile s e s s i o n sthe i n t e r r o g a t e e is ushered into a different o r refurnished roomwith comfortable f u r n i t u r e , cigarettes, etc. The i n t e r r o g a t o rinvites him to sit down and explains his r e g r e t that the s o u r c e sf 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-to-man. An A m e r i c a n P O W , debriefed on h i s interrogation by ahostile s e r v i c e t h a t used this approach, h a s described ther 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 dsitting 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 couldnt 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 friendlyr 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 3second 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 nthat he i s m e r e l y pretending sympathy i n o r d e r to t r a p thei 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 "When-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife? " category. The interrogatori 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 thet 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 ofa n g e r , "Were 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. " 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 tf a m i l i a r as long as the purpose of interrogation is to obtaina confession. After the interrogatee admits hostile intent o r .activity, a switch t o the better-known language will facilitatefollow-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 tsource. 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 questionsi n G e r m a n o r Korean, f o r example, a sudden shift to "Who isyour 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 ethe 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 usedm 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 edoes 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 rand 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 rknows his own tongue. The principal advantage h e r e i s thathearing 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-firequestioning, and i n a n y c a s e it has the disadvantage of allowingthe subject t o pull himself together a f t e r each query. It shouldbe used only with a n i n t e r p r e t e r who has been trained i n thet e c hni que . I is of b a s i c importance that the interrogator not using ta n i n t e r p r e t e r be adept i n the language selected f o r use. Lfhe 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 allpeople have been conditioned to relate verbal skill to intelli-gence, education, s o c i a l status, etc. E r r o r s o r mispronuncia-tions a l s o p e r m i t the interrogatee to misunderstand o r feignmisunderstanding and thus gain time. He may a l s o r e s o r t t opolysyllabic obfuscations upon realizing the limitations of t h ei n t e r r o g a t o r I s vocabulary.
    • Spinoza and Mortimer Snerd I t h e r e i s r e a s o n to suspect that a withholding s o u r c e f -.p o s s e s s e s useful coanterintelligence information but h a s not hada c c e s s t o the upper reaches of the target organization, the )policy and command level, continued questioning ,about loftytopics that the s o u r c e knows nothing about may pave the way f o rthe extraction of information Zt lower levels, The i n t e r r o g a t e ei s a s k e d about XGB policy, f o r example: the relation of thes 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 tby flat insistence that he does know, he would have to know, thateven t h e most stupid men in his position know. Communisti n t e r r o g a t o r s w h used this tactic against American POW1scoupled it with punishment f o r "dont know" responses --typically by forcing the prisoner to stand a t attention until hcgave s o m e positive response. After the process had been con-tinued long enough, the source was asked a question t o whichhe did h o w the answer. Numbers of Americans have mentioned I.. . t h e tremendous feeling of relief you get when he finallya 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 whenthey switched t o a topic I knew something about. "(3) The Wolf i n Sheeps Clothing It h a s been suggested that a successfully withholdings o u r c e might be tricked into compliance if led to believe thathe is dealing with the opposition. The success of the r u s e dependsupon a successful imitation of the opposition. A c a s e officerpreviously unknown to the source and skilled in the appropriatelanguage talks with the source under such circumstances thatthe 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 andwhat he h a s not told them. The t r i c k is likelier to succeed ifthe interrogatee h a s not been in confinement but a staged"escape, I engineered by a stool-pigeon, might achieve the s a m eend. u s u a i l y the t r i c k i s s o complicated and risky that its employ-ment 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 ~ s 3rd cscditionedreactions of the interrogatee. He is accustomed t o a worldthat makes some sense, a t l e a s t t o him: a world of continuityand logic, a predictable world. H c clings t o t h i s world t oreinforce his identity and powers of resistance. The confusion technique is designed not only t oobliterate 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 thesubject e n t e r s the room, the f i r s t interrogator a s k s a double-t l question ak -- one which s e e m s straightforward but ise s s e n t i a l l y nonsensical. Whether the interrogatee t r i e s t oa 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 equallyillogical query. Sometimes two o r m o r e questions a r e a s k e dsimultaneously. 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 nof questions and a n s w e r s is permitted t o develop, n o r do thequestions themselves r e l a t e logically t o each other. In t h i ss 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 hand thought which he has learned to consider normal have beenr 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 maystart laughing o r refuse to take the situation seriously. But a sthe 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 subjectbegins to t r y to make s e n s e of the situation, which b e c o m e smentally intolerable. Now he is likely to make significantadmissions, o r even t o pour out his story, just to stop t h eflow of babble which assails him. This technique may beespecially effective with the orderly, obstinate type. Regression There a r e a number of non-coercive techniques f o rinducing 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 con-t r o l of the environment and, a s always, a p r o p e r matching ofmethod 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 clocks and s e r v i n g m e a l s a t odd times -- ten minutes o r t e n 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, sig- nificant 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, to e s t a b l i s h -- with one o r more interrogators -- interpersonal 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. Thwart- ing 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. 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 subjects d e s i r e t o find a n excuse f o r the com- pliance 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 tellingr 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 prisoners 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. " 1 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 rone who has been regressed, could adopt an implication o rsuggestion that he bas been drugged, hypnotized, o r otherwiserendered incapable of resistance, even if he recognizes a t somelevel that the suggestion is untrue, because of his strong d e s i r et o escape the s t r e s s of the situation by capitulating. Thesetechniques pr ovide the source with the rationalization that heneeds. 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 o a psychia- f t 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 face- saving 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 ("youre really a good boy at heart"), o r that he cant help him- self ("hey made you do i t l ) , the effective rationalization, the one the source wl jump at, is likely t o be elementary. It is a n il adultls version of the kxcuses of childhood.
