CIA KUBARK COUNTERINTELLIGENCE MANUAL. PERSONALITIES.

KUBARK COUNl’ERINTELU GENCE INTERROGATIONJuly 1963
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB27/docs/doc01.pdf
1.ll.Ill.IV.TABLE OF CONTENTSIN:X.RODUCTIONA. Explanation of PurposeB. Exp1anatlon of Orga.niz;atiooDEFINITIONSLEGAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS THE INTERROGATORPages1-3 1-l ·34-56-910-14KUBA.RK COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION’•V. THEINTERROGATEE15-29 Iotelligeoce Categories 15-19Personality Categories 19-28 l8-2.9VI.VII.SCREENING AND OTHER PRELiMINARIESA. ScreeningB. Other Prelimlna.ry Proceduresc. Sununa.ryPLANNING THE COUNt’ERINTELLlGENCE INTERROGATION30-3730-3333-373738 -51 38–42.42.–44A.B.c.Types o! Sources: Types of Sources:Other CluesA.B.The Interrogation Plan The SpecificsThe Nature o! Counterintelligence lnterrosationINTERROGATION 5l-SliC.YUI. THE NON-COERCIVE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE~ ETT’•’ ‘.,
IX.TH:E; COERCIVE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTER ROGATION OF RESISTANT SOURCESA. RestrictionsB. Th” Theo\’y o£ Coercionc. ArrestD. DetcniionE. Deprivation o! Se~:~sory StlmuliF. Threats and F earG. D<:bilityH. PainI. Heightened Suggestibility and Hyp~:~oaisJ. NarcosisK. Tbe Detection o! MalingeringL. Couclusioo.INTERROGATOR’S CHECK LIST DESCRIPTIVE BILIOGRAPHY’.·..·X. XI.A. B.C.General .Remark•The Structure of the Interrogation·1. The Opening2. The .Reconnaissance3. The Detailed Questioning4. The ConclusionTechniques of Non-Coercive Interrogationo{ Rc sistant SourcesPages 52-5353 -65 53-59 59-60 60-64 64-6565-81BZ-104 82 SZ-85 85-86 86-87 87-9090-92 92-93 93-95 95-98 98-100 101- 102 103-104105-109 U0-122 123-128.,XII. INDEX.•·.ii.. ..;:,.I·~ ·.’-sI. INTRODUCTIONA. Explanation o£ PurposeThis manual cannot te.ach anyone how to De, or become, a good interrogator. At best it can help readers to avoid the charactt.:risiic miatakes of poor interrogators4Ito purpose io to provide guidelines for KUBARK interrogation, and particularly the cou.nter:intelligenceinterrogation of resistant sources. Designed as au aid for interrogator• and others immediately concerned, It is basedlargely upon the publiohed results of extensive research, including ocientific inquiries cond.ucted by specialists in closely related subjects.There is nothing mysteriouo about interrogation. It consists oi no more thaD. obtainiD.g needed Wormation through response s to questions. As is true of all craftsmen, someinterrogators are rnore able than ot.her.s: and some o£ tbeir 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 hardto understand. The success of good iD.terrogators depends in large measure upon their uae, conscious or not, of these principles and of processes and techniques deriving from them. Knowledge oi subject matter and oi tbe basic principles willnot o£ ihel! create a successful interrogation, b11t it will make possible the avoidance of mistakes that are characteristic of poor interrogation. The purpose. then, is not to teach thereader how to be a good interrogator but rather to tell bim what he must learn in ordeT to become a. good inte t”rogator.1”·. –
-The ‘interrogation o! a. renistant source who is a otaif or agent membet: o( an Orbit intelligence or security service or o!a clandestine Cornm.uniet orgaoizatioil is one o! the most exacting of professional task&. Uoually the odds still h.vor the inte~rogator, but they are sharply cut by the traini:g. a.xpe~ience, patienceand tougb.ness of the interrogatee. In Sl.lcb circun\stances the interrogator needs a.ll the help that be can get. And a.principal source of aid today is ocieotUic findings. The intelligenceservice which is able to bri,ng pertinent, modcra knowledge tobear upon its problema enjoys buge advantage& over a 9ervicewhich conducts its clandestine business in e ighteenth century fas hion. It is true that American psychologists have devotedsomewhat more attention to Communist interrogation techniques, particularly “brainwasbing” , than to U. 5. ·practices. Yet they have conducted scienti.Cic inquiries into many subjects that arc closely related to interrogation: the effects oC debility and isolation, the polygraph, reactions to pain and fear, hypnosis and heightened suggestibility, narcosis, etc. Thio work is o! suJ!icient i:nportance and relevance that it ia no longer possible to discuss interrogation significantly without reference to tb.eps ycbological research conducted in the past decade. For this reason a. major purpose of this study is to !ocus relevant scientific findings upon Cl interrogation. Every effort bas been made to report and interpret these findings in our own language, in place o( the terminology employed by the psychologists.This study is by no means confined to a resume and interpretation o! psychological lindlngs. The approach o! the psychologists is cu.otomarily manipulative; that io, they suggest methods of imposing controls or alterations uponthe interrogatee ft·om the outside. Except within the Com.mu.niet frame of reference, they have paid ieee attention to the creation of internal controls–i..e., conversion of thesource , so that voluntary cooperation results . Moral considerations aside, the imposition of external techniquesoC manipulating people carries with it the grave risk o! later lawsuits, adverse publicity, or other attempts t.o· strike back.2·.•sET………..:~’.:. ….