    • - The Polygraph The polygraph can be used f o r purposes. o t h e r than theevaluation of veracity. F o r example, it m a y be used as a nadjunct 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 dscr,eening t o determine b r o a d a r e a s of knowledgeability, and a san 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 yfunction i n a counterintelligence interrogation, however, is t oprovide 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 eclandestine organization should be t e s t e d polygraphidally atl 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 lr u l e , the polygraph should not be employed a s a m e a s u r e oflast r e s o r t . More r e l i a b l e readings will be obtained if t h ei n s t r u m e n t i s used before the subject h a s been placed underi 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 availablea 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 , noi 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 rhim. - 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 ofthe i n s t r u m e n t and i t s workings. The following discussion i s based upon R. C. DavislfPhysiologicalResponses a s a Means of Evaluating Infor mation. "(7) Although improvements appear to be in the offing, thei 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 willd i s t u r b all physiologic variables under control of the autonomicdivision 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 ignoranceis 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 slower than in t r u t h telling. .. the inhibition of breathings 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 o systolic blood p r e s s u r e provides a . freading on a phenomenon not usually subject t o voluntary control.The p r e s s u r e ". . . will typically r i s e by a few m i l l i m e t e r sof 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 answered -truthfully o r not. The evidence i s that the r i s e will gene rallybe 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 bothbreathing and blood p r e s s u r e ". . . i s poor ( a l m o s t nil) in thee 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 easilyt 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,and I. .. i n a routine examination the next question i s likelyto 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 eof this f a c t t h e r e is an adapting trend in the GSR: with stimulirepeated e v e r y few minutes the response gets s m a l l e r , o t h e rthings 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 sto 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 whetherhe 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 thata l a r g e physiologic disturbance occurs when the subject i scaught 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 physio-logic response accompanies lying because the subject f e a r s theconsequence of failing t o deceive. "In common language itmight be s a i d that he fails to deceive the machine operator f o rthe v e r y r e a s o n that he f e a r s he will fail. The fear would bethe v e r y reaction detected. " This third theory is m o r e widelyheld than the other two. Interrogators should note the inferencet 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 lyingwill 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 analysisof 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 auseful 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 mentali 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 as o u r c e s handwriting analyzed, the s a m p l e s should be submittedt o Headquarters a s soon a s possible, because the analysis ism o r e useful in the preliminary a s s e s s m e n t of the source than inthe l a t e r interrogation. Graphology does have the advantage ofbeing one of the v e r y few techniques not requiring the a s s i s t a n c eo 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 thea 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.
    • --- ---- COER G I V E COUNTERINTELLIGENCE J.A. IHL INTERROGATION O F RESISTANT SOURCESA. Restrictions The purpose of t h i s p a r t of the handbook is to presentb 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 useof 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 eis no such blanket authorization. 5 F o r both ethical and pragmatic reasons no interrogatorm a y take upon h h s e l f the unilateral responsibility for usingc o e r c i v e methods. Concealing f r o m the interrogators super-iors a n intent to r e s o r t to coercion, o r i t s unapprovedemployment, does not protect them. It places them, andKUBARK, i n unconsidered jeopardy.B. The Theory of Coercion Coercive procedures a r e designed not only to exploit ther 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 wrestlewith himself but a l s o to bring a superior outside f o r c e to b e a rupon the subjects 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 m o s t recently acquired by civilized man: I t , . , the capacity t o c a r r y out the highest creative activities, t o m e e t new, chal- lenging, 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 com- pliance 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 via- bility, 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 anx- iety. ... 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 neces- s 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 sub- jects 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 si- ble. 