·,B. Explanation of OrganizationThia otudy movea hom the gcncro..l topic of interrogation per oo (Parts I. II, ill, IV, V, and VI) to plannihg the counter- intelligence in-eerrogation (Part VII) to the Cl interrogation o£ resistant oources (Parts Vm, IX, and X). The definitions, legal considerations, and discuaaiono of interrogators and eources, as well as SectioD VI on ac reeuing and otherpreliminaries, are relevant to all kinds ol ioterTogations4 Once it ia established that the source ia probably a counter- intelligence target (in other words, io pr obably a member o{ a !oreigu intelligence or 111ecurity aervi.cc, a Communist, or a par t o£ any other group engaged inclandeotine activity directed against the national security), the interrogation i s plann.ed a.nd conducted accordingly. The Cl interrogation technique$ arc discuesed in a.n order of iocrcaeiDg i.nten_sity aa the focus on •ource resiat~nCe growa aharper. The la.stsection, on do1a and dont1a, ia a return to the broader view of the opening parts; as a check-liot, it i o placed last solely for convenience.’ ‘·…:
S·r/E TiX. THE COERCIVE COUNT:ERINTELLIGENC:E INTERROGATION OF RESISTANT SOURCESA. RestrictionsThe purpose of this part of the handbook is to present basic information about coercive techniques available for use in the interrogation situation. lt is vital that this discussion not be misconstrued as constituting authorization for the use o{ coercion at field discretion.. As was J’loted earlier, there i.s no such blanket authorization.’For both ethical and pragmatic reasons no interrogator may take upon himself the =ilateral responsibility fo•· uoingConcealing h ·om the interrogator• 6 super- employznent, does not protect them.. It places them, andcoercive methods~tors an intent to resort to coercion, or its unapprovedKUBARK, in unconside red jeopardy. B. The Theory o{ CoercionCoercive procedures a.:re desigr\ed oct only to exploit the resiStant source •s internal conflicts and induce hiln to wrestle with himself but also to br-ing a superior outside force to beat”upon the subject’s resistance. Non.-c.oercive methods are not82…II·~·.’,. ..
rI,likely to succeed if their selection and use is oot predicated upon an accurate psychological assessment o£ the source. Incontrast, the same coercive method may &ucceed against persons who are very UDl.ike each other. The changes o£ success .rise steeplyt nevertheless, if the coercive technique is matched tothe sour ce1s personality. Individuals .react dH!erently even tosuch seemingly noo-discril:nin.atory stimuli as diuga. Moreover,it i.o a waste o£ time and energy to apply strong pre.osures on a bit-or-miss basis if a tap on the psychological jugular will produce compliance.All coercive techniques are designed to induce regression.As Hinkle notes in “The Physiological State of th~ Interrogation Subject as it Affects Brain FUllction”(7), the result o! externalpress…res o£ sw!icient intensity is the loss at those defense• most recently acquired by civilized man: “. • • the capacity to carry out the bighest creative activities, to meet new, chal- lenging, and complex situations, to deal witb tx-ying interpersonal>:elations, and to cope with repeated frustx-ations. Relatively small degrees o{ homeostatic derangement, fatigue, pain, sleep loss, or anxiety may i.J:npair these functions.” As a result, nmost people wbo are exposed to coercive procedures will talk a.nd usually reveal some in!onnation that they :might not haverevealed otherwise. !rOne subjective reaction often evoked by coercion is afeeling of guilt. Melt:z:er observes, “In some lengthy interro- gations, the interrogator may, by virtue of his x-ole as the sole supplier o£ satisfaction and pllllishment, assume the atatux-e and bnportance of a parental figure in the prisoner’s feeling andtbinking. Although there may be intenoe hatred for the interro- gator, it is not \lll\l&ual !or warm feelings also to develop. This ambivalence is the basis tor guilt reactions, all.d if tbe interro- gator nourishes these feelings, the guilt may be strong enoughto influence the prisonel”16 behavior . . .. . Guilt makes com- pliance more likely. . . . ” (7).Farber says tbat the response to coercion typically contains ‘1. . . . at lea&t three important element9: debility, dependency. 3-I:Id dread. •• Prisoners ••. , . have reduced· via-bility, a::-c bclpleaaly dependent <n their captor• !or the B3’s’·’…·’I..
r-S~i’.satisfact ion o( their m a.ny basic ueeds, and experience theemotional and motivatioDal reactions o{ intense {ea}” and anx-iety. . • . Among the (J,merica.~ POW’s p ressured by theChinese Conun=ists, the ODD syndrome in its Cull-blown form ‘ constituted a state of discom!ort that was well-nigh intolerable.”(11). Lf the debility-dependency-dread state is unduly prolonged, however, the arrestee m:a.y sink into a defensive apathy fromwhich it is hard to arouse hi.Jn.Psychologist$ aDd otbers who write about physical or psychological duress frequently object tha.t under su!.!icieot pressure subjects usually yield but that their ability to recall and communicate information accurately is as impaired as the will to resist. This pragmatic objection bas somewhat the same validity for a counterintelligence interrogation as for any other. But there is one signific ant difference. Con!cssion is a neces .. sary prelude to the Cl illterrogation o£ a hitherto unresponsive or concealing source. And the. use of coercive techniques will rarely or never con!use an inter>:ogatee eo completely that he does net know whether bis own confession is true or false. He does 1\0t need full mastery of all his powers o£ resistance and disc>:inlination to know whether he is a spy or not. Only·sub- jects who have reached a point Vlhere they a~e w>der delusions a>:e likely to make false confession• tbat they believe. Once a t>:ue confession. is obtained, the classic cautions apply. The pressures are lifted, a.t lea$t enough so that the subject canprovide counterintelligeDcc infonnation aa accu,rately as possi- bl e. In !ac’t, the relie! gra»ted the subject at this tinle !its neaUy into the interrogation plan. He is told that the changed trea.t:xnent is a rewa.rd !or truthfulness and a.n evidence that friendly ba.ndling will continue as long as he cooperatee.The profound moral objection to applying dures s past tbe point of irreversible poychologica! da>nage ha.s been stated.Judging tbe validity o! otbcr ethical arguments about coercion exceeds the ecope a£ tbis paper . What is fully clear, however,is that controlled coercive manipulation of an interrogatee m ay inlpair his ab ility to make fine distinctions but will not alter his ability to answer correctly such gross questions as “Ar-c you a Soviet agent? \Vhat is your assignment now 7 Who is your present case officez-?1184..-..’. ..•..; ·.