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 subjects resistancei s wavering, that his desire t o yield i s growing stronger thanhis wish to continue his resistance, the time has come t o providehim wh the ~ C C E ~ $ S ? ~ Cr2.tFonalization: a h c e - saving reason o r i t I ..,excuse f o r compliance, Novice interrogators may be tempted t oseize upon the initial yielding triumphantly and to personalize thevictory. Such a temptation must be rejected iminediately, Aninterrogation is not a game played by two people, one to becomethe winner and the other the Loser. It is simply a method of ob-taining correct and useful information, Theref ore the interr o-gator should intensify the subjects desire to cease struggling byshowing him how he can do s o without seeming t o abandon prin-ciple, self-protection, o r other initial causes of resistance. If,instead of pr oviding the right rationalization at the right time, theinterrogator seizes gloatingly upon the subjects wavering, oppo- sition will stiffen again, The following a r e the principal coercive techniques of in-t e r r ogation: a r r e s t , detention, deprivation of sensory stimulithrough solitary confinement o r similar methods, threats andf e a r , debility, pain, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis, nar-cosis, and induced regression. This section also-discusses thedetection of malingering by interrogatees and the provision ofappropriate rationalizations f o r capitulating and cooperating,C, Arrest The manner and timing of a r r e s t can contribute substantiallyt o the *err ogator 1 purposes, "What we aim to do i s t o ensure sthat the manner of a r r e s t achieves, if possible, surprise, andthe maximum amount of mental discomfort in order to catch the . . suspect off balance and t o deprive him of the initiative. - One should therefore a r r e s t him a t a moment when he least expectsit 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 i the early hours n of the morning because surprise i s achieved then, and becausea persons resistance physiologically a s well a s psychologicallyis 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 uni-lateral &sil arrangements have been made f o r the confinementof a resistant source, the circumstances of detention a r e a r -ranged to enhance within the subject his feelings of being cutoff from the laown and the reassuripg, and of being plunged intothe strange. Usually his own clothes a r e immediately takenaway, because familrar clothing reinforces identity and thus thecapacity for resistance. (Prisons give close hair cuts and issueprison garb for the same reason. ) If the interrogatee is. especial-ly proud o r neat, it may be useful to give him an outfit ihat isone or two sizes too large and to fail to provide a belt, s o that he 1must hold his pants up. The point is that mans sense of identity depends upon aconrinuity in his surroundings, habits,. appearance, actions,relations with others, e tc. Detention permits the interrogatorto cut through these links and throw the interrogatee back uponhis own unaided internal resources. Little is gained Lf confinement merely replaces one routinewith another. Prisoners who lead monotonously unvaried lives". . . cease to care about their utterances, dress, and cleanli-ness. They become dulled, apathetic, and depressed." (7) Andapathy can be a very effective defense against interrogation.Control of the soukces 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 help- ..... lessness . 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 l o s e sleep, soon succumb to sleep 10ss . .. ; " (7) 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 indi- vidual, 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 in- terrogattee has been jailed before, how often, under what circum- . stances, 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 . Deprivation of Sensory Stimuli The chief effect of a r r e s t and detention, and particularly ofi 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 auto- biographical 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 him- self, 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 minds activity which is usually reality- bound 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 interro- gation have not b e e n duplicated f o r experimentation. A t the National Institute of Mental Health two subjects were It. .. suspended with the body and all but the top of the head 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 en- c 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 ... r e s p i r a t o r with a specially built m a t t r e s s . The vents 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 - thefollowing 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 willthe i n t e r r o g a t e e be affected. Results produced only after weekso r months of imprisonment in an ordinary cell can be duplicatedi 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 llight which never v a r i e s ) , which is sound-procfed, i n whicho d o r s a r e eliminated, etc. An environment still m o r e subjectt o control, such a s water-tank or iron lung, i s even m o r eeffective . An e a r l y effect of such an environment is 2.anxiety. How soon i t a p p e a r s and how strong i t i s dependsupon t h e psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the individual. 3. The i n t e r r o g a t o r can benefit f r o m the subjectsanxiety. As the i n t e r r o g a t o r becomes linked in the subjectsmind with the r e w a r d of lessened anxiety, human contact, andmeaningful activity, and thus with providing relief for gr,owingdiscomfort, the questioner a s sumes a benevolent role. (7) 4. The deprivation of stimuli induces r e g r e s s i o nby depriving the -subjects mind of contact with an outer worldand t h u s forcing it i n upon itself. At the s a m e t i m e , thecalculated provision of stimuli during interrogation tends t om 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 thesubjects 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 sr e s i s t a n c e m o r e effectively than coercion itself. The t h r e a tto inflict pain, f o r example, can trigger f e a r s m o r e damagingthan t h e immediate sensation of pain. In fact, most peopleunder e stimate t h e i r capacity to withstand pain. The s a m eprinciple holds f o r other f e a r s : sustained long enough, astrong 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.n general, 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 interrogators 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 interrogatees own expressions of hostility. These, i f ignored, can induce feelings of guilt, whereas r e t o r t s i kind relieve n the subjects 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 l placed under the tension of f e a r ; x 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 ones self-autonomy o r 1 1 ... A simple defense against t h r e a t s to the self f r o m the anticipation of being forced t o comply is, of course, t o comply deliberately or voluntarily. ... To the extent that 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 thef 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 coercivex 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.