IWhen an interrogator s enses tlia.t the subject•s r esistance is wavering, that his desire to yield is g:rowiDg stronger ttanhis wi..sb to continue his resistance, the time bae c ome to provid~ hiinwitltt”‘~accep2b!era.tioo.allzation: aface-savingreasonor·’· excuse for compliance. Novice interrogators may be tempted tosei:t” upon the initial yielding triumphantly and to personalize the victory. Such a temptation must be rejected immediately. An interrogation is not a game played by two people, one to become the wiD.Der and the other the loser. It is simply a method o{ ob-taining correct and useful information. Therefore the interro- gator s hould intensify the subject’s desire to cease struggling by showing him how he cau do eo without seeming to abandon pr in- ciple. self-protection, or other initial causes: of zesietance. If, instead of providing the r ight rationalization at the right time, theinter r ogator sei:tes gloatingly upo<> the subject’s wavering, oppo- sition will stiffen again.The following are the principal coercive techniques of in- terrogation: arrest, detention, d~privation of sensory stimuli through solitary confinement or si=ilar methods, threats a.od fear, dehilit)•, pa.in, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis, nar- cosis, and induced regr ession. This section also· discus ses the detection of malingering by int.,rrogatees aud the provision o( appropriate rationalizations for capitulating and cooperating.C. ArrestThe manner and timing of arrest can coDl::ribute substantially to the interrogator•e purposes. “What we aim to do is to enourethat the manner o£ arrest achieveo, i£ possible, surprise, and the maxi=um amount of menial discorr.fort io order to catch thesuspect off balance and to deprive him of the initiative. One ..should therefore a.rrest him at a moment when be least expects it and when his mental and physical resistance is at its lowest. The ideal time at which to arrest a person is ln the early hours of the morning because surprise is achieved then, and because a person’s resistance physiologically as well ae psychologically is at its lowest…. Ifa person cannot be arrested in theearly hours•• • , then the next best time is in the evening• . ••ss
D. Detention1!, .~rough the cooperation of .. liaison service or by uni- lateral rneans..~larx-angements have been made £or the confinement o( a resistant source, the cil’C\ll’llstances of detention are ar-ranged to enhance within the subject hie feelings of being cutofi h·om the known and the reassuring, and of being plunged into the strange. Usually his own clothes are i.nunedlatcly takenaway, because fatnUiar clothing reinforces identity and thus thecapacity for resista…nce. (Prisons give close hai.r cuto and issue prison garb for the s;une reason.) U the interrogatee is espec:ia.l- ly proud or neat, it may be useful to give hii:n an outftt that isone or two s izeo too large and to !ail to provide a belt, 9 o that he must hold hi& pants up.The point is that man’s sense of identity depends upon a continuity in his &~roundings. habits, appearance, actions, relations with others, etc. Detention pe:nnits the interrogator to cut through theoe links and throw the interrogatee back upon hia own unaided internal resources.Little ia gained if coofinernent m erely replaces one routinePrisoner~ who lead m.onotonously un\’arled liveswith another.u • . • cease to care about their utterances, dress, and cleanli- ness. They become dulled, apathetic, and depressed.” (7) And apathy can be a very e.Uective defense against i.nterrogation. Control of the source’• enviromnent pe:rmlta tbe interrogator to86.. (1)
‘determine his diet. sleep pattr:rn. and other fundamentals. Manipulating these into irregularitiea, ao that the subject becomes ‘· disorientated, is very likely to create feelings of fear and help- lessne’o , Hiolde points out,. 11 People who enter prison with attitudes of forebod ing, appreheo•ion, a.ud b.el.plcssnes s generally do leas well than those who enter with asoura.o.ce and a. convictionthat they can deal with anything that they may encounter • • • . Some people who are afraid of losing s leep, or who do not wioh to losesleep,soonsuccumbtosleeplou.·…” (7)In short, the priooner should not be provided a r outine to which he caD adapt = d !ron> which he ca.n draw some comfort– or at leact a sense o£ his own identity. Everyone has read of prisoners who were reluctant to leave their cells after prolonged’Little is kn.ow1l about tb e du..ration of c oniinementi:ncarce ration~calculated to make a subject ehi!t from anxiety, coupled with adesire lor sensory stintuli and hun1an compaoior.ship., to a. passive, apa thetic acceptance of isolation aXId .., ultilnate pleasure in this nega.tlve state. Undoubtedly the rate of cha.o.ge is determined almost entirely by the psychological c haracteristics of the indi-vidual. [n any event, it ie advisable to keep the subject upset by consta.nt disruptions of patterno.For this reason, it ie usc(ul to determine whether the Ul• t~rroga.ttee b.as been jailed before, bow o.(ten1 under what circwn-8 ta.nce• , for how long, and whether be wa.a subjected to earlier interrog·ation. F a.zniliarity with confinement alld even with isolation reduces the effect.E. Deprivation of Sensory StimuliThe chief effect of arx·est and detention, and particularly of solitary confinement, ie to deprive the subject of many or moat of the sights, sounds. tastes, smelle, a.nd tactile sensations to whichfarers. He round 11 • • • that isolation per ae acts on moat pereons as a powerful stress . . . . lD. all cases of 9urvivo:ts of isolation a t oea or in the polar night, it was the first expoeurc whi.ch. caueed87John C . Lilly examined eighteen auto-be hae grown a.ccusto~ned.biographical accounts written by polar explorers and solitary sea-‘,. ,•
-S~ ETthe greatest fears and hence the greatest i:langer of giving way to Oyn’lptoms: previouG experience is a powerful aid in goi.ngahead, de&pite the symptoms. “The symptoms most commonly produced by isolation are s uperstition, intenoc love of any other living thing, perce ivi..og lnanirnate objects as alive, hallucinations, and de lusions.” (26)The apparent reason for the se effect s is that a per son cut oU {rom external sti.mull turns his awareneGe inward, upon hi.m-sclf, and. then projects the contents of bia own unconscious outward6, so that he endows his faceless environment with his OWll attributes, fears, and forgotten memories. Lilly notes, “ItIs obvious that in.ner factors U\ the mind tend to be projected outward, that some of the mind’s activity which is usually reality- bound now becomes free to turn to phantasy and ultimately to b.a.llucination and delusion. 11A nwnber of experimen~s conducted at McGUl University,the National Institute of Mental Health, and other sites have at- temp~cd to COOle as clooe as possible to the eliznination o( sensory stiznuli, or to masking remaining stimuli, chiefly sounds, by a stronger but wholly monotonous overlay. The results o(these experiments have little applicability to interrogation because the circu.xnst.ances are dissi.mllar. Some of the findings point toward hypotheses that seem relevant to interrogation, but conditionsli.l<e those o( detention for purposes o( counterintelligence interro- gation have not been ciupllcated lor experimentation.At the National l.nstitute o{ Mental Health two subjects were ” . su.spe::>ded with the body a nd aU but the top of the headimmersedina tankcontainingslowlyflowingwaterat34.s·c (94.5′ F)•… ” Both subjects wore bla.ck-out masks, ·which en- closed the whole head but a llowed breathing and nothing else. The sound level wao extremely low; the subject beard only his own brcathU\g and some faint sounds of water from the piping. Neither subjec t stayed i.D the tank longer than three l1ouu. Both passedquickly !rom normally directed thinking throagh a tens ion resultU\g {rorn un&atisfied hunger for sensory etUnuli a.nd concentration uponthe !ew available sensati.ontt to private reveries and f~ntasics and eventually to visual i.magery somewhat resembling hallucination&.’ ‘•s·…..·’ …………’: .·’..
I”’In our exoerirnenls, we notice that after immersion the day apparently is started over, i.e., the subject feels as if he has risen from. bed afresh; this eHect persists, and thesubject finds he is out of step with the clock for the :rest of the day…Drs. Wexler, Mendelson, Leiderman, and Solomon conducted a somewh.at similar experiment on seventeen paid volunteers. These subjects were 11 • •• placed in a tank-typerespirator with a specially built mattress . … The ventsof the :respirato r were left open, so that the subject breathed for himseLf. His arm s and legs were enclosed in comfortable but rigid cylinders to inhibit movement and tactile contact. The subject lay on bis back and was unable to see any partof bis body. The motor of the respirator was run c onstantly, producing a dull, repetitive auditory stimulus. The roorn. admitted no natural light, and artificial light was minimaland consta nt.” (4Z) Although the es<a blisbed time l.Unitwas 36 hours and though all physical needs were taken careof, only 6 of the 17 completed the stint. The other elevensoon asked fo>: release. :Four of these terminated tbe experiment because of anxiety and panic: seven did so because of physical discomfoJ:’t. Tbe.results confirmed earlier findings that (I) the deprivation of sensoX’y stirnull induces stress;(2) the stress becomes unbearable for most subjects ; (3)the subject has a growing oeed for physical and social stimuli; and (4) some subjects pr ogressively lose touch with realit)•, focus inv..rardly, and produce delusions, hallucinations, a.nd other pathological effect •·In summarizing some scientific reporting on sensory and perceptual depriva tion, Kub:.ansky offers the following observations:”Three studies suggest that the more well-adjustedor ‘normal’ the subject is , the m ore he is affected bydepriv.u ion of 9ensory stimuli. Neurotic and psychoticsubjects are either comparatively unaffected or show dec reasesin anxiety, hallucinationsj etc . u (7)89.·.r
S ~ r:; TThese findings sc.gge st – but by no means prove – the following theories aboct solitary confinement a~\d isolation:L The more cor:’lplctely the place of confinement ‘· eHminates sensory stimuli, the more rapidly and deeply willthe interrogatee be afiected. Results p<Oduced only “!ter weeksor months of irnprisoronent in an ordinary cell can be duplicatedin hours or days in a cell which has no light (or weak artificiallight which neve,- varies). which is sound-proded, in whichodors are eliminated, etc. J:\.Sl environznent still more subjectto control, such as wa.ter-tank or iron lung, is even moreeffective.Z. An eal’ly eUect of such an envirorunent is anxiety. How soon it appears and how strong it is depends upon the psychological characteristics o! the individual.3. The interrogator can benefit from the subject’s anxiety. As the interrogator becomes linked in the subject’s mind with the reward ol. lessened anxiety1′ hwnan contact, and rnean.ingful activity, and thus with providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner as swnes a benevolent role. (7)4. The deprivation of stimuli induces regression by depriving the subject’s mind of contact with an outer world and thus forcing it in upon itsel!. At the same time, the calculated .provision of stinluli during interrogation tends to make the regressed subject view the interrogator as a father- figure. The result, normally. is a •trengthening o£ thesubject’s tendencies toward compliance.F. Threats and FearThe t~reat of coercion usually weakens or dest1·oys resistance more effectively than coercion itself. The threat to inflict pain. !or example, can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain. In fact, most people underestimate their capacity to withstand pain. The sam.c principle holds for other £eat’s: sustained long enough. astrong fear of anything vague or u.nknown induces reg.ression.•…: . ..sI’· ~’•’