    • The t h r e a t of death has often been found t o be worsethan 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 o n situations it i s a highlyineffective threat. Many prisoners, in fact, have refusedt o yield i n the face of such threats who have subsequentlybeen broken by other procedures. " ( 3 ) The principalr e a s o n i s that the ultimate threat i s likely to induce s h e e rhopelessness if the interrogatee does not believe that i ti s a t r i c k ; he f e e l s that he is a s likely to be condemneda f t e r compliance as before. The threat of death i s alsoineffectivewhen used against hard-headed types whor e a l i z e that silencing them forever would defeat thei n t e r r o g a t o r s purpose. If the threat is recognized a s abluff, it w i l l not only fail but also pave the way t o failuref 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 effectof debility upon the interrogatees powers of resistanceh a s been discovered. F o r centuries interrogators haveemployed 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 offood o r sleep. Apparently the assumption i s that loweringthe source s physiological resistance w i l l lower hispsychological capacity f o r opposition. If this notion werevalid, however, it might reasonably be expected that thosesubjects who a r e physically weakest a t the beginning ofan interrogation would be the quickest to capitulate, aconcept not supported by experience. The availableevidence suggests that resistance i s sapped principallyby 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 offood - m a y induce much m o r e anxiety than prolongedhunger, 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 debilitybecome 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 mexternal 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 adjuststhrough apathy. The interrogator should use his powerover the resistant subjects physical environment t odisrupt patterns of response, not t o c r e a t e them. Mealsand sleep granted irregularly, in m o r e than abundanceor l e s s than adequacy, the shifts occuring on no discernibletime pattern, will normally disorient a n interrogatee andsap h i s will t o r e s i s t m o r e effectively than a sustaineddeprivation leading t o debility. . - H. Pain Everyone is aware that people react v e r ydifferently to pain. The reason, apparently, is not aphysical difference in the intensity of the sensation itself.Lawrence E. Hinkle observes, "The sensation of pains 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 whichthey begin to feel pain, and when carefully graded stimulia r e applied to them, their estimates of severity a r eapproximately the same.. .. . Yet.. when men a r e v e r yhighly motivated.. .they have been known t o c a r r y outr a t h e r complex tasks while enduring the most intensepain. " He also states, "In general, it appears thatwhatever may be the r o l e of the constitutional endowmenti n determining the reaction to pain, it is a much l e s simportant determinant than is the attitude of the man whoexperiences the pain. (7) The wide range of individual reactions to painmay be partially explicable in t e r n of early conditioning.The person whose f i r s t encounters with pain werefrightening and intense may be m o r e violently affectedby i t s later i d l i c t i o n than one whose original experienceswere mild. Or the r e v e r s e may be t r u e , and the manwhose 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 the individual and his tormentor (. . .. and he c a n frequently 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 i s likely t o exhaust i t s e l f in t h i s internal encounter.. .. As 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 ein 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 nj 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 strugglea 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 swho have withstood pain a r e m o r e difficult to handle by o t h e rmethods. 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 hypnosish a v e been advanced by psychologists and o t h e r s in the guise ofp 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 ap e r s o n connot b e hypnotized against h i s will; that whilehypnotized h e cannot be induced t o divulge information that h ew a n t s urgently t o conceal; and that h e will not undertake, int r a n c e o r through post-hypnotic suggestion, actions t o whichh 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, hypnosiswould 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 ofs 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 sh 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 conflictw 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 interrogationhandbook cannot and need not include a lengthy d i s c u s s i o n ofhypnosis. T h e c a s e officer o r i n t e r r o g a t o r needs to knowenough about the subject to understand the c i r c u m s t a n c e s underw 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 te 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 techniquesafely. .The second reason i s that an unsuccessful attemptto hypnotize a subject f o r purposes of interrogation, o r asuccessful 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 ande 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 heightenedsuggestibility, but the phrase i s a description r a t h e r than adefinition. 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 ..of r e g r e s s i o n . " And they add, I t . inductionbf hypno sisJi s the p r o c e s s of bringing about a r e g r e s s i o n , while thehypnotic state i s the established r e g r e s s i o n . (13) It i ssuggested that the interrogator will find t h i s definition them o s t useful. The problem of overcoming the r e s i s t a n c eof a n uncooperative interrogatee i s essentially a p r o b l e mof 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 ecan no longer be sustained. Hypnosis i s one way ofr e g r e s s i n g people. Martin T . O r n e h a s written a t some length abouthypnosis and interrogation. Almost all of h i s conclusionsa r e tentatively negative. Concerning the r o l e played by thewill o r attitude of the interrogatee, Orne s a y s , "Althoughthe c r u c i a l experiment h a s not yet been done, t h e r e i slittle o r no evidence to indicate that t r a n c e can be inducedagainst a p e r s o n s wishes." He adds, I ! . . .the actualo 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 ofthe 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 dependsupon h i s relationship with the hyponotist r a t h e r than uponthe technical procedure of trance induction. Theseviews a r e probably representative of those of manypsychologists, but they are not definitive. As Ornehimself l a t e r points out, the interrogatee ". . . could begiven a hypnotic drug with appropriate v e r b a l suggestionsto 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 df 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 subjectsknowledge.) "It can readily be s e e n howthis.. .