I.sT:whereas the materia-liz;ation of the !ear. the inJlic.tion o£ some for m o£ punishment, is likely to come as a relie!. The subject finds that be can bold out, and his resistance• are strengthened. urn genei-al, direct physica.l brutalit~· creates only resentment, hostility, and further defiance.” (18)’ •,The effectiveness of a threat depends not only on whatsort of person the i.nterrogatee is and whether be believesthat b.i$ questione>: can .and will car>:y the threat out bnt alsoon the interrogator’s reasons £or threatening. I! the i.”lterrogator threatens. because he Ia angry. the subject frequently sensesthe fear of failure underlying the anger and is st rengthenedin his own resolve to reeist. Thre,ats delivered coldly aremore effective than those shouted ln rage. It is especiallyimportant that a threat not be uttered in response to the interrogatee ‘sown expressions o{ hostility. These, i£ ignored, can induce feelings n! gvilt, whereas retorts in kind relievethe subject’s feelings.Another reason why threats induce compliance not evoked by the inflection of duress is that the threat g>:ants’the interrogatee time !or compliance. lt is not enough that a. resistant source should replaced under the tension of fear;be must also discern an acceptable escape rotlte. Bide1:man obse>:ves, “Not only can the shame or guilt of defeat in tbc encounter with the interrogator be involved, but also the more fundamental injun~tion to protect one’s sel.£-autonom.y or’will’. .. . A simple de!ense against threats to tbe sel£ from the anticipation of being !creed to comply ‘is, o( course, to compiy’deliberately’or’voluntarily’…. Totheextentthatthe for egoing interpretation holds, the more intensely motivated the lliiterrogatee:7 is to resist, the more intense is thepressurr; toward e arly compliance from such. anxieties, forthe greater is the threat to sell-esteem which is involvedin contemplating the possibility o! being ‘forced to ‘ comply …• ” (6) In brief, th.e threat is like all other coercive techniques in being most effective when so us8d as to foster regre ssion and when joined with a suggested way out of the dilemma. a rationalization acceptable to the intcrrogatee.91…..f
rT he threat of death has often been ·row>d to be worse than u seless. lt 11 ha.s the highest position in law as a.but in rr,a.ny Llterzogad.on :Situations it is a highly ineffective threat. tA.any prisoners, in iact, have refused to yi.eld in the face of such threats who have subsequently been ‘broken ‘ by other procedures.” (3} The principal reason is tb.at the ultimate threat is likely to induce sheer hopelessness i1 the inter:rogateo does not believe that ilis a trick; he feels that he is aa likely to be condemned after complio.nce ;u before. The threat of death is also inei!ective·when used against hard-headed types who reali:z.e that silencing tbem forever would de!eat the interrogator’s purpose. U the threat is recognized a.s a bluff, it will not only fail but also pave the way tO failure for later coercive ruses used by the interrogator.G. DebilityNo report of scieDti!ic investigation oi the effect of debility upon the: interrogatee •s powel:’.s of resistancebas been discovered. For centuries interrogators haye employed various methods of inducing physical weakness: prolonged constraint; prolonged exertion: extremes of heat. c old, or :noistu.rei and deprivation or drastic :-eduction of food or sleep. Apparently the assumption is that lowering the sour~e’s physiological resistance will lower hispsychological capacity for opposition. l{ this notion were valid, however, it might reasonably be expected that those subjects who are physically weakest at the beginning ofan interrogation would be the quickest to capitulate. a concept not supported by experience. The available evidence suggests that resistance is sapped pdncipallyby ps ychological rather than physica l pressures. Thethreat of debility – for example, a brief deprivation offood – may induce much more anx.iety than proiongeohunger, which will result after a while in apathy and,perhaps. eventual delusions or haLlucinatiOn$. In brief,it appears probable that the tech.nique s of inducing debility becorne counter-productive at an early stage. The discomfort, tension. and restless search !or an a.v~nuc of escape are..d~f~nse,’ET…….:.;::…..·.
I.,: ..·.·iollowed by withdrawal symptoms, a tuxning away b·omexternal stim~i,and a sluggish unTesponsiveoess.Another objection to the deliberate inducing of debility is that prolonged exertion. loss of sleep. etc., themselves become patterns to which the subject adjusts through apathy. Tbe interrogator should use bis power over tbe resistant subject’s physical enviromnent to disrupt patterns of response, not to create them. Mealsa.nd sleep gl:’anted irregularly, in more than abWl.danceor less than adequacy, the shifts occuring on DO discernible time pattern, will normally disorient an interrogatee and saP his will to resist more effectively than a sustained deprivation leading to debility.H. PainEveryone is aware that people react very differently to pain. The reason, apparently, is not aphysical difference in the intensity of the sensation itsel£. Lawrence E. Hinkle observes, 11 Tbe sensation of pain seems to be roughly equal in all men, that is to say,all people have app<ox.imately tbe same threshold at which they begin to feel pain, and when carefully graded stimuli are applied to them. their estimates o£ severity a.re approxi=ately tbe sa:rne…. Yet. .. when men are very highly motivateq•.•they have been known to carry outrather complex tasks while enduring the most intense pain. 41 He also states, 11ln general, it appears that whatever may be the role o( the constitutional endowment in determining the reaction to pain, it is a much less important determinant than is t~e attitude of the man who experiences the pain.” (1)The wide x-ange of individual reactions to painmay be partially explicable in teo-ns of early conditioning. The person whose first encounters with pain were frightening and intense may be more violently affectedby its later infliction than one whose o~iginal experienceswere mild. OT the reverse m a y be true, and the man \qhose childhood {amili.arb:.ed him with pain n’lay dread. ::::.,.>:”~