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 involun- tarily 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 behypnotized, his resistance does not cease. He postulatesI... that only in r a r e interrogation subjects would asufficiently deep trance be obtainable to even attempt toinduce the subject to discuss m a t e r i a l which he is unwillingto discuss I the wakLng state. The kind of Lnformation which ncan be obtained in these r a r e instances is s t i l l a n unansweredquestion." He adds that it is doubtful that a subject in trancecould be made to reveal information which h e wished tosafeguard. But h e r e too Orne s e e m s somewhat too cautiouso 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 suspectdouble 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 subjectswill continue effective resistance as long as the f r a m e ofr e f e r e n c e is undisturbed. But once the subject is tricked intobelieving that h e is talking to friend r a t h e r than foe, o r thatdivulgLng 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 valueof 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 thatm 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 fullycapable of lying. I Again, the observation i s c o r r e c t ; no knownmanipulative method g u a r a n t e e s veracity. But if hypnosisi s employed not a s an immediate instrument f o r digging outthe truth but r a t h e r a s a way of making the subject want toalign 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 otheri 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 toa 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 , persuadeh i m a s the d r u g t a k e s effect that he i s slipping into a hypnotict r a n c e , place h i m under a c t u a l hypnosis a s consciousness i sreturning, shift h i s f r a m e of r e f e r e n c e so that h i s reasonsf o r r e s i s t a n c e become r e a s o n s f o r cooperating, interrogateh i m , and conclude the s e s s i o n by implanting the suggestionthat 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 ranything about what h a s happened. T h i s sketchy outline of possible u s e s of hypnosis inthe interrogation of r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e s h a s no higher goalthan to r e m i n d operational personnel that the techniquem 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 consideringi t s use m u s t anticipate t h e timing sufficiently not only to s e c u r ethe 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 ane 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 inducecompliance than i t s infliction, so an interrogatees mistakenbelief that h e h a s been drugged may make h i m a m o r e usefulinterrogation subject than h e would be under narcosis. LouisA. Gottschalk c i t e s a group of studies a s indicating "that 30 to 50p 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 subjects 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 of 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 f r o m reluctant informants. .. indicate that t h e r e i s 1 0 drug 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) 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 judiciousI choice of a drug with minimal side effects, i t s matching to the subjects 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 thedrug to the personality of the interrogatee. The effect of m o s t . Ld 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. Ifthe approval of Headquarters h a s been obtained and i a doctor ii s a t hand f o r administration, one of the m o s t important ofthe i n t e r r o g a t o r s functions i s providing the doctor with afull and a c c u r a t e description of the psychological make-upof the i n t e r r o g a t e e , to facilitate the b e s t possible choice ofa drug. , P e r s o n s burdened with feelings of shame or guilt a r elikely to unburden t h e m s e l v e s when drugged, especially ift h e s e feelings have been reinforced by the interrogator.A n d like the placebo, the drug provides a n excellentrationalization of helple s s n e s s for the interrogatee whow ants to yield but h a s hitherto been unable to violate h i sown values o r loyalties. Like other coercive media, d r u g s may affect the contentof what a n interrogatee divulges. Gottschalk notes that c e r t a i ndrugs "may give r i s e to psychotic manifestations such a shallucinations, illusions , delusions, o r disorientation" , sothat "the verbal m a t e r i a l obtained cannot always be consideredvalid." (7) F o r t h i s r e a s o n d r u g s (and the other aids discussed int h i s section) should not be used persistently to facilitate theinterrogative debriefing that follows capitulation. Their functioni s to cause capitulation, to aid in the shift f r o m resistance tocooperation. Once t h i s shift h a s been accomplished, coercivetechniques should be abandoned both f o r m o r a l reasons andbecause they a r e unnecessary and even counter-productive. T h i s discussion does not include a l i s t of drugs thathave been employed f o r interrogation purposes o r adiscussion of their p r o p e r t i e s because these a r e medicalconsiderations within the province of a doctor rather thanan interogator .
    • 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 h e th 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 swho have a t t e m p t e d , often successfully, t o evade t h emounting p r e s s u r e s of interrogation by feigning p h y s i c a lo 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 encounterseemingly 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 dp l a c e s which m a k e it difficult o r next-to-impossible t os 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 ea 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 odistinguish between the m a l i n g e r e r and t h e p e r s o n who isgenuinely 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 es 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 nof 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 sdo 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 gdepends 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 . tounderstand 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 ei s feigning. ... Often h e p r e s e n t s s y m p t o m s which a r eexceedingly 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 powerfulo 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 nt 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 . Inschizophrenia, the o n s e t tends to be g r a d u a l , d e l u s i o n sdo 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 yavailable. T h e feigned psychosis often contains m a n ycontradictory and inconsistent s y m p t o m s , r a r e l y existingtogether. T h e -lingerer tends to go to e x t r e m e s in h i sp 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 nto 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 ew 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 ~ e delz? it. cr 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. ~ e l t z e o b s e r v e s that simulated m u t i s m and a m n e s i a r 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 noto 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 indifferencecan be short-sighted. If the interrogatee r e m a i n s semi-hostile o r r e m o r s e f u l a f t e r a successful interrogation h a sended, 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 beneeded to deal with h i s antagonism if he i s m e r e l y squeezedand forgotten.
    • X. INTERROGATORS 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 KUBARKs 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 ~ K irective D 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 o b s e r v e d ? T h e s e include -, t h e r e - 5 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 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 /3 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 ?
    • - - .. .A .. ... - I -: 4 .- .. . 7. - H a s the prospkctive interrogatee been screened? What :ra 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 toone of the nine m a j o r categories listed in pp. 19-28? Which? L .. - 8. Has all available and pertinent information about thes u b j e c t been a s s e m b l e d and studied? p . *. 9. Is the s o u r c e 1 -, o rwill 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 P5 J - ... ..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 eb e e n obtained? rs .. ": . . .. .. ... 10. Have all appropriate documents c a r r i e d by the prospectivei 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 U. 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 ? 12. Have f i e l d a n d headquarters t r a c e s been run on the potentiali 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 do 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 . . 5 .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 sp 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 likelyto 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 considera-tions, political co nvictions, stubbornness, other 3 S E
    • - 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 theeqiiipment available? Installed? 22, Have arrangements been made .to feed, bed, and guardthe 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 in-t e r r o g a t o r ? If so, have roles been assigned and schedules pre-pared? 24. Is the interrogational environment fully subject to thei 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 rthe questioning ends? 26. I s it possible, early in the questioning, to determinethe subjects 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 interrogators reaction to the subject? Is t h e r e a nemotional 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 thei n t e r r o g a t o r be replaced? 27. I the s o u r c e is resistant, w i l l noncoercive o r coercive ftechniques 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 ? Is he sophis-ticated about interrogation techniques? 29. Does the irnpression made by the Lnterrogatee during the
    • opening-phase of the interrogation confirm or c o d i c t with thepreliminary 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 dothey affect the plan f o r the remainder of the questioning? 30. During the opening phase, havethe subjects voice,eyes, mouth, gestures, silences, o r other visible clues suggesteda 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 muchp r e s s u r e will 5e required to overcome the resistance? Should theestimated duration of mterrogation be revised? If so, a r e f u r t h e rarrangements 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 emotionalreaction of the subject to the interrogator? Why? 34. A r e interrogation reports being prepared a f t e r eachsession, f r o m notes o r tapes ? / .- 35. What disposition of the interrogatee is to be made a f t e r <. -questionmg ends ? If the subject is suspected of being .a hostile ..agent and if interrogation has not produced confession, whatm e a s u r e s w i l l be taken to ensure that he is not left to operate asbefore, unhindered and unchecked? <-- ,. ..-. : . .. .. 36. A r e any promises made to the interrogatee unfulfilledwhen 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 discussedon pp. 52-81 have been selected f o r use, how do they match thesubjects personality? 38. A r e coercive techniques to be employed? If so, haveall field personnel in the interrogators direct chain of command
    • been-notified? Have they approved? 39. 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 beconfined, c a n KUBARK control h i s environment fully? Can then 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 theplace of confinement permit the practical elimination of s e n s o r ystimuli? 43. A r e t h r e a t s to b e employed? A s p a r t of a plan? Hasthe 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 Head-q u a r t e r s b e e n given enough advance notice ? Has adequate allowancebeen made f o r t r a v e l time and other prelLmLnaries? 45. I s the interrogatee suspected of malingering? If theinterrogator 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 comprehensives 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 ? Why? 50. A failure? Why?
    • , . ... XL DESCRIPTIVE BIBLIOGRAPEU , . This bibliography i s selective; most of the books and a r t i c l e sconsulted during the preparation of this study have not been includedh e r e . T h o s e that have n o r e a l bearing on the countermtelligence in-terrogation of r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e s have been left out. Also omitteda r e some s o u r c e s considered elementary, inferior, o r unsound. I ti 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 ther e s t r i c t e d subject is o v e r a thousand. But It is believed that all thei t e m s l i s t e d h e r e m e r i t reading by KUBARK persomiel concerned withinterrogatibn, 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, forth- bright, 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, andEvaluation 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 interviewersconducting public opinion polls. It i s of only slight value f o r Lnterroga-t o r s , although it does suggest pitfalls produced by asking questionsthat 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 ImprovedInterrogation Techniques: Study SR 177-D (U), S e c r e t , final r e p o r t ofContract 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 interrogationof A m e r i c a n POWS by Communist s e r v i c e s and with the problem ofr 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 tsubjects. It h a s the added advantage of incorporating the findings and
    • 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 POWS 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 eli- citation of Iconfes sions". 6. 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 comparedwith Milton W. Horowitzs "Psychology of Confessionll ( s e e below). 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.1 R. C . Davis, llPhysiological Responses a s a Means of Evaluating In- forrnation1I (this chapter deals with the polygraph); Dr. Martin T. Orne, !!The Potential Uses of Hypnosis in Interrogation"; D r s . Robert R. Blakef 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 un- willing 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 thechapters 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 sof which w e r e unclassified and available to the authors has been con-ducted 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 doescontain m u c h useful information, a s frequent references in thisstudy show. The combined bibliographies contain a total of 771items.