ETit les s,- and react less. than one whose castress is heightenedby fear of the unknown. The individual remains the determinant.lt has been plausibly suggested that, whereas paininflicted on. a person !rom outside himself may actually f~c•..!sor intensi1y his will to resist. his resistance is likelier tobe sapped by pain which be seems to inflict upon himself.•’In the simple torture situation the contest is one betweenthe individual and his tormentor (.. •. a.nd he can frequently •’ endure). Wben the individual is told to stand at attention{or: long periods, an intervening factor is introduced. Theimmediate source of pain is not the interrogator but the :.victim himself. The motivational strength of tbe individualis likely to exhaust itself in this internal encounter… . Aslong a s the subject re mains standing, he io attributing to ~-his captor the power to do something worse to him, but there is actually no showdown o£ the ability of tbe interrogatorto do so.” (4)lnterrogatee s who are withholding but who feel qualms of guilt and a secret desire to yield are likely to becorneintractable if made to endure pain. The reason is: tha.t they can then interpret the pain a:s punish.rnent and hence a.sexpiation. There are also persons who enjoy pain and its anticipation and who will keep ba c k information that theymight otherwise divulge if they are given reason to expect that withholding will result in the punishment that tbeywant. Persons of considerable m oral o~ )ntellectual stature often find in pain inflicted by others a confirm&tion of the belie ( that they are in the hands of inferiors , an d their resolve not to submit is strengthened.Intense pain is quite likely to produce false c onfessions, concocted as a means o( escaping from distress. A time- conswning delay results~ while investigation is conductedand the adznissions are proven untrue. During thi:~ Tespitethe interrogatee can pull himself together. He may evenuse the time to think up newJ more compl.ex 11 admissions,.that take still longer to disprove . KU:8ARK is especially vulnerable to such tactics because the interrogation isconducted for the sake of information and not for police purposes.94..:…. …s ,E;E TI
I\1.( an inte.rroga.tec is caus~d to suifer paln cather late in the in:er:rogation process and a!ter other tactics have{ailed, be is almost certain to conclude that the interrogatoris becoming desperate . He may tb.en decide that i! b..o canjust hold out against this final a ssault, he will win the struggle a nd his freedom. And he is l ikely to be right. lnterroga tees who have withstood pain are m ore difficult to b&ndle by other m ethods. The e!Iect has been cot to repress the subject butto restore his confidence an.d maturity.1. · Heightened Suggestibility and Hypnosisln recent years a number of hypotheses about hypnosis have been advanced by psychologists and others in the guise o£ proven principles . Among these are the flat assertions that aperson connot be hypnot\zed against his will; thAt while hypnotized be cannot be induced to divulge in.formation that hewants urgently to conceal; and that be will not undertake , in trance or through post-hypnotic suggestion, actions to whichhe would normally ha.ve serious moral or eth\c.a.l objections. 1f these and related conten.tions were proven valid, hypnosis would have scant value !or the Interrogator.But despite th e fact that hypnosis has been a.o object of sci.entili.c inquiry Cor a very long time, none o£ these theorieshas yet been tested adequately. Each of them Is in conflict with Some observations of fact.. In any event, an interrogation h andbook cannot a nd need not Include a lengthy d iscussion o! hypnosis. The case officer or interrogator needs to know enough about the subject to unde rstand the c.ircu.mstances unde rwbi.ch hypnosis can be a use!ul tool, so that he can request expert assistance app’ropri.ately.Operational p~rson.nel, including interrogators, whocha nce to have some lay experience or skill In hypnotismshould not themselv~s use hypnotic tec.hniques for interrogationor other operational pu:rposes. There a!:’e two reasons forth is position. T he llrst Is that hypnoti sm us•d as a n operational tool by a practiti.oner who is not a psychologist, psychiatrist,O< M.D. can p<oduee irreversible psychologlcal damage. The•.s·.·.·.·
1 11 11 against a person s wi.shes. He adds,’.·.·._:.-lay pra.ctitionec does not know enough to u.se the techniq1.1esafely. The second reason is that an unsuccessful a.ttetnptto hypnotize a subject £or purposes o( interrogation. or a ..successful attempt not adequately covered by post-hypnotic &’Tnnesia or other protection, can easily lead to lurid and•Hypnosis is frequently called a state o( heighten<!<! suggestibility, but the phra se is a desc’ription rather than ade!initiou. Merton M. Gill and Margaret Brenman state, “The psychoanalytic theory of hypnosis clearly implies, where it does not explicitly state, that hypnosis is a form of regression.” And they add, ” … induction/Of hypnosisJ is the process of b ringing about a regression, while the hypnotic state is the established regresoion. ” (13) It issuggested that the interrogator will find thls definition the m o st useful. The problem of overcoming the resistanceof an uncooperative inte rrogat.ee is essentially a. proble m of inducing regression to a level at which the resistancecan no longer be sustained. Hypnosis is one way of regressing people.Martin T. Orne bas written at some length abouthypnosis and inte r rogation. Almost all of his conclusionsare tentatively negative . Concerning the role pla yed by thewUl or atti tude of the intertogatee , Orne says, “Althoughthe cruci~ experiment bas not yet been done, there islittle or no evidence to indica te that trance c an be induced•.embarrassing publicity or legal charges.the actual occurrence of the trance state is related to the wish ofthe subject to eote r hypnosis.” And he also ob serves,11himself later points out, tbe lnterrogatee 11 • • • eou.ld be given a hypnotic drug with appropriate verbal suggestions to talk about a given topic. E ventually enough of the d rug• • • whether a subject will or will not enter trance depends upon his relationship with the hyponotist rather than upon tb.e technical procedure of trance induction. 11 Theseviews are probably representative of those of many psychologist •, but tbey are not definitive. As Orne•••. .·–·.;.. .
‘subjects L’>rougb preliminary administx-ation of so-calledsilent drugs (drugs which the subject does n.ot know he has ·taken) or th:rough other non-routine methods of inductionare still under investigation. Until more facts are known, the question of whether a resi6ter can be hypnotized involWl- tarily must go unanswered.Orne also holds that even if a resister can be hypnotized, his resistance does not cease. He postulates” ..• that only in rare interrogation subjects would a sufficiently deep trance be obtainable to even attempt toinduce the subject to discuss material which he is unwillingto discuss in the wakiog state. The kind o{ information which can be obtained in these rare instances is Still an unanswered question.” He adds that it is doubtful that a subject i..::>. trance could be made to reveal information which he wished to safeguard. But here too Orne seems somewhat too cautiousOX’ pessimistic. Once an illterrogatee is in a hypnotic trance,his understanding of reality becomes subject to manipulation.For example, a KUBARK interrogator could tell a suspectdouble agent in trance that the KGB is conducting the questioning, and thus invert the whole !raiDe of reference. In other words, Orne is probably right in holding that most recalcitrant subjects will continue effective t:esistance as long as the frame of.:refereoce is undisturbed. But once the subject is tricked into believiog that he is talking to friend rather than foe, or that divulging the truth is the best way to serve his own purposes~ his resistance will be replaced by cooperation. The valueof hypnotic trance is not that it permits the interrogator to i.m.pose his w Ul but rather that it can be used to conV’i.nce the interrogatee that there is no valid reason not to be forthcoming.would be given to cause a sho.rt tl¢riod o( unconsciousness. ‘r\o’ben the eubje.ct wakesn, the interrogator could then x-cad from his ‘notes 1 of the hypnotic interview the information· preswnably told bin>.” (Orne had px-eviously pointed outthat this technique requires that tbe interrogator possess significant info~:mation about the subject without the subject’s knowledge.) “It can readily be seen how this•.. maneuver… would facilitate the elicitation of information in subsequent11iD.terviews.'(7} Techniques of inducing trance in resistant
A thi.rd objection raised by.Orne and others is that mate:dal elicited during trance is not reliable. Orne says.11 • • • it has been shown that the accuracy of such information … would not be guaranteed since subjects in hypnosis are iully11Hypnosis offers one advantage not inherent in othe:- interrogation· techniques or aids: the post-hypnotic suggestio:).. Under favorable circumstances it should be possible to administer a silent drug to a resistant source, persuadeh.im as the drug takes effect that he is slipping into a. hypnotic trance, place him under actual bypnosls as consciousness isreturning, shut his frame of re!crence so that his reasons for resistance become reasons for cooperating, interrogatehim, and conclude the session by implanting the suggestion that when he emerges from trance he will not remember a.nyth.ing about what has happened.This sketchy outline of possible uses of hypnosis inthe interrogation of resistant. sources b.as no higher goalthan to remind operational personnel that the techniquemay provide the answer to a problem not otherwise soluble.To repeat:. hypnosis is distinctly not a do-it-yoursell project. Therefore the interrogator, base, or center that is considering its use must anticipate tbe timing sufficiently not only to secure the obligatory headquarters permission but also to allow for an expert’s travel time and briefing.J. NarcosisJust as the threat of pai11 may more effectively induce compliance than its infliction. so an i.nterrogatee1s mistaken belief that he has been drugged may make him a more usdul interrogation subject than he would be under narcosis. LouisA. Gottschalk cites a group of studies as indicating “that 30 to 50 per cent of i:1dividuals are placebo reactors, that ts, respond98ETAgain, tb.e ob9ervation is correct; no knov.ncapable of lying.manipulative method gua.-antees veracity. But i1 hypnosisis employed not as an immediate instrument for digging out the truth but rather as a way of making the subject want to align himself with his interrogators. the objection evaporates.: …·.·.
(swith symptomatic relief to taking an inert substance.”. (7)[n the intet-rogation situation, moreover4 the effectivenessof a placebo may be enhanced because of its ability to placate the consc\ence. The subject1s primary source oi resistance to confession or divulgence may be pride, patri.otism~ personal loyalty to superiors, or fea.r of. retribution if he isreturned to their hands. Under such circumstances his natural desire to e scape from stress by cornplylng …vith theinter rogator•s wishes may become decisive if he ls provided an acceptable rationaJi.zation for compliance. “1 was drugged”is one o’t the best excuses.Drugs are no more the answer to the interrogator•s prayer than the polygraph, hypnosis, or other aids. Studies and reports “dealing witb the validity of material extracted from reluctant informants…indicate that there is :\O drug which can force every informant to report all the inforTI’latioo. he bas. Not.only may the inveterate criminal psychopath lie under the influence of d rugs which have been tested , but therelatively normal and well-adjusted individual may also success(ully disguise (actual data.” (3) Gottschal_k rcinlorces the latter observation in mentioning an experiment involvingdrugs which indicated that “the more normal, well-integrated individuals could lie better than the guilt-riddea, neur otic subjects.” (7)Nevertheles s , drugs can be effective in overcoming resistance not cJ.issolved by other techniques. As bas already been noted, the so-called silent drug (a. pharmacologicallypotent substance given to a person u.naware o{ lts administration)can make possible the induction of bypnotic trance in a previously unwilling subject. Gotts chalk says, “The judicious choice of a. drug with minimal side effects, its matching tothe subject’s per sonality. careful gauging o£ dosage, and asense of timing…[mal<£] silent administration a hard-to-equal ally for the hypnotist intent on producing seli-flllfUling a.nd inescapable suggestions…the drug effects should prove. .. compelling to the subject since the perceived sensations originate entirdy within himseU:.” Fl’ ··•.·.··.r”‘ ·