    • 13. Gill, Merton, Inc., and M a r g a r e t Brenman,Hypnosis and R elated States: Psychoanalytic Studies inRegression, international Universities P r e s s Inc. , New Y ork,1959. This book is a scholarly and comprehensive examinationof hypnosis. The approach is basically Freudian but the a u t h o r sa r e neithe; narrow nor doctrinaire. The book d i s c u s s e s theinduction of hypnosis, the hypnotic s t a t e , theories of inductionand of the hypnotic condition, the concept of regression- as ab a s i c element in hypnosis, relationships between hypnosis andd m g s , sleep, fugue, etc., and the u s e of hypnosisinpsychotherapy. Interrogators may find the comparisonbetween hypnos is and llbrainwashLngllin chapter 9 m o r er e l e v a n t than o t h e r parts. ~ h e b o o ks recommended, ihowever, not because it contains any discussion of theemployment of hypnosis in interrogation ( i t does not) but - .b e c a u s e i t provides the interrogator with sound informationabout what hypnosis can. and cannot do. 14. Hinkle, Lawrence E. Jr. a n d Harold G , Wolff,llCommunist Interrogation and Indoctrination of Enemiesof 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 np r i s o n e r s to Co~llmunist detention and interrogation. I tm e r i t s reading but not study, chiefly because of the vastdifferences between-~orrrmunist interrogation of A m e r i c a nPOWS and KUBARK interrogation of known o r suspectedpersonnel 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, July-August 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 ya u t h o r i t y wielding power g r e a t e r than h i s own; (3) he believes t h a tevidence 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 sg 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 ~ ht 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 df a c t s , it m e r i t s close reading. 16. Inbau, F r e d E. and John E. Reid, L i e Detection a n dC r i m i n a l Investigation, Williams and Wilkins Co. , 1953. Thef 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, whichd 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 eof 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 gi 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 nC 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 , nodate. 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 . Althoughe 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 tc 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 inC 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 indoctrina- tion 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, Hostile Control and I n t e r r o g a t i o n Techniques. S e c r e t , undated. 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 is 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.
    • 25. Levenson, B e r n a r d and LeeWiggins, A Guide f o rIntelligence Interviewing of Voluntary F o r e i g n Sources, OfficialUse 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 titleshows, 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 OrdinaryLevels of P h y s i c a l Stimuli on Intact Healthy P e r s o n s . PsychologicalR 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. Afterpresenting a s h o r t s u m m a r y of a few autobiographical accountsw 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 yreduce m o s t s e n s o r y stimulation. The effect was t o speed up ther 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 yconfinement), Delusions and hallucinations, preceded by o t h e rsymptoms, appeared a f t e r s h o r t periods. The author does not discussthe possible relevance of his findings t o interrogation. 27, Meerlo, J o o s t A. M., The Rape of the Mind, WorldP.ublishing Go., Cleveland, 1956, This books p r i m a r y value f o r thei n t e r r o g a t o r is that it w l make him a w a r e of a number of elements ili 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 tothe questions a s k e d o r the interrogation setting but a r e instead theproduct 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 sthe 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 authoritysymbol. Whether. the subject is submissive o r belligerent m a y bed 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 rconflict 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 ofthis book (and of much r e l a t e d psychological and psychoanalyticwork) 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 Buddhisticp 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 andB r e n m a n s Hypnosis and Related States. Marginal. ., 29. Oatis, William N., "Why I Confessed, " Life, 21 September -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 thew 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 withint h r e e d a y s of his a r r e s t . Although Oatis w a s periodically deprivedof 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 , theC 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 andwithout sophisticated techniques. 36. Rundquist, - E.A., -!!The A s s e s s m e n t of Graphology, I Studies i n Intelligence, Secret, S u m m e r 1959, Vol. 3, No. 3. Thea u t h o r concludes that scientific testing of graphology is needed top 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. Thisa 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 , StanfordU 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 dat 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 r and colleagues. Thep 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 ofaffiliative 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 hsequence a m o n g siblings). Some tentative conclusions of significancef 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. ) b. 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 s h a r e t h e s a m e fe.ar. C. 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. )
    • 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 KUBARKs interrogation problems. Recommended a s background reading. 33, Singer, M a r g a r e t Thaler and Edgar H. Schein, "Projective - - - 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. 34. Sullivan, H a r r y Stack, The Psychiatric Interview, W. W. 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 understand- ing 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 1 , 1 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 n Cases, 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 s older I-6437/A, J a n u a r y 1956. This folder consists largely of an article, " ~ i t h o u T o r t u r e , " t by a G e r m a n ex-interrogator, Hans Joachim Scharff. Both the pre- l 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 - nArgosy, i 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 de- pends 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 vividly the advantages that result f r o m good &-ing and organization. 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 interro- gation of witnesses, suspects, POWS, 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. 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 interroga- tion is basic, succinct, practical, and sound. R e c o m e n d e d f o r closeI reading. I.S
    • ..- 41. 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 ,Garden City Publishing Co. (now Doubleday), New York, originally . .. ?. .I1903, 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 I- .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 2.Testimony, I is w o r t h reading, however, because s o m e of i t s warningsa r e applicable. 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 er 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 ts 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 m1 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 sincluded inability t o c o n c e n t r a t e effectively, daydreaming andfantasy, illusions., delusions, and hallucinations. The suitability oft 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 con-finement 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.
    • OTHER BIBLIOGRAPHIES The following bibliographies on interrogation w e r e notedd 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 dby 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 ofm 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 sentenced 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 nindication of content and do not e x p r e s s value judgements. Thef 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 InterrogationT 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 IntelligenceInformation R e p o r t , Unclassified, 10 June 1959. T h i sbibliography of 158 i t e m s dating between 1915 and 1957c 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 theL 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 bya 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. " Nod 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 thata number of nearly-irrelevant titles a r e included (e. g . ,Employment psychology: the Interview, Interviewing in socialr e s e a r c h , and "Phrasing questions; the question of b i a s ininterviewing", f r o m Journal of Marketing). 4. Survey of the Literature on Interrogation Techniques,KUSODA, 1 March 1957, Confidential. Although now somewhatdated 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 groupsi 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 sincluded. Although some element of subjectivity inevitablytinges 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; andthey 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 toplough 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 see Termination Conf e s s ion 38-41, 67, 84 Confinement see also Depr ivation of Sensory Stimuli 86-87 Confrontation of s u s p e c t s 47i C o n t r o l , definition of 4 Conversion 51 C oordination of i n t e r r o g a t i o n s 7i C ounterintelligence interrogation, definition of 4-5 C r o s s-examination 58-59
    • PageDebilityDebriefing , definition ofDefectorsD eprivation of s e n s o r y stimuliD e tailed que stioningDetention of i n t e r r o g a t e e sD i r e c t i v e s governing interrogationD o cument s of d e f e c t o r sDouble agentDrugs see NarcosisDuress s e e also Coercive Inter rogation --......Eliciting, definition ofE nvir onment , manipulation ofEscapeesEspionage ActE x c e p t i o n , t h e , a s psychological typeFabricatorsF a l s e confessionsF 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
    • PageGuilt, feelings ofGuilt-r idden c h a r a c t e rHeightened suggestibility and hypnosisIndicators of emotion, physicalIndirect A s s e s s m e n t P r o g r a mI n f o r m e r techniquesIntelligence interview, definition ofInterpretersInterrogatee s , emotional needs ofInterrogation, definition ofInterrogation, planning ofInterrogation settingI n t e r r o g a t o r , d e s i r a b l e characteristics ofI n t e r r o g a t o r s check l i s tIsolationIvan I s A Dope techniqueJoint InterrogationsJoint i n t e r r o g a t o r s , techniques suitable f o rJoint s u s p e c t sJudging human nature , fallacies aboutKhokhlov, Nikolai.Language considerations
    • PageLCFLUTTERL e g a l considerations affecting KUBARK CI interrogationsListening p o s t f o r i n t e r r o g a t i o n sLocal l a w s , i m p o r t a n c e ofMagic r o o m techniqueM a l i n g e r i n g , detection ofMatching of i n t e r r o g a t i o n method to. s o u r c eM indszenty, Cardinal, interrogation ofM u t t a n d Jeff techniqueNarcosisN ews f r o m Home techniqueNobody L o v e s You techniqueNon-coercive i n t e r r o g a t i o nODENBY , coordination withOnly c h i l d r e nOpening the. i n t e r rogationOptimistic characterOrderly-obstinate c h a r a c t e rOrdinal position0 rganization of handbook, explanation ofOuter 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
    • PagePenetration agents1 e r sonality , categories ofP e r sonalizing , avoidance ofPlacebosP lanning the counterintelligence interrogationPolice p o w e r s , KUBARK1s lack ofPolicy considerations affecting KUBARK GI inter rogationsP olygraphPost-hypnotic suggestionP robingP rovocateurP urpose of handbookRapport, establishment ofRationalizationReconnaissanceR ecording of interrogationsRefugeesRegressionR elationship, i n t e r r o g a t o r - interrogateeRepatriatesR e p o r t s of interrogationResistance of i n t e r r o g a t e e sR e s i s t a n c e to interrogationRespiration r a t e and the polygraphSchizoid c h a r a c t e rScreeningSeparation of i n t e r r o g a t e e sSilent d r u g sSpinoza and M o r t i m e r Snerd technique
    • PageS t r u c t u r e of the interrogation 53-65Swindlers 18-19Systolic blood p r e s s u r e and the polygraph 80Techniques of non-coercive interrogationT e r m i n a t i o n of interrogationT h e o r y of coercive interrogationT h r e a t s and f e a rTimingT r a n s f e r of interrogatee to host serviceTransferred sourcesTraumaT raveler sW alk- i n sWitness techniquesWolf in Sheeps Clothing technique