-I ,tPartieularly imooru.nt is the reference to tn.atching the drug to the pe,-sonallty o{ the inte:rogatee. The elfect of mostdrugs depends more upon the personality o£ the subject than upon the physical characteristics of the drugs themselves. I! the approval o{ Headquarters bas been obtained a.nd i..{ a doctor is at hand !or administration, one of the most important ofthe interrogator 1 s !uoctions is providing the doctor with a full and accurate descr iption of the psychological make- up o{ the intenogatee, to facilitate tbe best poosible choice o( a drug.Persons burdened with feelings o( shame or guilt are likely to unburden. themselves when d rugged, especially i1 these feelings have been reinforced by the interrogator.And like the placebo, the drug provides an excellent rationalization oC b.elplessness for the ioterrogatee who wants to yield but bas hitherto been unable 😮 violate his own values or loyaltles .Like other coercive media, drugs may alfect the coo.ter>t o{ what an ioterrogatee d ivulges. Gottschalk notes that certain drugs “may give rise to psychotic maoiiesta.tions such as hallucinations, Ulusioc.s, delusions, or disorientation”, sothat “the verbal material obtained cannot always be con.si.de coed valid.” (7) For this reason drugs (and the other aids discussed in this section) should not be used persistently to fa.cilitate tbe interrogative: debriefing that {allows capitulation. Their !unction is to cause capitulation, to aid in the shift (rom resistance to cooperation,. Once this ebtft bas been accomplished~ coercive techniques should be abandoned both for moral reasons and because they are uDJ’lecessary and even counte r-productive.This discussion does not include a list o! drugs that ha.ve been employed for interrogation purposes or a. discussion a{ their properties because these are medical considerations within the province of a. doctor rathec than a.n interogator.”·
-I<. The Detection of Malinge ringsThe detection of nu..lingering is obV’iously no t an interrogation technique, coercive or otherwise. But thehistory of interrogation is studded with the stories of per sonswbo have attempted, often successfully. to evade. themountiog pressures of interrogation. by feigning physicalor mental illness. l<UBAR K inte rrog•Ltors may e ncounter seemingly eick or lrrational lnterrogatees at times andplaces which make it difficult or next- to-impossible to summon.medical or other pro!essi.ona.l assistance. Becausea few tips may make it possible for the interrogator todistinguish between the malingerer and the person who is genuinely Ill, and because both illness and malingering ares ometimes produced by coc rc:ive inteTrogation, a brief discussion of tbe topic bas been included here.Most persons who feign a mental or physical illness do not know enough about it to deceive the well-informed. Malcolm L . Meltzer says, “The detection of malingeringdepends to a great extent on tbe simu.Ja.tor•s failure to understand adequately the characteristlcs of the role heis feigning… . Often he presents symptoms which are exceedingly rare, existing mainly in the fancy of the layman. One such .syn1ptom is the delusion of misidentification. characterized by the … belie( that b e is some poweriulthe onset is usually fast and delusions may be readily available . The feigned psychosis often contains many contradictory and inconsistent symptoms. rarely existing together. The mali.ngerer tends to go to extremes \n his protrayal of his symptoms; he exaggerates, overdramatizes, gTimaces, shouts , is overly b~zarre, and calls attention.. to himseU in other wa.ys ….”Another characted stic o{ the ma.llngerer ls that hew dl usually seek to evade or postpone examination. A study 101”This symptom is very unusual inor historic personage~true psychosis, but is used by a number o£ simulators . In schizophrenia, the onset tends to be gTadual. delusionsdo not spring up full-b lown over night; in simulated d isorders, [
of the behavior c! lie-detector: subjects, for example, showed tha.t pe~sons later ‘proven. guilty’ showed cert:a.in s imilarities of behavior. The guilty per sons were reluctant to ta ke the test , and they tried in various ways to po stpone or dcl~y ~t. Th<!y o!ten appeared highly anxious and sometlm<!s took a h.ostile attitude toward the te st and the examiner. Evasive tactics sometimes appea_red, such as sighing, yaW’lling. moving about, all o{ wbich !oil the examiner by obscuringthe recording. Before the exa.mioat\on, they felt it necessa ry toexplainwhy their responses mightTnisleadthecxamioet’lnto thinking they were lying. Thus the proeedure of subjecting a suspected·malingerer to a He-detector test might evoke behavior which would reln!orce the ~uspidoo o( fraud.” (7)Melt:oer al so notes that malingerer s who are not professional psychologists can usually be expo,.t.d through Rorschach tests.An impo r tant element in malinge ring is the f rame of m tnd of the examiner . A person pretending madness awakens in a profesaiooal examiner not only ~usplclon but also a desire to expose the fraud, wherea o a. well personwho pretends to be c ollCt.aling mental illne ss and who permits only a minor symptom or two to peep through is much llkelier to create in the expert a. desire to expose the: hidden sickness.Meltzer observes that siTnulated mutism and amnesia can usually be distinguished!rom the true states by narcoanalysis. The reason, however, is the reverse ofthe popular misconception. Under the influence of appropriate drugs the malingerer will persist in not speaking or in notremembering, whereas the ·symptoms o! the genuinely a.Lflleted will temporarily disappear. Another technique is to pretend to take the deception seriously, express grave concern~ and tell the “paticnt11 that tb.e only remedy lor his illness is a series of electric shock tre~tments’or a frontal lobotomy.102
[(L. ConclusionA Oriel summary of Che ioregolng may help to pull the major concepts of coercive interrogation together:1. The principal coercive techniques are arrest., detention. the d.eprivation of sensory stimuli. th.reats and fear, debility, pain, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis, and drugs.2. [(acoercivetechniqueistobeuse.d~ orif two or more are to be employed jointly, they should be chosen for their effect upon the individual and carefully selected to match his personality.3. The usual effect of coercion is regre ss\on. The inte~rogatee’s mature ddenses crumbles as he becomes more childlike. During the process of regression the subjectn”..ay experience feelings of guilt. and it is usually useful to intensify these.4. When regression has proceeded lar enough so tha.t the subject’s desire to yield begins to overbalance his resistance, the interrogator should supply a face-saving rationalization. Like the coercive technique, the rationalization must be carefully chosen to fit the subject•s personality.5. The pressures of duress should be slackened or luted a!te r compliance has been obtained, so that theinterrogatee’s voluntary cooperation will not be impeded.No mention has been made of what is lrequentl~ the last step in an interrogation conducted by a. Communist’ •.service: the attempted conversion~the goal of the questioning i.s information; once a -sufficient degree of cooperation has been obtained to permit th.e103sh\ the Western .view…•’
SE~interrogator access to the information~ h.e seeks, he is not ordinarily concerned with the attitudes oi the S011rce. Unde.-some circumstances, however, this pragmatic indifference can be short-sighted . U the interrogatee remains semi – hostile or remorseful alter a successful inte rrogation has· end ed.. less. time ma.y be requ~red to complete hi s conversion (and conceivably to create an enduring asset) than might be needed to deal with his ant.a.gonism if he is merely squeezed

%d bloggers like this: