KUBARK COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION

KUBARK COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION

TABLE O F CONTENTS

Pages

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

111. LEGAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

IV. THE INTERROGATOR .

V. THE 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 38-51
j 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 Sources

M. . THE COER GIVE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

INTERROGATION O F RESISTANT SOURCES, 82-104
A. Restrictions 82
B. The The0i.y of Coercion 82-85
C. Arrest 85-86
D. Detention 86-87
E. Deprivation of Sensory Stimuli 87-90 ---..
..,.
F. T h r e a t s and F e a r 90-92
G. Debility 92-93
H, P a i n 93-95
I. Heightened Suggestibility and Hypnosis 95-98
'

J. Narcosis 98-100
K. T h e Detection of Malingering 101-102
L, Conclusion 103-104

X. INTERROGATOR'S CHECK LIST

XI. DESCRIPTIVE BILIOGRAPHY

XII. INDEX
 I. INTRODUCTION

A. Explanation of Purpose

This manual cannot teach anyone how t o be, o r become,

a good interrogator. At best it can help r e a d e r s to avoid t h e
characteris'tic mistakes of poor interrogators.

I t s purpose is t o provide guidelines f o r KUBARK

interrogation, and particularly the counterintelligence
interrogation of resistant sources. Designed a s an aid f o r
interrogators and others i n m e d i a t e l y concerned, it is based
largely upon t h e published r e s u l t s of extensive r e s e a r c h ,
including scientific inquiries conducted by specialists in
closely related subjects.

There is nothing mysterious about interrogation. It

consists of no m o r e than obtaining needed information through
responses to questions. As is t r u e of all craftsmen, some
interrogators a r e m o r e able than others; and some of their
superiority m a y be innate. But sound interrogation nevertheless
r e s t s upon a knowledge of the subject m a t t e r and on c e r t a i n
broad principles, chiefly psychological, which a r e not h a r d
to understand. The success of good interrogators depends in
large m e a s u r e upon their use, conscious o r not, of these
principles and of processes and techniques deriving f r o m them.
Knowledge of subject m a t t e r and of the basic principles w i l l
not of itself c r e a t e a successful interrogation, but it will make
possible the avoidance of mistakes that a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of
poor interrogation. The purpose, then, is not t o teach the
r e a d e r how t o be a good interrogator but r a t h e r to t e l l him
what he must l e a r n in order to become a good interrogator. -
 he 'interrogation of a resistant source who i s a staff or
agent m e m b e r of a n Orbit intelligence or security service o r of
a clandestine Communist organization i s one of the most exacting
of professional tasks. Uaually the odds still favor the interrogator,
but they a r e s h a r p l y cut by the t r a i n h g , experience, pztiience
and toughness of t h e interrogatee. In such c i r c u . s t a n c e s the
i n t e r r o g a t o r needs all the help that he can get. And a.principa1
s o u r c e of a i d today is scientific findkgs. The intelligence
s e r v i c e which i s able t o bring pertinent, modern knowledge to
b e a r upon i t s p r o b l e m s enjoys huge advantages over a s e r v i c e
which conducts its clandestine business in eighteenth century
fashion. It is t r u e t h a t American psychologists have devoted
s o m e what m o r e attention t o Communist interrogation technique a ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y "brainwashing", than t o U. S. 'practices. Yet they
have conducted scientific inquiries into many subjects that a r e
c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o interrogation: the effects of debility and
isolation, t h e polygraph, reactions t o pain and f e a r , hypnosis
and heightened suggestibility, narcosis, etc. This work is of
sufficient importance and relevance that it i s no longer possible
t o d i s c u s s interrogation significantly without reference t o the
psychological r e s e a r c h conducted in the past decade. F o r t h i s
r e a s o n a m a j o r purpose of t h i s study i s to focus relevant
scientific findings upon CI interrogation. Every effort h a s been
m a d e t o r e p o r t and i n t e r p r e t these findings in our own language,
in p l a c e of the terminology employed by the psychologists.

T h i s study is by no m e a n s confined to a r e s u m e and

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of psychological findings. The approach of the
psychologists i s customarily manipulative; that is, they
suggest methods of imposing controls o r alterations upon
the i n t e r r o g a t e e f r o m the outside. Except within the
Communist f r a m e of r e f e r e n c e , they have paid l e s s attention
t o t h e c r e a t i o n of i n t e r n a l controls--i. .e., conversion of the
s o u r c e , s o that voluntary cooperation results. Moral
considerations a s i d e , the imposition of external techniques
of manipulating people c a r r i e s with it the grave risk'of l a t e r
lawsuits, a d v e r s e publicity, o r other attempts to' strike back.
 -
B. Explanation of Organization

This study moves f r o m the general topic of interrogation :,

per s e ( P a r t s I. II, IZI, IV, V, and VI) t o plannijng the.counter- '.
intelligence interrogation (Part VII) to the CI interrogation of
resistant sources ( P a r t s V m , IX,and X). The definitions,
1ega.l considerations, and.discussions of interrogators and
sources, a s well a s Section VI on screening and other
preliminaries, a r e relevant to all kinds of interrogations.
Once it is established that the source i s probably a counter-
intelligence target (in other words, i s probably a member of
a foreign intelligence or security service, a Communist, o r
a p a r t of any other group engaged in clandestine activity
directed against the national security), the interrogation is
planned and conducted accordingly. The CI interrogation
techniques a r e discussed in an order of increasing intensity
a s the focus on source r e s i s t a n t e grows sharper. he last
section, on do's and dont's, i s a return t o the broader view
of the opening p a r t s ; a s a check-list, it is placed last solely
for convenience.
 IL DEFINITIONS
Most of the intelligence terminology employed h e r e which
m a y once have been ambiguous has been clarified through usage
o r through KUBARK instructions. F o r t h i s reason definitions
have been omitted for such t e r m s a s burn notice, defector,
escapee, and refugee. Other definitions have been included
despite a csmmon agreement about meaning if the significance
is shaded by the context.

1. Assessment: the analysis and synthesis of information,

usually about a person or persons, f o r the purpose of appraisal.
The assessment of individuals i s based upon the compilation and
use of psychological as well as biographic detail.

2. Bona fides: evidence o r reliable information about

identity, personal (including intelligence) history, and ,

intentions or goo d faith.

3 . Control: the capacity t o generate, a l t e r , o r halt

human behavior by implying, citing, o r using physical or
psychological means to ensure compliance with direction.
The compliance may be voluntary or involuntary. Control of
an interrogatee can r a r e l y be established without control of
his envir onrnent.
4, Counterintelligence interrogation: an interrogation
( s e e #7) designed t o obtain information about hostile
clandestine activities and persons o r groups engaged therein.
KUBARK CI interrogations a r e designed, almost invariably,
to yield information about foreign intelligence and security
services or Communist organizations. Because security is an
element of counterintelligence, interrogations conducted to
obtain admis sions of clande stine plans o r activities directed
against KUBARK or PBPRIMX security a r e also CI
interrogations. But unlike a police interrogation, the CI
 interrogation i s not aimed at causing the 'interrogatee to
incriminate himself a s a means of bringing him to trial.
Admissions of complicity a r e not, to a CI service, ends
! i n themselves but m e r e l y prelu&es ts t h e zc-l;a;tion
Y-- "A of
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 in.£ormation from cooperative subjects,
interrogation i s usually r e s e r v e d for sources who a r e suspect,
r e s i s t a n t , o r both.

8. Intelligence interview: obtaining information, not

customarily under 'controlled conditions, by questioning a
. -

person who is aware of the nature and perhaps of the significance

of his a n s w e r s but who i s ordinarily unaware of the purposes
and specific intelligence affiliations of the interviewer.
 111. LEGAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

The legislation which founded KUBARK specifically denied

:
it any law-enforcement o r police powers. y e t detention in a
controlled environment and perhaps f o r a lengthy period is
frequently e s s e n t i a l to a successful counterintelligence 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. should

be determined as e a r l y as p o s s ~ b l e . f
The legality of detaining and questioning a person, and of
the methods employed,

Detention poses the m o s t common of the legal problems. KUBARK

has no independent legal authority to detaln anyone against h i s wil1.r

__I The has tc

in which soma KUBARK interrogations have been conducted h a s not
always been the product of impatience. Some security s e r v i c e s , especially
-those of the Sino-Soviet Bloc, may work a t leisure, depending upon time
a s well a s their own methods to m e l t recalcitrance. KUBARK usually
 -
cannot. Accordingly, unless it is considered that the prospective
i n t e r r o g a t e e is cooperative and will remain s o indefinitely, the f i r s t
s t e p in planning an interrogation is to detcrminc how long the s o u r c e .
can b e held. The choice of methods depends in p a r t upon the answer .. ..,
I
to this question.

The handling and questioning of defectora a r e subject to the

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

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-.:
- but
become 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 within
KUBARKTs investigative a n d interrogative respanslbilities. However,
any investigation; interrogation, o r interview of a PBPRIME citizen
which is conducted a b r o a d because it is known o r suspected that h e i s
engaged in clandestine activities directed against PBPRIME s e c u r i t y
i n t e r e s t s r e q u i r e 8 the p r i o r and personal approval of ~ h i e f f o~r ~ ~ ~ d
of 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 o

the Espionage Act, making it henceforth possible to prosecute Ln the
F e d e r a l C o u r t s a n y PBPRIME citizen who violates the statutes of this
Act i n f o r e i g n countries. ODENVY bas requested that it be informed, in
advance if t i m e p e r m i t s , if any investigative s t e p s a r e undertaken in
t h e s e cases. Since KUBARK employees cannot be witnesses in court,
each investigation m u s t b e conducted In such a manner that evidence 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.

- states
policy and p r o c e d u r e s f o r the conduct of investigations of PBPRIME
citizens abroad.

Interrogations conducted under compulsion o r d u r e s s a r e especially

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

1.. If bodily harm i s to be inflicted.

2. If medical, chemical, o r e l e c t r i c a l methods o r

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

A number of studies of 'interrogation d i s c u s s qualities s a i d to

be desirable In an interrogator. The l i s t s e e m s a l m o s t endless -
a professional manner, forcefulness, undcrs tanding and sympathy,
breadth of gene-ral knowledge, ar ca knowledge, I ' a practical
h o w l e d g e of psychology", skill in the tricks of the trade, a l e r t -
n e s s , p e r s e v e r a n c e , integrity, discretion, patience, a high I. Q.,
extensive experience, flexibility, etc., etc. Some texts even
discuss the Lnterrogator's manners and grooming, and one 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 cp'ick recognition of leads; (2) r e a l familiarity with the
language to be used; (3) extensive background laowledge about the
interrogatcc's native country (and intelligence s e r v i c e , if employed
by one); and (4) a genuine understanding of the s o u r c e a s a person.

Statioqs, and even a few b a s e s can

call upon one o r s e v e r a l interrogators to supply these prerequisites,
individually o r as a team. Whenever a number of i n t e r r o g a t o r s is
available, the percentage of s u c c e s s e s is i n c r e a s e d by c a r e f u l
- matchlng of questioners and s o u r c e s and by ensuring that rigid 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
interrogator's goal is to obtain useful information--facts about which
the interrogatec presumably has acquired information. But at the
outset of the interrogation, and perhaps f o r a long t h e , afterwards,
the person being questioned is not greatly concerned with 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 clear
J
-
that the individuality of thc intcrrogatcc is recognized. With this
common understanding established, the interrogation can move on to
-mpersonal m a t t e r s and will not later be thwarted or interrupted--
or a t l e a s t not as often--by irrelevant answers designed not to
provide f a c t s but to prove that the interrogatee is a respectable
m e m b e r of the human r a c e . :. ..
....
...
Although it is often necessary to trick people into telling ..-..
.
..
what we need to b o w , specially in CI interrogations, the .. .
...
initial question which the interrogator a s k s of himself shbuld
be, I1How can I make him want to tell m e what he knows?" r a t h e r . .
than "Hour can I t r a p him into disclos ing what.he koows? If the
per son being ques t i m e d is genuinely hostile f o r ideological
reasons, techniques of manipulation a r e In order. BU; the
assumption of hostility--or a t l e a s t the use of p r e s s u r e .tactics
a t the f i r s t encounter--may make difficult subjects even out of
those who wcnild respond to recognition of individuality and an
Lnit'ial assumption of good will.

Another preliminary comment about the interrogator is that

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

It i s frequently said that the interrogator should be "a good

judge of human nature. l 1 In fact, '
3
t- ( 3 ) This study states l a t e r (page
"Great attention has been given to the degree to which persons a r e
able to lnake judgements f r o m casual observations regarding the
personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of another. The consensus of r e s e a r c h
is that with r e s p e c t to many kinds of judgments, a t l e a s t some judges
p e r f o r m reliably better than chance. . . . Nevertheless, l l . . . the level
of reliability in judgments is s o low that r e s e a r c h encounters
difficulties when i t s e e k s to determine who makes better judgments. . . . II

(3) Tn brief, the interrogator is likelier to overestimate h i s ability' ..

h
to judge o t h e r = + k cts -d-,rest:kzf,e it, especially tl he hzs bad
l i t t l e o r no training in m o d e r n psychology. It follows that e r r o r s
in a s s e s s m e n t and In handling a r e likelier to r e s u l t f r o m snap
judgments based upon the assuinptiqn of b t e skill in judg'mg
o t h e r s than f r o m holding such judgments in abeyance until enough
facts a r e h o w n .

T h e r e h a s been a good deal of discussion'of interrogation

e x p e r t s v s . subject-matter experts. Such facts a s a r e available
suggest that the l a t t e r have a slight advantage. But f o r 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 to

g u a r d duty o r to other supplementary tasks directly ;elated to
interrogation, s o that they can view the process closely before .
tdking charge. The u s e of beginning interrogators a s s c r e e n e r s
( s e e p a r t W) is a l s o recommended.

Although t h e r e is s o m e limited validity in the view, frequently

e x p r e s s e d in interrogation p r i m c r s , that the interrogation i s
e s s e n t i a l l y a batfle of wits, the CI Lnterrogator who encounters a
skilled and r e s istant interrogatee should r e m e m b e r that a wide

* ~ h ci n t e r r o g a t o r should be supported whenever possible by

qualified analysts1 review of h i s daily I1tdke"; experience h a s shown
that s u c h a review w i l l r a i s e questions to be put and poLnts to be
clarified and lead to a thorough coverage of the subject in hand.
variety of aids can be made available. in th'e field o r f r o m ..
Headquarters. (These a r e discussed in Part VIII. ) The intensely ..
. .
personal nature of the interrogation situation makes it all the -. ..
m o r e n e c e s s a r y + h t the KUBARK questioner should a h not f o r . .
a personal triumph but f o r his true goal--the acquisition of all . ..
C .
needed information by any author fied means.
 V. THE INTERROGATEE

A. 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 interrogated

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

All analyses of t h e defector -refugee flow have shown that

t h e Orbit s e r v i c e s a r e well-aware of the advantages offered by this
channel a s a m e a n s of planting t h e i r agents in t a r g e t countries.

I
4. T r a n s f e r r e d s o u r c e s r e f e r r e d t o K U B m K by another service
f o r interrogation a r e usually sufficientl? well-known t o the t r a n s -
f e r r i n g s e r v i c e s o that a file h a s been opened. Whenever possible,
KUBARK should s e c u r e a copy of the f i l e o r its full informational . '.'.,..
- .
equivalent before accepting custody.

5. --
Agents a r e m o r e frequently debriefed than interrogated.

d
a s an analytic tool. If it i s then established o r 5
strongly suspected that the agent belongs t o one of the following
categories., further investigation and, eventually, i n t e ~ r o g a t i o n
usually follow.

a. Provocateur. Many provocation agents a r e walk-ins

posing a s escapees, refugees, o r defectors in o r d e r t o 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 -- bona fide$ But the r e -
s u l t s of preliminary testing- a r e often inconclusive, and
detailed interrogation i s frequently essential to confession
and full revelation. Thereafter t h e provocateur may be
questioned f o r operational and positive intelligence a s well
as counterintelligence provided that proper cognizance i s
taken of his status during the .questioning and l a t e r , when
r e p o r t s a r e prepared.

b. Double agent. The interrogation of DAIS frequently

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

d. Swindlers and fabricators a r e usually interrogated

f o r prophylactic r e a s o n s , not for counterintelligence infor-
mation. The purpose i s the prevention o r nullification of
d a m a g e t o KUBARK. to other ODYOKE s e r v i c e s
Swindlers and f a b r i c a t o r s have little of CI significance to
communicate but a r e notoriously skillful t i m e w a s t e r s . 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 -may prove an exception; but h e will usually give the
edge t o a host security s e r v i c e because otherwise he cannot
function with impunity. .
.,
.'- ,

B. Types of Sources: Personality Categories

The number of systems devised f o r categorizing human beings

i s l a r g e , and m o s t of them a r e of dubious validity. Various 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 two
typologies m o s t frequently advocated a r e psychologic -emotional and
geographic-cultural. Those who u r g e the f o r m e r a r g u e that the b a s i c
emotional-psychological patterns do not v a r y significantly with t i m e ,
place, o r culture. The l a t t e r school maintains the existence of a
national c h a r a c t e r and sub-national categories, and interrogation
guides based on t h i s principle recommend approaches tailored t o
geographical c u l t u r ~ s .

It i s plainly t r u e that the interrogation s o u r c e cannot be under -

stood in a vacuum, isolated f r o m s o c i a l context. It i s equally t r u e
that s o m e of the m o s t glaring blunders in interrogation (and other
operational p r o c e s s e s ) have resulted f r o m ignoring t h e s o u r c e ' s
background. Moreover, emotional-psychological s chematizations
sometimes p r e s e n t . atypical e x t r e m e s r a t h e r than the 'kinds of
people commonly encountered by interrogators. Such typologies
a l s o c a u s e disagreement even among professional psychiatrists
and psychologists. Interrogators who adopt t h e m and who note in
an interrogatee one o r two of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of I1Type A" may
mistakenly a s s i g n the s o u r c e t o Category A and a s s u m e the r e -
maining t r a i t s .

On the other hand, t h e r e a r e valid objections t o the adoption

of cultural-geographic categories f o r interrogation purposes (how-
ever valid they may be as KUCAGE concepts). The pitfalls of
ignorance of the distinctive culture of the s o u r c e have '
-
 T h e i d e a l solution would be to avoid all categorizing. 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 person's past i s always
r e f l e c t e d , however dimily, i n his present ethics and behavior. Old
dogs can l e a r n new t r i c k s but not new ways of learning them. People
- d o change, but what a p p e a r s to be new behavior or a new psychological
p a t t e r n i s usually just a variant on the old theme.
 It i s not claimed that the classification system presented
h e r e i s complete; s o m e interrogatees will not f i t into any one of
.,
t h e groupings. And like a l l other typologies, the s y s t e m i s plagued . '

by overiap, s o that s o m e interrogatees. will show c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

of m o r e than one group. Above all, the interrogator m u s t r e m e m b e r
that finding some of the characteristics of t h e group i n a single s o u r c e
does not w a r r a n t an immediate conclusion that the s o u r c e "belongs to"
the group, and that e v e n . c o r r e c t labelling i s not the equivalent of under -
standing people but m e r e l y an aid t o understanding.

The nine m a j o r groups within the psychological-emotional c a t e -

gory adopted f o r t h i s handbook a r e the following.

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 him
9 a personalized quality; 'they a r e p a r t s of himself. He often c a r r i e s
around shiny coins, keepsakes, a bunch of keys, and other objects
having f o r himself a n actual o r symbolic value.
 u s u a i l Y ' t h e orderly-obstinate character h a s a history of
active rebellion, in childhood, of persistently d'oing the exact
opposite of what h e i s told t o do. As an adult he may have l e a r n e d
t o cloak his r e s i s t a n c e and become passive-aggressive, but h i s
determination t o get his own way i s unaltered. He h a s m e r e l y
l e a r n e d how t o proceed indirectly if necessary. The profound f e a r
and h a t r e d of authority, persisting since chil&ood, i s often well-
concealed i n adulthood. F o r example, such a p e r s o n may confess
e a s i l y and quickly under interrogation, even t o a c t s that he did not
commit, in o r d e r t o throw t h e interrogator off t h e t r a i l of a 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-obstinate

c h a r a c t e r should avoid t h e r o l e of hostile authority. T h r e a t s and
threatening g e s t u r e s , table -pounding, pouncing on evasions o r l i e s ,
and any s i m i l a r l y authoritative tactics will only awaken i n such a
subject h i s old anxieties and habitual defense mechanisms. To
attain r a p p o r t , t h e interrogator should be friendly. It will probably
prove rewarding if t h e r o o m and the interrogator look exceptionally
neat. Orderly-obstinate interrogatees often collect coins o r other
objects a s a hobby; t i m e spent in sharing their i n t e r e s t s m a y thaw
s o m e of the ice. Establishing rapport is extremely important when
. .
dealing with t h i s type,

2. T h e optimistic character. This kind of s o u r c e i s a l m o s t

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

Such a p e r s o n h a s usually had a great d e a l of'over-indulgence

in e a r l y life. He is s o m e t i m e s the youngest member of a l a r g e family,
 the child of a middle-aged woman (a so-called "change -of -life baby").
If he has met severe frustrations in later childhood, he may be 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 subject's 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 source's resistance is based on logic. The appeal will
glance off ineffectually if the resistance is totally o r chiefly emotional
r a t h e r than rational, Emotional-resistance can be dissipated only by
emotional manipulation,

4. The anxious, self -centered character, Although this person

is fearful, he i s engaged in a constant struggle t o conceal his f e a r s .
He i s frequently a daredevil who compensates for. his anxiety by p r e -
tending that t h e r e i s no such thing as danger. He may be a stunt f l i e r
or circus performer who "provesn himself before crowds, He may a l s o
be a Don Juan. He tends t o brag and often lies through hunger f o r approval
or praise. As a soldier or officer he may have been decorated f o r bravery;
but if so, his comrades may suspect that his exploits resulted f r o m a
pleasure in exposing himself t o danger and the anticipated delights of r e -
wards, approval, and applause. The anxious, self-centered c h a r a c t e r
,
is usually intensely vain and equally sensitive,

People who show these characteristics a r e actually unusually

fearful. The causes of intense concealed anxiety a r e too complex and
subtle t o permit discussion of the subject in this paper.

Of greater importance t o the interrogator than the causes i s

the opportunity provided by concealed anxiety f o r successful manipulation
of the source, His d e s i r e t o i m p r e s s will usually be quickly evident,
He i s likely t o be voluble. Ignoring or ridiculing his bragging, or
cutting him short with a demand that he get down t o cases, is likely t o
make him resentful and t o stop the flow. Playing upon his vanity,
especially by praising his courage, will usually be 'a successful tactic
if employed skillfully. Anxious, self-centered interrogatees who a r e
withholding significant facts, such as contact with a hostile service,
 -
a r e likelier to divulge if made to feel that the truth w i l l not be used
to h a r m them and if the interrogator also s t r e s s e s the callousness
and stupidity of the adversary in sending s o valiant a person upon ,
s o ill-prepared a m i s s ion. There is little to be gained and much to ...
be lost by exposing the nonrelcvant lies of this kind of source. Gross
lies about deeds of daring, sexual prowess, or other llproofstl of
courage and manliness a r e best met with silence o r with friendly but
ll~ncommittalreplies unless they consume an inordinate amount of
time. If operational use is contemplated, recruitment may 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 k'md of person has a strong

cxuel, unrealistic conscience. His whole life seems devoted to r e -
living his feelings of guilt. Sometimes he seems determined to atone;
a t other times he insists that whatever went wrong is the fault of some-
body else.' In either event he seeks constantly some proof o r external
indication that the gum of others is greater than his own. He is often
caught up completely in efforts to prove that he has been treated 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 n order to confess and be punished. Masochists
also belong in this category.

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

The guilt-ridden character is hard to Interrogate. He may

&
"confess" to hostfle clandestine activity, or other acts of interest to
KUBARK, in which h e was not involved. Accusations levelled a t him
by the interrogator a r e likely to trigger such false confessions. Or
h e m a y remain silent when accused, enjoying the llpunishment. He
i
b a poor subject f o r LCFLUTTER. The complexities of dealing with
conscience-ridden hterrogatees vary s o widely from case to case
h t it is almost Impossible to list sound general principles. Perhaps
the best advice is that the interrogator, once alerted by information
from the screening process (see P a r t YJ) br by the subject's 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 Lf
punished in some way, because of the gratification induced by
punishment.

6. The character wrecked by success is closely related

to the guilt-ridden character. This sort of person .cannot tolerate
success and goes ,through life failing a t critical points. H e Ls
often accident-prone. Typically he has a long history of be'mg
promising and of almost completing a significant assignment o r
achievement but not bringing it off. The character who & m o t
stand success enjoys his ambitions as long a s they remain fan-
t a s ies but somehow ensures that they will not be fulfilled in
reality. Acquaintances often feel that his success is just around
the corner, but something always intervenes. In actuality this
something is a sense of guilt, of the kind described above. The
person who avoids success has a conscience which forbids the
pleasures of accomplishment and recognition. He frequently
projects his guilt feelings and feels that all of his failure.s were
someone else's fault. He may have a strong need to - s k f e r and
.may seek danger or injury.

As interrogatees these people who "cannot stand 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 of

fantasy 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 l
world seems to him empty and meaningless, in contrast with
the mysteriously s ignificaat world that he has made, H e is
extremely intolerant of any frustration that occurs in the outer
world and deals with it by withdrawal into the interior realm.

;./
S E C
He h a s no r e a l attachments t o others, although he may attach
symbolic and private meanings o r values t o other people.
' I .
Children r e a r e d in homes lacking in ordinary' affection
and attention or in orphanages o r state-run communes may be-
come adults who belong t o this. category. Rebuffed i n e a r l y
efforts t o attach t h e m s e l v e s to another, they become distrustful
of attachments and t u r n inward. Any link t o a group o r country
will be undependable and, as a rule, transitory. .At the same
t i m e the schizoid c h a r a c t e r needs external approval. Though
he r e t r e a t s f r o m r e a l i t y , he does not want t o feel abandoned.

As & interrogatee the schizoid character is likely t o

l i e readily t o win approval. He will t e l l the interrogator what
he thinks the interrogator wants t o hear in order to w i n the award
of seeing a smile on the i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s face. Because he is not
always capable of distinguishing between fact and fantasy, he may
be unaware of lying. The d e s i r e for approval provides the in- ......- ..
...
t e r r o g a t o r with a handle. Whereas accusations of lying o r other
indications of d i s e s t e e m w i l l provoke withdrawal from the situation
teasing the t r u t h out of the schizoid subject may not prpve difficult
if he i s convinced t h a t he will not incur favor through misstatements
o r disfavor through telling the truth.

Like t h e guilt -ridden c h a r a c t e r , the schizoid character

m a y be a n unreliable subject for testing by LCFLUTTER 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 his
incapacity t o deal with f a c t s and t o f o r m r e d relationships.

8. The exception believes that the world owes him a great

deal. He f e e l s that he suffered a gross injustice, usually e a r l y
i n life, and should be repaid. Sometimes the injustice was meted
out impersonally, by fate, as a physical deformity, an extremely
painful illness o r operation in childhood, or the early 10ss of one
parent o r both. Feeling that these misfortunes were undeserved,
the exceptions r e g a r d them a s injtlstices that someone or some-
thing m u s t rectify. Therefore they claim a s their right privileges
not permitted others. When the claim i s ignored or denied, the
exceptions become rebellious, a s adolescents often do. They a r e
convinced t h a t t h e j u s t i c e of the c l a i m i s p i a h f o r ' a l l t o s e e and
that any r e f u s a l to g r a n t i t i s willfully malignant.
' ,
..'.
--
i ~ ~ ~ c ~ r o g athe
- rIr l Ar A~ C ~ I t e dexceptions
, a r e likely t o m a k e
d e m a n d s f o r money, r e s e t t l e m e n t aid, and o t h e r f a v o r s - - d e m a n d s
t h a t are. c o m p l e t e l y out of proportion t o the value of t h e i r 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 , the
exception is l i k e l i e s t t o c a r r y an alleged i n j u s t i c e dealt h i m b y
KUBARK t o the n e w s p a p e r s o r the c o u r t s .

The 'best g e n e r a l line to follow in handling those who,

believe t h a t they a r e exceptions i s t o l i s t e n attentively (within
r e a s o n a b l e t i r n e l i m i t s ) t o t h e i r g r i e v a n c e s a n d t o m a k e no
c o m m i t m e n t s that cannot be d i s c h a r g e d fully. D e f e c t o r s f r o m
hostile intelligence s e r v i c e s , doubles, p r o v o c a t e u r s , and o t h e r s
who have had m o r e t h a n passing contact with a Sino-Soviet
s e r v i c e m a y , if they belong t o t h i s c a t e g o r y , prove unusually
r e s p o n s i v e t o s u g g e s t i o n s f r o m the i n t e r r o g a t o r that t h e y have
been t r e a t e d u n f a i r l y by the other s e r v i c e . Any ~ l a n n e do p e r a t i o n a l
u s e of s u c h p e r s o n s should take into account t h e fact t h a t .they have
no s e n s e of loyalty t o a common c a u s e and a r e likely t o t u r n
aggrievedly a g a i n s t s u p e r i o r s .

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

Exper innents and s t a t i s tical analyses performed a t the Univers ity

of Minnesota concerned the relationships among anxiety and affiliative
tendencies ( d e s i r e to b e with other people), on the one hand, and t h e
o r d i n a l position ( r a n k in h i r e sequence) on the other. Some of the
findings, though n e c e s s a r i l y tentative a n d speculative, have s o m e
relevance to interrogation. (30). A s is noted in the bibliography, the
investigators concluded that isolation typically c r e a t e s anxiety, that
anxiety intensifies the d e s i r e to b e with o t h e r s who s h a r e the s a m e
fear, and that only and f'rrst-born children a r e m o r e anxious and
l e s s willing o r able to withstand pain thzm later-born children. Other
applicable hypotheses a r e that f e a r i n c r e a s e s the aff iliative needs
of f i r s t - b o r n a n d only children much m o r e than those of the later-born.
T h e s e differences a r e m o r e pronounced in persons f r o m s m a l l f a m i l i e s
than in those who grew up in l a r g e families. Finally, only children
a r e much l i k e l i e r to hold themselves together and p e r s i s t in 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 subject's "ordinal pos ition"

before questioning begins m a y b e useful to the interrogator. But
two cautions a r e in o r d e r . The f i r s t is that the findings a r e , a t this
>
stage, only tentative hypotheses. The second is that even if they prove
r a t e f o r l a r g e groups, the data a r e like those in a c t u a r i a l tables; they
have no specific predictive value for individuals.
 VL SCREENING AND OTHER PRELIMINARIES

A; Screening

- s o m e l a r g e stations a r e
able t o conduct p r e l i m i n a r y psychological s c r e e n i n g before 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 the
i n t e r r o g a t o r , i n advance, with a reading on t h e type and c h a r -
a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n t e r r o g a t e e . It i s recommended that screening
be conducted whenever personnel and f a c i l i t i e s p e r m i t , unless it
i s r e a s o n a b l y c e r t a i n that the interrogation will be of m i n o r 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 the
s a m e KUBARX p e r s o n n e l who will i n t e r r o g a t e t h e m l a t e r .

Other psychological testing aids a r e b e s t a d m i n i s t e r e d b y a

t r a i n e d psychologist. T e s t s conducted on A m e r i c a n POW'S r e -
turned t o U. S. jurisdiction in Korea during the Big and Little
Switch suggest that ~ r o s p e c t i v ei n t e r r o g a t e e s who show n o r m a l
emotional r e s p o n s i v e n e s s on the R o r s c h a c h and' r e l a t e d t e s t s a r e
l i k e l i e r t o prove cooperative under i n t e r r o g a t i o n than a r e those
whose r e s p o n s e s indicate that they a r e apathetic and emotionally
 withdrawn o r b a r r e n . E x t r e m e r e s i s t e r s , however, s h a r e the
r e s p o n s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of collaborators; they differ in the
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?:
oa than emotions.
a n a l y s i s of objective t e s t r e c o r d s and biographical information
is a s a m p l e of 759 Big Switch r e p a t r i a t e s revealed that m e n who -
had collaborated differed f r o m men who had not in the following
ways:. t h e c o l l a b o r a t o r s were older, had completed m o r e y e a r s of
school, s c o r e d h i g h e r on intelligence'tests administered a f t e r r e -
patriation, had s e r v e d longer i n the A r m y prior to capture, and
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 Mindszenty's preoccupation with the concept of becoming
s e c u r e and powerful through the s u r r e c d e r of self t o the g r e a t e s t
power of t h e m all - h i s God idea - predisposed him t o the response
e l i c i t e d i n h i s experience with the communist intelligence. F o r him
the s u r r e n d e r of self-system t o authoritarian-system was natural,
a s was t h e v e r y principle of martyrdom. I ' (28)

The t a s k of screening i s made e a s i e r by the fact that the

s c r e e n e r is i n t e r e s t e d i n the subject, not i n the information which
h e m a y p o s s e s s . Most people--even many provocation agents who
have been t r a i n e d t o r e c i t e a legend--will speak with some freedom
.- about childhood events and familial relationships. And even the
provocateur who substitutes a fictitious person f o r his r e a l father
.will d i s c l o s e s o m e of his feelings about his father i n the course
of detaililig h i s s t o r y about the imaginary substitute. If the s c r e e n e r
 -
has learned to put the potential source a t eas'e, to feel his way
along in each case, the source is unlikely to consider that a
casual conversation about himself if dangerous, ".
'\ ,
'\

The screener is interested in getting the subj.ect to talk about

himself. Once the flow starts, the screener should try not to stop
it by questions, gestures, or other interruptions until s a i c i e n t
information has been revealed to permit a rough determination of
type. The subject is likeliest to talk freely if the screener's manner
is friendly and patient. His fac'ial express ion should not reveal. special
interest in any one statement; he should just s e e m sympathetic and
understanding. .Withama short time most people who have begun talking
about themselves go back to early experiences, s o that merely by
listening and occasionally making a quiet, encouraging r e m a r k the
screener can learn a great deal. Routine questions about school
teachers, employers, and group leaders, for example, will lead the
subject to reveal a good deal of how he feels about his parents,
superiors, and others of emotional consequence to him because of
associative links in his mind.

I t is very helpful if the screener can imaginatively place him-

self in the subject's position, The more the screener b o w s about
the subject's native a r e a and cultural background, the less' likely
is he to disturb the subject by a n incongruous remark. Such comments
as, "That must have been a bad time for you and your family, " or
"Yes, I can see why you were angry, ' I o r "It sounds exciting" a r e
sufficiently innocuous not to distract the subject, yet provide adequate
evidence of sympathetic interest. Taking the subject's side against
his enemies serves the same purpose, and such comments a s "That
was unfair; they had no right to treat you that way1' will aid rapport
and stimulate further revelations.

I t is important that gross abnormalities be spotted during the

screening process. Persons suffering from severe mental illness
will show major distortions, delusions, or halluc~hationsand w i u
usually give bizarre explanations for their behavior. ~ i s r n i i s a o lr
prompt r e f e r r a l of the mentally ill to profess ional specialis t i w ill
- save time and money.

The secbnd and related purpose of screening is to permit an

educated guess about the source's probable attitude toward the
i n t e r r o g a t i o n . An e s t i m a t e of whether the i n t e r r o g a t e e will be
.cooperative o r r e c a l c i t r a n t i s e s s e n t i a l t o planning b e c a u s e v e r y :,
d i f f e r e n t m e t h o d s a r e used in dealing with t h e s e two t y p e s . -...

At s t a t i o n s o r b a s e s which cannot conduct s c r e e n i n g in t h e

f o r m a l s e n s e , i t i s still worth-while to refa ace any 'important in-
t e r r o g a t i o n with a'n i n t e r v i e w of the s o u r c e , conducted by s o m e o n e
o t h e r t h a n t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r and designed t o provide a m a x i m u m of
e v a l u a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e interrogation c o m m e n c e s.

U n l e s s a s h o c k effect i s d e s i r e d , the t r a n s i t i o n f r o m t h e
s c r e e n i n g i n t e r v i e w t o t h e i n t e r r o g s tion situation should not be
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
k'Cj
/
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 ounc'e 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 which
contact i s f i r s t established.
. .
3 . The suggested procedure for arriving a t a preliminary
a s s e s s m e n t of w a l k - i n s r e m a i n s the s a m e -
.- ['(-
. ,L4
.
--7

i
L
T h e key p o i n t s a r e r e p e a t e d h e r e f o r e a s e of r e f e r e n c e . T h e s e
p r e l i m i n a r y t e s t s a r e d e s i g n e d t o supplement the technical
e x a m i n a t i o n of a w a l k - i n ' s d o c u m e n t s , substantive q u e s t i o n s
a b o u t c l a i m e d h o m e l a n d o r o c c u p a t i o n , and o t h e r s t a n d a r d
i n q u i r i e s . T h e following q u e s t i o n s , if a s k e d , should be posed
a s soon a s p o s s i b l e a f t e r the i n i t i a l c o n t a c t , while the walk-in
i s s t i l l u n d e r s t r e s s a n d b e f o r e h e h a s adjusted to a r o u t i n e .

a. T h e walk-in m a y be a s k e d to identify a l l
r e l a t i v e s and f r i e n d s in the a r e a , o r even the c o u n t r y ,
in w h i c h P B P R I M E a s y l u m is f i r s t r e q u e s t e d . T r a c e s
should be r u n s p e e d i l y . P r o v o c a t i o n a g e n t s a r e :
s o m e t i m e s d i r e c t e d to "defect" in t h e i r t a r g e t a r e a s ,
and f r i e n d s o r r e l a t i v e s a l r e a d y in place may be h o s t i l e
assets.

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 e
c u s t o m a r i l y sent to the p r o p e r field o r h e a d q u a r t e r s component
f o r technical a n a l y s i s .

6 . If during s c r e e n i n g o r any other p r e - i n t e r r o g a t i o n

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

C. Summary

Screening and the o t h e r p r e l i m i n a r y p r o c e d u r e s will h e l p

the 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 e
w h e t h e r the prospective s o u r c e (1) i s likely t o p o s s e s s useful
counterintelligence b e c a u s e of association with a foreign
s e r v i c e o r Communist P a r t y and ( 2 ) i s likely t o cooperate
voluntarily o r not. A r m e d with these e s t i m a t e s and with
whatever insights s c r e e n i n g h a s provided into the p e r s o n a l i t y
of the s o u r c e , the i n t e r r o g a t o r i s ready to plan.
 VII . PLANNING THE C O U N T E R I N T E L L I G E N C ~
INTERROGATION

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

T h e 1ong;range p u r p o s e of CI interrogation i s to get f r o m

t h e s o u r c e all the useful counterintelligence information that
h e h a s . T h e s h o r t - r a n g e p u r p o s e i s to e n l i s t h i s cooperation
t o w a r d t h i s end o r , if h e i s r e s i s t a n t , to d e s t r o y h i s capacity
f o r r e s i s t a n c e and r e p l a c e it with a cooperative attitude. The
t e c h n i q u e s u s e d in nullifying r e s i s t a n c e , inducing compliance,
a n d e v e n t u a l l y eliciting voluntary cooperation a r e discussed in
P a r t VIII of t h i s handbook.

No two i n t e r r o g a t i o n s a r e the s a m e . E v e r y interrogation

i s s h a p e d definitively by the p e r s o n a l i t y of the s o u r c e - and of
t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r , b e c a u s e interrogation i s an intensely :
i n t e r p e r s o n a l p r o c e s s . The whole p u r p o s e of screening and
a m a j o r p u r p o s e of t h e f i r s t stage of the interrogation i s to
p r o b e t h e s t r e n g t h s and w e a k n e s s e s of the subject. Only when
t h e s e h a v e been e s t a b l i s h e d and understood d o e s it become
possible to-plan realistically.

P l a n n i n g the CI i n t e r r o g a t i o n of a r e s i s t a n t source r e q u i r e s
a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g (whether f o r m a l i z e d o r n o t ) of the dynamics
of c o n f e s s i o n . H e r e H o r o w i t z ' s study of the n a t u r e of confession
i s p e r t i n e n t . H e s t a r t s by asking why confessions occur a t a l l .
"Why not a l w a y s b r a z e n i t out when confronted b y accusation?
W h y d o e s a p e r s o n convict himself through a confession, when,
a t t h e v e r y w o r s t , no confession would leave hi& a t l e a s t a s
w e l l off (and p o s s i b l y b e t t e r off). .. ?I' He a n s w e r s that
c o n f e s s i o n s obtained without d u r e s s a r e usually the product
of the following conditions:
 1. - The p e r s o n i s accused explicitly o r implicitly and f e e l s
accused.

2 . A s a r e s u l t h i s psychological f r e e d o m - the extent to .,

which h e f e e l s able to do what he wants to - i s curtailed. T h i s . .-.

feeling need not correspond to confinement o r any other e x t e r n a l

reality .
3 . The a c c u s e d f e e l s defensive because he i s on u n s u r e
ground. He does not b o w how much the a c c u s e r knows. A s a
r e s u l t the a c c u s e d "has no f o r m u l a f o r p r o p e r behavior, no r o l e
if you w i l l , that he can utilize in this situation.

4. He p e r c e i v e s t h e a c c u s e r as r e p r e s e n t i n g authority.
U n l e s s h e believes that the a c c u s e r ' s p o w e r s f a r exceed h i s
own, h e i s unlikely to f e e l hemmed in and defensive. And if
h e " p e r c e i v e s that the accusation i s backed by ' r e a l ' evidence,
the r a t i o of e x t e r n a l f o r c e s to h i s own f o r c e s i s i n c r e a s e d a n d the
p e r s o n ' s psychological position i s now m o r e p r e c a r i o u s . I t i s
i n t e r e s t i n g to note that in such situations the a c c u s e d tends
t o w a r d over r e s p o n s e , o r exaggerated response; to hostility
and emotional display; to self-righteousne s s , to counter
a 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 r

supporting f o r c e s . If he d o e s , he himself b e c o m e s the only
s o u r c e of h i s " salvation.
I

6. "Another condition, which i s m o s t probably n e c e s s a r y ,

though not sufficient f o r confession, i s that the a c c u s e d p e r s o n
f e e l s guilt. A possible r e a s o n i s t h a t a s e n s e of guilt p r o m o t e s
self-hostility." It should be equally c l e a r that if the p e r s o n
d o e s not f e e l guilt h e i s not in h i s own mind guilty and will not
confess to a n a c t which o t h e r s may r e g a r d as evil o r wrong a n d
h e , i n f a c t , c o n s i d e r s c o r r e c t . Confession in such a c a s e c a n come
only with d u r e s s even where all other conditions previously.
mentioned m a y p r e v a i l .
 7. The a c c u s e d , finally, i s pushed f a r enough along the
path toward confession that it i s easier f o r h i m to keep going
than to t u r n back. He p e r c e i v e s confession a s the only way out
of h i s p r e d i c a m e n t and into freedom. (15)

~oiowitz h a s been quoted and summarized a t some length

b e c a u s e it i s considered t h a t the foregoing i s a basically sound
account of the p r o c e s s e s that evoke confessions f r o m s o u r c e s
w h o s e r e s i s t a n c e i s not strong a t the outset, who have not
previously-been confronted with detention and interrogation,
and who have not been trained by an a d v e r s a r y intelligence o r
s e c u r i t y s e r v i c e i n r e s i s t a n c e techniques. A fledgling o r
disaffected Communist o r agent, for example, might be brought
to confession and cooperation without the use of any external
coercive f o r c e s other than the interrogation situation itself,
through the above-described progression of subjective events.

It is important to understand that interrogation, as both

situation and p r o c e s s , does of itself exert significant external
p r e s s u r e upon the i n t e r r o g a t e e a s long a s h e i s not permitted
to a c c u s t o m himself to it. Some psychologists t r a c e this effect
back to infantile relationships. Meerlo, f o r example, s a y s that
e v e r y v e r b a l relationship r e p e a t s to some degree the
of e a r l y v e r b a l relationships between child and parent. ( 2 7 )
A n i n t e r r o g a t e e , in p a r t i c u l a r , i s likely to s e e the interrogator
a s a p a r e n t o r parent-symbol, an object of suspicion and
r e s i s t a n c e o r of submissive acceptance. I£ the interrogator
i s unaware of t h i s unconcsious p r o c e s s , the r e s u l t can be a
confused battle of submerged attitudes, in which the spoken
w o r d s a r e often m e r e l y a . c o v e r f o r the unrelated struggle
being waged at lower l e v e l s of both personalities. On the
o t h e r hand, the i n t e r r o g a t o r who does understand these f a c t s
and who b o w s how to t u r n t h e m to h i s advantage may not need
to r e s o r t to any p r e s s u r e s g r e a t e r than those that flow directly
f r o m the interrogation setting and function.

Obviously, many r e s i s t a n t subjects of counterintelligence

interrogation cannot be brought to cooperation, o r even to
compliance, m e r e l y through p r e s s u r e s which they generate
within t h e m s e l v e s o r through the unreinforced effect of the
interrogation situation. Manipulative techniques - still keyed
to the individual but brought to b e a r upon h i m f r o m outside
himself - then become n e c e s s a r y . It i s a fundamental
hypothesis of t h i s handbook that these techniques, which can
succeed even with highly r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e s , a r e in e s s e n c e
m e t h o d s of inducing r e g r e s s i o n of the personality to what-
e v e r e a r l i e r and weaker level i s required f o r the dissolution
of r e s i s t a n c e and the inculcation of dependence. All of the
techniques employed to b r e a k through a n interrogation
roadblock,. the e n t i r e s p e c t r u m f r o m simple isolation to
hypnosis and n a r c o s i s , a r e essentially ways of speeding up
the p r o c e s s of r e g r e s s i o n . As t h e interrogatee slips back
f r o m m a t u r i t y toward a m o r e infantile s t a t e , h i s l e a r n e d o r
s t r u c t u r e d personality t r a i t s fall away in a r e v e r s e d
chronological o r d e r , so t h a t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s m o s t recently
acquired - which a r e a l s o the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s drawn upon by
the i n t e r r o g a t e e in h i s own defense - a r e the f i r s t to go. As
Gill a n d B r e n m a n have pointed out, r e g r e s s i o n i s basically a
l o s s of autonomy. (13)

Another key to the successful interrogation of the r e s i s t i n g

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

The interrogation p r o c e s s i s a continuum,. and everything

that t a k e s place in the continuum influences all subsequent
events. The continuing p r o c e s s , being i n t e r p e r s o n a l , i s not
 -
/
S E C . E T

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

B. The Interrogation Plan

Planning f o r i n t e r r o g a t i o n i s m o r e i m p o r t a n t than the

s p e c i f i c s of t h e plan. Because no two i n t e r r o g a t i o n s a r e
a l i k e , the i n t e r r o g a t i o n cannot r e a l i s t i c a l l y b e planned f r o m
A t o 2 , i n all i t s p a r t i c u l a r s , a t the outset. But i t can a n d
m u s t be planned f r o m A to F o r A to M. T h e chances of
f a i l u r e in an unplanned CI interrogation a r e unacceptably
high. E v e n w o r s e , a "dash-on-regardless" approach c a n
r u i n t h e p r o s p e c t s of s u c c e s s even if sound m e t h o d s a r e
used later.

T h e intelligence category to which the subject belongs,

though n o t d e t e r m i n a n t f o r planning p u r p o s e s , i s s t i l l of
s o m e significance. The plan f o r the i n t e r r o g a t i o n of a
t r a v e l l e r d i f f e r s f r o m that f o r other types b e c a u s e the -
t i m e a v a i l a b l e f o r questioning i s often brief. The examination
of h i s bona f i d e s , a c c o r d i n g l y , i s often l e s s s e a r c h i n g . He
i s usually r e g a r d e d as reasonably r e l i a b l e if h i s identity and
f r e e d o m f r o m o t h e r intelligence a s s o c i a t i o n s have been
e s t a b l i s h e d , if r e c o r d s checks do not produce d e r o g a t o r y
i n f o r m a t i o n , *if h i s account of h i s background i s f r e e of
o m i s s i o n s o r d i s c r e p a n c i e s suggesting significant withholding,
if h e d o e s not a t t e m p t to elicit information about the q u e s t i o n e r
o r h i s s p o n s o r , and if h e willingly p r o v i d e s detailed information
w h i c h a p p e a r s r e l i a b l e o r i s established a s such.
 D e f e c t o r s can usually be i n t e r r o g a t e d u n i l a t e r a l l y , a t
l e a s t f 0 r . a t i m e . P r e s s u r e f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n will usually
come f r o m an ODYOKE intelligence
component. The t i m e available f o r u n i l a t e r a l t e s t i n g and
exploitation should be calculated a t the o u t s e t , with a f a i r
r e g a r d f o r the r i g h t s and i n t e r e s t s of o t h e r m e m b e r s of the
intelligence community. The m o s t significant s i n g l e f a c t to b e
kept in mind when planning the i n t e r r o g a t i o n of Soviet d e f e c t o r s
i s that a c e r t a i n p e r c e n t a g e of t h e m h a v e p r o v e n to be controlled
a g e n t s ; e s t i m a t e s of t h i s percentage h a v e r a n g e d - a s high a s
J u r i n g a period of s e v e r a l y e a r s a f t e r 1955. ( 2 2 )

KUBARK's l a c k of executive power s i s e s p e c i a l l y significant

if the i n t e r r o g a t i o n of a s u s p e c t a g e n t o r of any o t h e r subject
who i s expected to r e s i s t i s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A s a g e n e r a l
r u l e , it i s difficult to s u c c e e d in the G I i n t e r r o g a t i o n . o f a
r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e u n l e s s the interrogating s e r v i c e c 6 c o n t r o l
the subject and his environment f o r a s l o n g as p r o v e s n e c e s s a r y .
-
C. The Specifics

1. The Specific P u r p o s e

Before questioning s t a r t s , the interrogator h a s c l e a r l y

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

2. Resistance

The kind and intensity of anticipated r e s i s t a n c e i s

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

The p r e l i m i n a r y psychological analysis of the subject

m a k e s it e a s i e r to decide whether he i s likely to r e s i s t and,
if s o , whether h i s r e s i s t a n c e will be the product of f e a r that
h i s p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t s will be damaged o r the r e s u l t of the
non-cooperative n a t u r e of orderly-obstinate and related
types. The choice of methods to be used in overcoming
r e s i s t a n c e i s a l s o d e t e r m i n e d by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the
interrogatee.

3. T h e Interrogation Setting

T h e r o o m i n which the interrogation i s to be conducted

should be f r e e of d i s t r a c t i o n s . The colors of walls, ceiling,
r u g s , and f u r n i t u r e should not be startling. P i c t u r e s should be
m i s s i n g o r d d l . Whether the f u r n i t u r e should include a d e s k
depends not upon the i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s convenience but r a t h e r upon
the subject1s anticipated r e a c t i o n to connotations of superiority
and officialdom. A p l a i n table m a y be preferable. An over-
s t d f e d chair f o r t h e use of the interrogatee i s sometimes
p r e f e r a b l e t o a straight-backed, wooden chair because if he
i s made t o stand f o r a lengthy period o r i s otherwise deprived
of physical c o m f o r t , the c o n t r a s t i s intensxied and i n c r e a s e d
disorientation r e s u l t s . Some t r e a t i s e s on interrogation a r e
emphatic about the value of a r r a n g i n g the lighting so that i t s
s o u r c e i s behind the interrogator and g l a r e s directly a t the
subject. H e r e , t o o , a f l a t r u l e i s unrealistic. The effect
upon a cooperative s o u r c e i s inhibitory, and the effect upon
a withholding s o u r c e m a y be t o make h i m m o r e stubborn.
Like all o t h e r d e t a i l s , t h i s one depends upon the personality
of the i n t e r r o g a t e e .

Good planning will prevent interruptions. If the

r o o m i s a l s o used f o r p u r p o s e s other than interrogation, a
"Do Not Disturb" s i g n o r i t s equivalent should hang on the
door when questioning i s under way. The effect of someone
wandering in b e c a u s e . h e forgot h i s pen o r wants to invite the

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

The i n t e r r o g a t i o n r o o m a f f o r d s ideal conditions f o r

photographing the i n t e r r o g a t e e without h i s b o w l e d g e by
concealing a c a m e r a behind a p i c t u r e o r e l s e w h e r e .

l£ a new safehouse i s to be u s e d a s t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n
s i t e , it should be studied carefully to be s u r e t h a t the t o t a l
environment c a n be manipulated as d e s i r e d . F o r e x a m p l e ,
t h e e l e c t r i c c u r r e n t should be known in advance, s o t h a t
t r a n s f o r m e r s o r .other modifying d e v i c e s will be on h a n d . if
needed.

A r r a n g e m e n t s a r e usually rnade to r e c o r d t h e
i n t e r r o g a t i o n , t r a n s m i t it to another r o o m , o r do both. M o s t
experienced i n t e r r o g a t o r s do not l i k e t o t a k e n o t e s . Not being
saddled with t h i s c h o r e l e a v e s t h e m f r e e t o c o n c e n t r a t e on
w h a t s o u r c e s s a y , how they s a y i t , and what e l s e they do
while talking o r l i s t e n i n g . Another r e a s o n f o r avoiding 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 t
h e i s not talking f o r t h e r e c o r d . Another advantage of t h e tape
i s that it'can be played b a c k l a t e r . Upon s o m e s u b j e c t s the
shock of h e a r i n g t h e i r own voices unexpectedly i s unnerving.
The r e c o r d a l s o p r e v e n t s l a t e r twistinqs o r d e n i a l s of
adrnis sions.

A recording
i s a l s o a valuable t r a i n i n g aid for i n t e r r o g a t o r s , who by t h i s
-_ -
means can study t h e i r m i s t a k e s and their. m o s t effective
techniques. Exceptionally instructuve interrogations, o r
selected portions t h e r e o f , can a l s o be used in the training
of o t h e r s .

If possible, audio equipment should also be used

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

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

I n t e r r o g a t e e s a r e normally questioned separately.

Separation p e r m i t s the use of a number of techniques that
would not be possible otherwise. I t a l s o intensifies i n the
s o u r c e the feeling of being cut off f r o m friendly aid. Confrontation
of two o r Tnore s u s p e c t s with each other i n o r d e r t o produce
r e c r i m i n a t i o n s o r admissions i s especially dangerous if not
preceded by s e p a r a t e interrogation s e s s i o n s which have evoked
compliance f r o m one of the i n t e r r o g a t e e s , o r a t l e a s t significant
admissions involving both. Techniques f o r the separate
interrogations of linked s o u r c e s a r e discussed in P a r t IX.

The number of i n t e r r o g a t o r s used f o r a single

interrogation c a s e v a r i e s f r o m one Tnan to a l a r g e team.
The s i z e of the t e a m depends on s e v e r a l considerations,
chiefly the importance of the c a s e and the intensity of s o u r c e
r e s i s t a n c e . Although most s e s s i o n s consist of one interrogator
and one i n t e r r o g a t e e , some of the techniques described l a t e r
call f o r the p r e s e n c e of two, t h r e e , o r four i n t e r r o g a t o r s . The
two-man t e a m , in p a r t i c u l a r , i s subject to unintended antipathies
and conflicts not called for by assigned r o l e s . Planning and
 subsequent conduct should eliminate such cross-currents
before they develop, especially because the source will
seek to turn t h e m to h i s advantage.

T e a m m e m b e r s who a r e not otherwise engaged can

be employed to best advantage at the listening post. Inexperienced
interrogators find that listening to the interrogation while it i s in
p r o g r e s s can b e highly educational.

Once questioning s t a r t s , the interrogator i s called

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

Other r e a s o n s f o r changing interrogators should be

anticipated and avoided a t the outset. During the f i r s t p a r t
of the interrogation the developing relationship between the
questioner. and the initially uncooperative source i s m o r e
importailt than the information obtained; when this relationship.
i s d e s t r o y e d by a change of interrogators, the replacement
m u s t s t a r t n e a r l y f r o m scratch. In f a c t , h e s t a r t s with a
handicap, because exposure to interrogation will have made
the s o u r c e a m o r e effective r e s i s t e r . Therefore the b a s e ,
station, should not assign a s chief interrogator
a p e r s o n whose availability will end before the estimated
completion of the c a s e .

5. The Timing

Before interrogation s t a r t s , the amouht of time

probably r e q u i r e d a n d probably available to both interrogator
and i n t e r r o g a t e e should be calculated. Lf the subject i s not
to be under detention, h i s n o r m a l schedule i s ascertained
in advan-ce, so that h e will not have to be released a t a critical
point b e c a u s e h e h a s an appointment o r h a s to go to work.

Because pulling information f r o m a recalcitrant

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

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

a l s o manipulate his environment. Merely by cutting off all other
human contacts, "the i n t e r r o g a t o r monopolizes the social environ-
- ment of the s o u r c e . "(3) He exercises'the powers of an all-powerful
p a r e n t , determining when the source will be sent to bed, when and
- what he will e a t , whether he will be rewarded f o r good behavior o r
punished f o r being bad. The interrogator can and does m a k e the
 -
s u b j e c t ' s world not only unlike the world 'to which he had been .
a c c u s t o m e d but a l s o s t r a n g e in itself - a w o r l d in which f a m i l i a r
p a t t e r n s of t i m e , s p a c e , and s e n s o r y perception a r e overthrown.
He can shift the environment abruptly. F o r example, a s o u r c e who '-.
r e f u s e s t o t a l k at all c a n be placed in unpleasant s o l i t a r y 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 unexpected
walk i n the woods. Experiencing relief and exhilaration, t h e s u b j e c t
will usually find it impossible not t o respond t o innocuous c o m m e n t s
on t h e w e a t h e r and t h e flowers. These a r e expanded t o include
r e m i n i s c e n c e s , and soon a precedent of v e r b a l exchange h a s been
established. Both t h e G e r m a n s and the Chinese have used t h i s t r i c k
effectively..

The i n t e r r o g a t o r a l s o chooses the emotional key o r k e y s i n

which the i n t e r r o g a t i o n o r any p a r t of i t will be played.

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

- .--
- L

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

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

1. The Opening

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

A principal goal during the opening phase i s to c o n f i r m

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

There is another advantage in l e t t i ~ gthe subject t a l k

f r e e l y and even ramblingly in the f i r s t stage of i n t e r r o g a -
tion. The i n t e r r o g a t o r is f r e e t o observe. Human beings
communicate a g r e a t deal by non-verbal means. Skilled
i n t e r r o g a t o r s , f o r example, listen closely t o voices and l e a r n
a g r e a t d e a l f r o m them. An interrogation i s not m e r e l y a
verbal performance; it is a vocal performance, and t h e
voice projects tension, f e a r , a dislike of c e r t a i n topics, and
other useful pieces of information. It is a l s o helpful to watch :,
the subject's mouth, which i s as a rule much more, revealing
than h i s eyes. Gestures and postures a l s o t e l l a s t o r y ; If
a subject normally gesticulates broadly at t i m e s and is at
other t i m e s physically relaxed but at s o m e point sits stiffly
motionless, his posture is likely to be t h e physical i m a g e of
his m e n t a l tension. The io'terrogator should make a m e n t a l
note of the topic that caused such a reaction.

One textbook on interrogation lists the following physical

indicators of emotions and recommends that i n t e r r o g a t o r s
note them, not as conclusive proofs but as a s s e s s m e n t aids:

(1) A ruddy o r flushed face is a n indication of a n g e r

o r e m b a r r a s s m e n t but not n e c e s s a r i l y of guilt.

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

(3) A pale face indicates f e a r and usually shows that

the interrogator is hitting c l o s e t o the . m a r k .

(4) A d r y mouth denotes nervousness.

(5) Nervous tension i s a l s o shown by wringing a

handkerchief o r clenching the hands tightly.

(6) Emotional s t r a i n o r tension m a y cause a pumping

of the h e a r t which becomes visible i n the pulse
and throat.

(7) A slight gasp, holding the b r e a t h , o r a n unsteady

voice may b e t r a y the subjcct.

(8) Fidgeting m a y take many f o r m s , all of which arc

good indications of nervousnes s .
 -
(9) A m a n under emotional s t r a i n o r nervous tension
will involuntarily draw his elbows to his sides. It
i s a protective defense mechanism.
'.
(10) The movement of the:foot when one leg i s c r o s s e d
over the knee of the other can s e r v e as an indicator.
The circulation of the blood t o the lower l e g is
partially cut off, thereby causing a slight lift o r
movement of the f r e e foot with each h e a r t beat.
This becomes m o r e pronounced and observable
as the pulse r a t e i n c r e a s e s .

P a u s e s a r e a l s o significant. Whenever a person i s

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

The establishment of rapport i s the second principal

purpose of the opening phase of the interrogation. Sometimes
the i n t e r r o g a t o r knows in advance, as a result of screening,
.
that the subject will be uncooperative At other t i m e s the
probability of r e s i s t a n c e is established without screening:
detected hostile agents, for example, usually have not only
the will t o r e s i s t but also the means, through a cover s t o r y o r
other explanation. But the anticipation of withholding i n c r e a s e s
r a t h e r than diminishes, the value of rapport. In other w o r d s ,
a l a c k of r a p p o r t m a y cause an interrogatee to withhold
information that he would otherwise provide f r e e l y , w h e r e a s
',
the existence of r a p p o r t may induce an interrogatee who is -.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 confronted
with initial hostility, o r i n any other way confirm s u c h
negative attitudes as he may encounter at the outset. During
this f i r s t phase his attitude should r e m a i n business-like but
a l s o quietly (not ostentatiously) friendly and welcoming.
Such opening r e m a r k s by subjects as, "1 know what you
so-and-so's a r e a f t e r , and I can t e l l you right now that
you're not' going t o get it f r o m m e " a r e b e s t handled by a n
unperturbed "Why don't you t e l l m e what h a s made you a n g r y ? "
At this stage the i n t e r r o g a t o r should avoid being drawn into
conflict, no m a t t e r how provocatory may be the attitude o r
language of the interrogatee. I£ he m e e t s truculence with
neither i n s i n c e r e protestations that hc is the subject's Ifpal"
nor a n equal a n g e r but r a t h e r a c a l m i n t e r e s t in what h a s
a r o u s e d the subject, the interrogator h a s gained two advantages
right at the start. He has established the superiority that he
w i l l need l a t e r , as t h e questioning develops, and he h a s i n c r e a s e d
the chances of establishing rapport.

How long the opening phase continues depends upon how

long it t a k e s to establish r a p p o r t o r t o determine that 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 r
of seconds, o r it m a y be a drawn-out, up-hill battle. Even
though the c o s t i n time and patience is sometimes high, the
effort t o make the subject f e e l that his questioner is a
sympathetic figure should not be abandoned until all reasonable
r e s o u r c e s have been exhausted (unless, of course, the i n t e r r o -
gation does not m e r i t much time). Othelwise, the chances a r e
that the interrogation will not produce optimum r e s u l t s . In
f a c t , it i s likely t o be a failure, and the i n t e r r o g a t o r should
not be dissuaded f r o m the effort to establish rapport by a n
inward conviction that no man in 'his right mind would i n c r i m i -
nate himself by providing the kind of information that i s sought.
The h i s t o r y of interrogation i s full of confessions and other
self-incriminations that w e r e in e s s e n c e the result of a 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 fade
away, i t s significance f o r the interrogatee tends to do like-
wise. That world is replaced by the interrogation room, i t s
two occupants, and the dynamic relationship between them,
.,
.
As interrogation goes on, the subject tends increasingly t o
divulge o r withhold i n accordance with the values of the .
interrogation world r a t h e r than those of the outside world
(unless the periods of questioning a r e only brief interruptions
i n h i s n o r m a l life). In t h i s s m a l l world of two inhabitants a
c l a s h of personalities -- as distinct f r o m a conflict of p u r p o s e s --
a s s u m e s exaggerated f o r c e , like a tornado in a wind-tunnel. The
self-esteem of the interrogatee and of the interrogator becomes
involved, and the interrogatee fights t o keep his s e c r e t s f r o m
his opponent f o r subjective reasons, because he is g r i m l y
determined not t o be the l o s e r , the inferior. If on the o t h e r
hand the interrogator establishes rapport, the subject m a y
withhold because of other reasons, but his resistance often
l a c k s the bitter, last-ditch intensity that r e s u l t s if the contest
becomes personalized..

The i n t e r r o g a t o r who s e n s e s o r determines in the opening

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

If it is decided, much l a t e r in the interrogation, to

confront the interrogatee w i t h proof of lying, the following
r e l a t e d advice about legal cross-examination may prove
helpful .
"Much depends upon the sequence in which one conducts
the cross-examination df a dishonest witness. You should
never hazard the important question until you have laid the
foundation f o r it in such a way that, when confronted with t h e
fact, the witness c a n neither deny n o r explain it. One often
s e e s the m o s t damaging documentary evidence, i n the f o r m s
of l e t t e r s o r affidavits, f a l l absolutely flat as b e t r a y e r s of
,

falsehood, m e r e l y because of the unskillful way i n which t h e y ' ...,.

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

2 . The Reconnaissance

If the i n t e r r o g a t e e is cooperative at the outset o r if

r a p p o r t is established during the opening phase and the s o u r c e
b e c o m e s cooperative, the reconnaissance stage is needle s s ;
the i n t e r r o g a t o r proceeds directly t o detailed questioning.
But if the i n t e r r o g a t e e i s withholding, a period of explora-
tion is n e c e s s a r y . Assumptions have normally been made
a l r e a d y as t o what he is withholding: that he is a f a b r i c a t o r ,
o r a n R E agent, o r something e l s e h e deems it important to
conceal. Or t h e assumption m a y be that he had knowledge of
s u c h activities c a r r i e d out by someone else. At any r a t e , the
purpose of the reconnaissance is t o provide a q&ck testing of
the assumption and, m o r e importantly, to probe the c a u s e s ,
extent, and intensity of r e s i s t a n c e .

During t h e opening phase the i n t e r r o g a t o r will have

c h a r t e d the probable a r e a s of r e s i s t a n c e by noting those topics
which c a u s e d emotional o r physical reactions, speech blocks,
o r other indicators. He now begins t o probe these a r e a s .
E v e r y experienced interrogator h a s noted that i f a n i n t e r r o g a t e e
is withholding, his anxiety i n c r e a s e s a s the questioning
n e a r s the m a r k . The s a f e r the topic, the m o r e voluble the
source. But as the questions make him increasingly un-
comfortaSle, "he interrogatee becomes l e s s communicative
o r perhaps even hostile. During the opening phase the
i n t e r r o g a t o r has gone along with this protective mechanism.
Now, however, he keeps coming back t o e a c h a r e a of sensi-
tivity until he has determined the location of each and the
intensity of the defenses. If resistance is slight, m e r e
p e r s i s t e n c e may overcome it; and de,tailed questioning m a y
follow immediately. But if resistance is strong, a new topic
should be introduced, and detailed questioning r e s e r v e d f o r the
t h i r d stage.

Two dangers a r e especially likely to appear during the

reconnaissance. U p to this point the interrogator h a s not
continued a line of questioning when r e s i s t a n c e was encountered.
Now, however, he does so, and rapport m a y be strained.
Some i n t e r r o g a t e e s will take this change personally and tend to
personalize the conflict. The interrogator should r e s i s t this
tendency. If he succumbs t o it, and becomes engaged in a
battle of wits, he may not be able t o accomplish the t a s k at
hand, The second temptation to avoid i s the natural inclination
t o r e s o r t p r e m a t u r e l y to r u s e s o r coercive techniques i n o r d e r
t o s e t t l e the m a t t e r then and there. The b a s i c purpose of the
reconnaissance is t o determine the kind and degree of p r e s s u r e
that will be needed in the third stage. The i n t e r r o g a t o r should
r e s e r v e h i s fire-power until he knows what h e is up-against.

3. The Detailed Questioning

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 of
information that h a s little o r no intelligence value and
only a s m a l l collection of nuggets. He will naturally
tend t o t a l k about what he knows b e t , The i ~ t e r r o g a t o r
,-.
. L

".
,

should not show quick impatience, but neither should he

allow the r e s u l t s t o get out of focus. The determinant
r e m a i n s what we need, not what the interro'gatee c a n
m o s t readily provide.

At t h e -same time i t is n e c e s s a r y t o make e v e r y

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

/b/
S E '
-
It is a l s o a good expedient to have the i n t e r r o g a t e e
make notes of topics that should be covered, which o c c u r
t o him while discussing the immediate m a t t e r s at i s s u e .
The a c t of recording the s t r a y i t e m o r thought on p a p e r
fixes it i n the i n t e r r o g a t e e 1 s mind. Usually topics
popping up i n the c o u r s e of an interrogation a r e forgotten
if not noted; they tend t o disrupt the interrogation plan
if c o v e r e d by way of digression on the spot.

Debriefing questions should usually be, couched to

provoke a positive answer and should be specific. The
questioner should not accept a blanket negative without
probing. F o r example, the question "Do you know any-
thing about P l a n t X ? " is likelier to d r a w a negative
a n s w e r then "Do you have any f r i e n d s who work at Plant
X ? o r "Can you d e s c r i b e its e x t e r i o r ?

It is important t o determine whether the s u b j e c t l s

knowledge of any topic was acquired at f i r s t hand, l e a r n e d
indirectly, o r r e p r e s e n t s m e r e l y a n assumption. If the
information was obtained indirectly, t h e identities of
sub-sources and related information about the channel a r e
needed. If s t a t e m e n t s r e s t on assumptions, the f a c t s
upon which the conclusions a r e based a r e n e c e s s a r y to
evaluation.

As detailed que stioning proceeds, additional

biographic data will be revealed. Such i t e m s should b e
e n t e r e d into the r e c o r d , but it is n o r m a l l y referable
not t o diverge f r o m a n impersonal topic i n o r d e r t o
follow a biographic lead. Such leads c a n be taken up
l a t e r unless they raise new doubts about bona fides.

As detailed interrogation continues , and c specially

a t the half-way m a r k , the i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s d e s i r e t o complete
the t a s k m a y c a u s e him to be increasingly business-like
o r even brusque. He m a y tend to c u r t a i l o r drop t h e
u s u a l i n q u i r i e s about the subject ' s well-being w i t h which
he opened e a r l i e r s e s s i o n s . He may f e e l like dealing m o r e
a n d m o r e abruptly with reminiscences o r digressions.
His i n t e r e s t h a s shifted f r o m the interrogatee himself,
who just a while ago was an interesting person, to the
a t s k or' getting a t what he knows. But if rapport has been
establbhed, the interrogatee w i l l be quick to sense and
r e s e n t t h b change of attitude. This point is particularly
important tf the interrogatee is a defector faced with
bewilder'hg changes and in a highly emotional state.
Any interrogatee has his ups and downs, times when he is
t i r e d o r half-ill, times when his p ~ r s o n a problems
l have
l e f t his nerves frayed. The peculiar intimacy of the
interrogation situation and the very fact that the interro-
gator h a s deliberately fostered rapport will d t e n lead
the subject to talk about his doubts, f e a r s , and other
p e r s o n a l reactions. The interrogator should neither cut
off thb flow abruptly nor show impatience unless it takes
up an inordinate amount of time o r unless it seems likely
that all the talklag about personal m a t t e r s is being used
deliberately as a smoke s c r e e n to keep the interrogator
f r o m doing h i s job. I£ the interrogatee is believed
cooperative, then f r o m the beginning to the end of the
p r o c e s s he should feel that the interrogator's interest in
him has remained constant. Unless the interi.ogation is
soon over, the interrogatee's attitude toward his 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 useful

counterintelligence information h a s been obtained; (2)
diminishing r e t u r n s and m o r e pressing commitments
compel a cessation; o r (3) the base, station,
a d m i t s f u l l o r partLdl defeat. Term'bation for any reason
other than the f i r s t is only temporary. I t is a profound
mistdke to write off a successfully resistant interrogatee
o r one whose questioning was ended before his potential
 was exhausted. KUBARK must keep track of such persons,
because people and circumstances change. Until the
s o u r c e dies o r tells us everything that he knows that is ' .
pertinent to our purposes, his interrogation may.be '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-

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

The-followhg steps a r e normally a routine p a r t of the

conclusion:
C. Techniques of Non-Coercive Interrogation of Resistant
Sources

Zf s o u r c e r e s i s t a n c e is encountered during screening o r during

the opening o r reconnaissance phases of the interrogation, non-
coercive methods of sapping opposition and strengthening the tendency
to yield and t o cooperate may be applied. Although these methods
appear h e r e in an approximate o r d e r of increasing p r e s s u r e , i t
should not be i n f e r r e d that each i s t o be t r i e d until the key f i t s the
lock. On the c o n t r a r y , a large p a r t of the skill and the s u c c e s s of
the experienced interrogator l i e s in his ability to match method to
source. The use of unsuccessful techniques will of itself i n c r e a s e
the i n t e r r o g a t e e l s will and ability to r e s i s t .

This principle a l s o affects the decision to employ c o e r c i v e

techniques and governs the choice of these methods. I£ i n the
opinion of the i n t e r r o g a t o r a totally r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e h a s the s k i l l
and determination t o withstand any non-c oercive method o r 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 depends

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

Another effect frequently produced by non-coercive (as well a s

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

In b r i e f , the techniques that follow should m a t c h t h e personality

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

1. Going Next Door

O d c a s i o n a ~t h~e information needed f r o m a r e c a l c i -

trant i n t e r r o g a t e e is obtainable f r o m a willing sourcc. The
i n t e r r o g a t o r should decide whether a confession is e s s e n t i a l
t o his p u r p o s e o r w h e t h e r information which m a y be held by
o t h e r s as w e l l as the unwilling s o u r c c is really his goal. The
l a b o r of e x t r a c t i n g the t r u t h f r o m unwilling interrogatees should
be undertaken only if the same information is not m o r e easily
obtainable e l s e w h e r e o r i f operational considerations r e q u i r e
self-incrimination.
2. Nobody Loves You

i n t e r r o g a t e e who i s withholding items of no g r a v e . .

consequence t o himself m a y sometimes be persuaded t o talk b y . -... '

the s i m p l e t a c t i c of pointing out that t o date a l l of the 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 some
of the denouncers m a y have been biased o r malicious. In any
c a s e , t h e r e is bound t o be some slanting of the facts unless the
i n t e r r o g a t e e r e d r e s s e s the balance. The source owes it t o
himself t o be s u r e that the interrogator h e a r s both s i d e s of the
story. .

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

The i n t e r r o g a t o r who already knows p a r t of the s t o r y

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

4. The I n f o r m e r

Detention m a k e s a number of t r i c k s possible. One of

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

5. News f r o m Home

Allowing an interrogatee to receive carefully selected

l e t t e r s f r o m home c a n contribute t o effects desired by the
interrogator . Allowing the s o u r c e to write l e t t e r s , especially
if he c a n be led t o believe that they will be smuggled out with-
out the knowledge of the authorities, may produce information
which i s difficult t o extract by d i r e c t questioning.

6. The Witness

If o t h e r s have accused the interrogatee of spying f o r a

hostile s e r v i c e o r of other activity which he denies, t h e r e i s
a temptation t o confront the r e c a l c i t r a n t source with h i s
a c c u s e r o r a c c u s e r s . But a quick confrontation h a s two
weaknesses: it is likely to intensify the stubbornness of
denials, and it spoils the chance to use m o r e subtle mkthods.

One of these is to place the interrogatee in a n outer

office and e s c o r t p a s t him, and into the inner office, an
a c c u s e r whom he knows personally o r , in fact, any p e r s o n --
even one who i s friendly to the source and uncooperative with
the i n t e r r o g a t o r s -- who is believed to know something about
whatever the interrogatee is concealing. It i s 8 a l s oe s s e n t i a l
that t h e interrogatee know o r suspect that the witness may be
in pos s e s s i o n of the incriminating information. The witne s s
i s whisked past the interrogatee; the two a r e not allowed to
speak t o e a c h other. A guard and a stenographer r e m a i n in
the outer office with the interrogatee. After about a n hour
the i n t e r r o g a t o r who h a s been questioning the interrogatec i n
past s e s s i o n s opens the door and a s k s the stenographer t o come
in, with steno pad and pencils. After a time she r e - e m e r g e s
and types m a t e r i a l f r o m h e r pad, making s e v e r a l carbons.
She pauses, points at the interrogatee, and a s k s the guard how
-
his name is spelled. She may also ,ask the i'nterrogatee
d i r e c t l y f o r the p r o p e r spelling of a s t r e e t , a prison, the
name of a Communist intelligence officer, o r any o t h e r ' ,
f a c t o r closely linked to the activity of which he i s ,accused. . . .-. ..
She takes h e r completed work into the inner office, c o m e s .
back out, and telephones a request t h a t someone come up
t o a c t as l e g a l witness, Another m a n a p p e a r s and e n t e r s the
i n n e r office, The person c a s t in the i n f o r m e r ' s r o l e m a y
have been l e t out a back door at the beginning of t h e s e p r o -
ceedings; o r if cooperative, he m a y continue .his role. In
e i t h e r event, a couple of i n t e r r o g a t o r s , with o r without the
"infoxmer", now e m e r g e f r o m the i n n e r office. In c o n t r a s t
t o t h e i r e a r l i e r demeanor, they a r c now relaxed and smiling.
The i n t e r r o g a t o r i n charge says to t h e guard, "O.K., Tom,
take h i m back. We don't need him a n y m o r e . I ' Even if the
i n t e r r o g a t e e now i n s i s t s on teUing h i s side of the s t o r y , he
is told t o r e i a x , because the interrogator will get around to
h i m t o m o r r o w o r the next day.

A s e s s i o n with the witness m a y be recorded. If t h e

witness denounces the interrogatee, t h e r e is no problem.
If he does not, the interrogator m a k e s a n effort t o draw him
out about a hostile agent recently convicted i n c o u r t o r other-
w i s e known t o t h e witness. During t h e next interrogation
s e s s i o n with t h e s o u r c e , a p a r t of the taped denunciation can
be played back t o him if necessary. O r the w i t n e s s e s '
r e m a r k s about the known spy, edited as n e c e s s a r y , c a n be
so back that the interrogatec is persuaded that he is
the subject of the r e m a r k s .

Cooperative witnesses may be coached to exaggerate

s o that if a r e c o r d i n g i s played f o r t h e interrogatee o r a
confrontation is a r r a n g e d , the s o u r c e -- f o r example, a
suspected c o u r i e r -- finds the witness overstating his
importance, The w,itness c l a i m s that the interrogatee is
only incidentally a courier, that actually he i s the head of
a n RXS kidnapping gang. The i n t e r r o g a t o r pretends a m a z c -
ment and s a y s into the r e c o r d e r , "I thought he was only a
c o u r i e r ; and i f . h e had told us the t r u t h , I planned t o l e t him
go 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 r
trial. On hearing these r e m a r k s , the interrogatee may
confess the t r u t h about the l e s s e r guilt in o r d e r t o avoid
heavier punishment, If he continues t o withhold, the
interrogator m a y take his side by stating, ''You know,
I'm not at all convinced that so-and-so told a straight
story. I f e e l , personally, t h a t he was exaggerating a
g r e a t deal. Wasn't h e ? What's the t r u e s t o r y ? "

7. Jointsuspects

If two o r m o r e interrogation sources a r e suspected

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

I£the i n t e r r o g a t o r is quite certain of the facts in the c a s e

but cannot s e c u r e a n admission f r o m either A or B, a written
confession m a y be prepared and A's signature may be repro-
duced on it. (It is helpful if B can recognize A's signature, but
not essential, ) The confession contains the salient f a c t s , but
they a r e distorted; the confession shows ,that A is attempting
to throw the e n t i r e responsibility upon B. Edited tape record-
ings which sound as though -4 had denounced B may also be
used f o r the purpose, separately o r in conjunction with the
written "confession, " If A is feeling a little ill o r dispirited,
he can a l s o be led past a window o r otherwise shown t o B
without creating a chance f o r conversation; B is likely to 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 r
h e a r s ) A ' s "confession. I s If B p e r s i s t s in withholding, the
 -
i n t e r r o g a t o r should d i s m i s s him promptly, saying that A's
signed confession is sufficient f o r the purpose and that it does
not m a t t e r whether B c o r r o b o r a t e s it o r not. At the foilowing .,
s e s s i o n wi$h B, t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r selects some minor m a t t e r , .x ..
not substantively damaging t o B but nevertheless exaggerated,
a n d s a y s , "I'm not s u r e A was really f a i r to you here. Would
you c a r e t o t e l l me your side of the s t o r y ? " If B r i s e s to t h i s
bait, t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r moves on t o a r e a s of greater significance.

The outer-and-inner office routine may a l s o be employed.

A, the weaker, is brought into the inner office, and the door
is l e f t slightly a j a r o r the t r a n s o m open. B is l a t e r -brought
into t h e o u t e r office by a g u a r d and placed where he can h e a r ,
though not too c l e a r l y . The interrogator begins routine ques-
tioning of A, speaking r a t h e r softly and iriducing A t o follow
s u i t , Another p e r s o n in the inner office, acting by p r e a r r a n g e -
ment, t h e n quietly l e a d s A out through another door. Any . .
n o i s e s of d e p a r t u r e are covered by the interrogator, who
r a t t l e s t h e a s h t r a y o r moves a table o r l a r g e chair. As soon
as the second door is closed again and A is out of earshot, the
i n t e r r o g a t o r r e s u m e s his questioning. His voice grows louder
and a n g r i e r . He t e n s A t o speak up, that he can hardly h e a r
him. He grows abusive, reaches a climax, and then says,
"Well, t h a t ' s b e t t e r . Why didn't you say so in the f i r s t place ? ' I
The r e s t of the monologue is designed to give B the impression
t h a t A h a s now s t a r t e d t o t e l l the truth, Suddenly the 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 guard's mumbled attempt
t o explain the m i s t a k e , shouting, "Get him out of h e r e ! 1'11 take
c a r e of you l a t e r ! "

When, in the judgment of the interrogator, B is f a i r l y

well-convinced that A has broken down and told his story, the
i n t e r r o g a t o r m a y e l e c t t o s a y to B, "Now that A h a s come clean
with us, I'd like t o l e t him go. But I hate to release one of you
before the other; you ought to get out a t the same time. A s e e m s
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 haven't r e t u r n e d because you a g r e e d t o s t a y h e r e and
work f o r us. Wouldn't it be better f o r you if I s e t you both
f r e e t o g e t h e r ? Wouldn't it be better to t e l l m e your s i d e of . .
the s t o r y ? I '

8. Ivan Is a Dope

It m a y be useful t o point out to a hostile agent t h a t the

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

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

The commonest of the joint i n t e r r o g a t o r techniques i s

the Mutt-and- Jeff routine: the brutal, angry, domineering
type c o n t r a s t e d with the friendly, quiet type. This routine
works b e s t with women, teenagers, and timid men. If t h e
i n t e r r o g a t o r who h a s done the bulk of the questioning' up t o
this point h a s established a m e a s u r e of r a p p o r t , he should play
the f r i e n d l y role. If rapport is absent, and especially if
antagonism has developed, the principal i n t e r r o g a t o r m a y take
the o t h e r part. The angry interrogator speaks loudly f r o m the
beginning; and unless the interrogatee c l e a r l y indicates that
he is now ready t o t e l l his story, the a n g r y i n t e r r o g a t o r shouts
down h i s a n s w e r s and cuts h i m off. He thumps the table. The
quiet i n t e r r o g a t o r should not watch the show unmoved but give
subtle indications that he too is somewhat afraid of his colleague.
The a n g r y i n t e r r o g a t o r a c c u s e s the subject of o t h e r offenses,
any offenses, especially those that a r e heinous o r demeaning.
He m a k e s it plain t h a t he personally c o n s i d e r s the i n t e r r o g a t e e
the v i l e s t p e r s o n on earth. During the harangue the friendly,
quiet i n t e r r o g a t o r b r e a k s in to say, "Wait a minute, J i m . Take
it e a s y . " The a n g r y interrogator shouts back, "Shut up! I'm
handling this. I've broken crumb-bums before, and I ' l l b r e a k
this one, wide open." He e x p r e s s e s h i s disgust by spitting on
 -
the floor o r holding h i s nose o r any g r o s s gesture. Finally,
red-faced and f u r i o u s , he says, "I'm going to take a b r e a k ,
have a couple of stiff drinks. But I'll be back a t two --
and .,
you, you bum, you b e t t e r be ready t o talk. I ' When the door
s l a m s behind him, the second interrogator tells the subject how
s o r r y he is, how he h a t e s t o work with a man like that but h a s
no choice, how if maybe b r u t e s like that would keep quiet and
give a m a n a f a i r chance to t e l l his side of the s t o r y , e t c . , etc.

An i n t e r r o g a t o r working alone can a l s o u s e the Mutt-and-

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

'Another joint technique c a s t s both i n t e r r o g a t o r s in friendly

r o l e s . But w h e r e a s the interrogator i n charge is s i n c e r e , the
3

second i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s manner and voice convey the i m p r e s s i o n

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

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

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

An a b r u p t switch of languages ,mayt r i c k a r e s i s t a n t

source. If a n i n t e r r o g a t e e has withstood a b a r r a g e of questions
i n G e r m a n o r Korean, f o r example, a sudden shift to "Who is
your c a s e o f f i c e r ? " i n Russian may t r i g g e r the answer b e f o r e
the s o u r c e c a n s t o p himself.

An i n t e r r o g a t o r quite at home i n the language being used

m a y n e v e r t h e l e s s e l e c t t o use a n i n t e r p r e t e r if the i n t e r r o g a t e e
does not h o w t h e language t o be used between the i n t e r r o g a t o r
and i n t e r p r e t e r and a l s o does not know that the i n t e r r o g a t o r
knows his own tongue. The principal advantage h e r e i s that
hearing everything tvclice helps the interrogator t o note voice,
expression, g e s t u r e s , and other indicators m o r e attentively.
This gambit is obviously unsuitable f o r any f o r m of rapid-fire
questioning, and i n a n y c a s e it has the disadvantage of allowing
the subject t o pull himself together a f t e r each query. It should
be used only with a n i n t e r p r e t e r who has been trained i n the
t e c hni que .
It is of b a s i c importance that the interrogator not using
a n i n t e r p r e t e r be adept i n the language selected f o r use. Lf
he i s not, if s l i p s of g r a m m a r o r a strong accent m a r h i s speech,
the r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e will usually f e e l fortified. Almost all
people have been conditioned to relate verbal skill to 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 feign
misunderstanding and thus gain time. He may a l s o r e s o r t t o
polysyllabic obfuscat'ions upon realizing the limitations of t h e
i n t e r r o g a t o r I s vocabulary.
 Spinoza and Mortimer Snerd

If t h e r e i s r e a s o n to suspect that a withholding s o u r c e -.

p o s s e s s e s useful coanterintelligence information but h a s not had
a c c e s s t o the upper reaches of the target organization, the )

policy and command level, continued questioning ,about lofty

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

The Wolf i n Sheep's Clothing

It h a s been suggested that a successfully withholding

s o u r c e might be tricked into compliance if led to believe that
he is dealing with the opposition. The success of the r u s e depends
upon a successful imitation of the opposition. A c a s e officer
previously unknown to the source and skilled in the appropriate
language talks with the source under such circumstances that
the l a t t e r is convinced that he i s dealing with the opposition.
The s o u r c e i s debriefed on what he has told the Americans and
what he h a s not told them. The t r i c k is likelier to succeed if
the interrogatee h a s not been in confinement but a staged
"escape, ' I engineered by a stool-pigeon, might achieve the s a m e
end. u s u a i l y the t r i c k i s s o complicated and risky that its 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 ~ s3rd cscditioned
reactions of the interrogatee. He is accustomed t o a world
that makes some sense, a t l e a s t t o him: a world of continuity
and logic, a predictable world. H c clings t o t h i s world t o
reinforce his identity and powers of resistance.

The confusion technique is designed not only t o

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

Regression

There a r e a number of non-coercive techniques f o r

inducing r e g r e s s i o n . All depend upon the i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s con-
t r o l of the environment and, a s always, a p r o p e r matching of
method to s o u r c e . Some interrogatees can be r e p r e s s e d by
 p e r s i s t e n t manipulation of time, by retarding and advancing
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 subject's 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 telling
r his s t o r y now. Gottschelk observes, "Individuals under
i n c r e a s e d s t r e s s a r e m o r e likely to respond to placebos. "(7)

Orne h a s discussed an extension of the placebo concept

in explaining what he t e r m s the "magic room" technique. "An
example. ..
would be ...
the prisoner who i s given a
hypnotic suggestion that his hand i s growing warm. However.
 in this instance, the prisoner's hand a c k l l y does become
warm, a problem easily resolved by the use of a concealed
- diathermy machine. .
Or it might be suggested.. .that.. a
cigarette will taste bitter, Here again, he could be given a
.
.'.
-.
cigarette prepared t o have a slight but noticeably bitter taste. "
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 r

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

Whether r e g r ession occurs spontaneously under detention

o r interrogation, and whether it is induced by a coercive o r
non-coercive technique, it should not be allowed to continue
past the point necessary to obtain compliance. Severe techniques
of regression a r e best employed in the presence of a psychia-
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
("you're really a good boy at heart"), o r that he can't help him-
self ("hey made you do i t l ' ) , the effective rationalization, the one
the source will jump at, is likely t o be elementary. It is a n
adultls version of the kxcuses of childhood.
 -
The Polygraph

The polygraph can be used f o r purposes. o t h e r than the

evaluation of veracity. F o r example, it m a y be used as a n
adjunct in testing the range of languages spoken by a n i n t e r r o -
gatee o r his sophistication in intelligence m a t t e r s , f o r r a p i d
scr,eening t o determine b r o a d a r e a s of knowledgeability, and a s
an a i d i n the psychological a s s e s s m e n t of s o u r c e s . I t s p r i m a r y
function i n a counterintelligence interrogation, however, is t o
provide a f u r t h e r m e a n s of testing f o r deception or- withholding.

A . r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e suspected of a s s o c i a t i o n with a h o s t i l e
clandestine organization should be t e s t e d polygraphidally at
l e a s t once. S e v e r a l examinations m a y be needed. As a g e n e r a l
r u l e , the polygraph should not be employed a s a m e a s u r e of
last r e s o r t . More r e l i a b l e readings will be obtained if t h e
i n s t r u m e n t i s used before the subject h a s been placed under
i n t e n s e p r e s s u r e , whether such p r e s s u r e is c o e r c i v e o r not.
Sufficient information f o r the purpose i s normally available
a f t e r s c r e e n i n g and one o r two interrogation s e s s i o n s .

Although the polygraph h a s been a valuable a i d , no

i n t e r r o g a t o r should f e e l that i t c a n c a r r y h i s respo,r&ibilitv f o r
him. - IJJ
kd5
-5

The b e s t r e s u l t s a r e obtained when the CI i n t e r r o g a t o r

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

The following discussion i s based upon R. C. Davis'

lfPhysiologicalResponses a s a Means of Evaluating Infor mation. "
(7) Although improvements appear to be in the offing, the
i n s t r u m e n t in widespread use today m e a s u r e s breathing,
systolic blood p r e s s u r e , and galvanic skin r e s p o n s e (GSR).
"One drawback in the use of r e s p i r a t i o n as a n indicator, "
according t o Davis, "is i t s susceptibility to voluntary control. "
Moreover, if the s o u r c e "knows that changes in breathing will
d i s t u r b all physiologic variables under control of the autonomic
division of the nervous s y s t e m , and possibly even some others,
a c e r t a i n amount of cooperation o r a c e r t a i n d e g r e e of ignorance
is r e q u i r e d f o r l i e detection by physiologic methods to work. "
". . .
'

In general, breathing during deception is shallower and

slower than in t r u t h telling. .. the inhibition of breathing
s e e m s r a t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of anticipation of a stimulus. "

The m e a s u r e m e n t of systolic blood p r e s s u r e provides a .

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

The galvanic skin r e s p o n s e is one of the m o s t easily

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

Davis examines t h r e e t h e o r i e s regarding the polygraph. -

The conditional r e s p o n s e t h e o r y holds that t h e subject r e a c t s

to questions that s t r i k e sensitive a r e a s , r e g a r d l e s s of whether
he i s telling the t r u t h o r not. Experimentation h a s not sub-
stantiated t h i s theory. The theory of 'conflict p r e s u m e s that
a l a r g e physiologic disturbance occurs when the subject i s
caught between his habitual inclination to t e l l the truth and his :..
s t r o n g d e s i r e not t o divulge a certain s e t of facts. .Davis suggests'...
t h a t if t h i s concept i s valid, it holds only if the conflict is intense.
The threat-of -punishment theory maintains that a l a r g e physio-
logic response accompanies lying because the subject f e a r s the
consequence of failing t o deceive. "In common language it
might be s a i d that he fails to deceive the machine operator f o r
the v e r y r e a s o n that he f e a r s he will fail. The 'fear' would be
the v e r y reaction detected. " This third theory is m o r e widely
held than the other two. Interrogators should note the inference
t h a t a r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e who does not f e a r that detection of lying
will r e s u l t i n a punishment of which he is afraid would not,
according t o this theory, produce significant responses.

Graphology

The validity of graphological techniques f o r the analysis

of the personalities of r e s i s t a n t interrogatees h a s not been .
established. There i s some evidence that graphology i s a
useful aid i n fhe e a r l y detection of c a n c e r and of c e r t a i n mental
i l l n e s s e s . If the i n t e r r o g a t o r o r his unit decides to have a
s o u r c e ' s handwriting analyzed, the s a m p l e s should be submitted
t o Headquarters a s soon a s possible, because the analysis is
m o r e useful in the preliminary a s s e s s m e n t of the source than in
the l a t e r interrogation. Graphology does have the advantage of
being one of the v e r y few techniques not requiring the a s s i s t a n c e
o r even the a w a r e n e s s of the interrogatee. As with any other aid.
the i n t e r r o g a t o r is f r e e t o determine f o r himself whether the
a n a l y s i s provides him with new and valid insights, confirms
other observations, i s not helpful,. o r is misleading.
 --- ----COER G I V E COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
J.A. 'I'HL
INTERROGATION O F RESISTANT SOURCES

A. Restrictions

The purpose of t h i s p a r t of the handbook is to present

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

F o r both ethical and pragmatic reasons no interrogator

m a y take upon h h s e l f the unilateral responsibility for using
c o e r c i v e methods. Concealing f r o m the interrogator's super-
iors a n intent to r e s o r t to coercion, o r i t s unapproved
employment, does not protect them. It places them, and
KUBARK, i n unconsidered jeopardy.

B. The Theory of Coercion

Coercive procedures a r e designed not only to exploit the

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

A l l coercive techniques a r e designed t o induce r e g r e s s i o n .

As HinkLe notes in "The Physiological State of the Interrogation
Subject a s i t Affects B r a i n FunctionI1(7), the r e s u l t of e x t e r n a l
p r e s s u r e s of sufficient intensity i s the l o s s of those defenses
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 subject's resistance
i s wavering, that his desire t o yield i s growing stronger than
his wish to continue his resistance, the time has come t o provide
him with the ~ C C E ~ $ S ? ~ Cr2.tFonalization:
I a h c e - saving reason o r
''\ ..,
excuse f o r compliance, Novice interrogators may be tempted t o
seize upon the initial yielding triumphantly and to personalize the
victory. Such a temptation must be rejected iminediately, An
interrogation is not a game played by two people, one to become
the winner and the other the Loser. It is simply a method of ob-
taining correct and useful information, Theref ore the interr o-
gator should intensify the subject's desire to cease struggling by
showing 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, the
interrogator seizes gloatingly upon the subject's 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 stimuli
through solitary confinement o r similar methods, threats and
f e a r , debility, pain, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis, nar-
cosis, and induced regression. This section also-discusses the
detection of malingering by interrogatees and the provision of
appropriate rationalizations f o r capitulating and cooperating,

C, Arrest

The manner and timing of a r r e s t can contribute substantially

t o the *err ogator 1s purposes, "What we aim to do i s t o ensure
that the manner of a r r e s t achieves, if possible, surprise, and
the maximum amount of mental discomfort in order to catch. the .
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 expects
it and when his mental and physical resistance is a t its lowest,
The ideal time at which t o a r r e s t a person is in the early hours
of the morning because surprise i s achieved then, and because
a person's resistance physiologically a s well a s psychologically
is a t i t s lowest,. ,, If a person cannot be arrested in the
.
early hours,, , then the next best time i s in the evening.. ..
D. Detention

If, through the cooperation of a liaison service h r by uni-

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

The point is that man's sense of identity depends upon a

conrinuity in his surroundings, habits,. appearance, actions,
relations with others, e tc. Detention permits the interrogator
to cut through these links and throw the interrogatee back upon
his own unaided internal resources.

Little is gained Lf confinement merely replaces one routine

with another. Prisoners who lead monotonously unvaried lives
". . . cease to' care about their utterances, dress, and cleanli-
ness. They become dulled, apathetic, and depressed." (7) And
apathy can be a very effective defense against interrogation.
Control of the soukce's environment permits the interrogator to
 determine his diet, sleep pattern, and other fundamentals.
Manipulating these into irregularities, s o that the subject become s :..
- of f e a r and help-
disorientated, is v e r y likely to create feelings .....
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 of

i 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 mind's 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 - the
following theorie s about solitary confinement and isolation:
' ..
I. The m o r e complete?y the place of confinement
-
e l i m i n a t e s s e n s o r y stimuli, the m o r e rapidly and deeply will
the i n t e r r o g a t e e be affected. Results produced only after weeks
o r months of imprisonment in an ordinary cell can be duplicated
i n h o u r s o r days i n a cell which has no light ( o r weak a r t i f i c i a l
light which never v a r i e s ) , which is sound-procfed, i n which
o d o r s a r e eliminated, etc. An environment still m o r e subject
t o control, such a s water-tank or iron lung, i s even m o r e
effective .
An e a r l y effect of such an environment is
2.
anxiety. How soon i t a p p e a r s and how strong i t i s depends
upon t h e psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the individual.

3. The i n t e r r o g a t o r can benefit f r o m the subject's

anxiety. As the i n t e r r o g a t o r becomes linked in the subject's
mind with the r e w a r d of lessened anxiety, human contact, and
meaningful activity, and thus with providing relief for gr,owing
discomfort, the questioner a s sumes a benevolent role. (7)

4. The deprivation of stimuli induces r e g r e s s i o n

by depriving the -subject's mind of contact with an outer world
and t h u s forcing it i n upon itself. At the s a m e t i m e , the
calculated provision of stimuli during interrogation tends t o
m a k e the = e g r e s s e d subject view the interrogator a s a f a t h e r -
figure. The r e s u l t , normally, i s a strengthening of the
subject's tendencies toward compliance.

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

The t h r e a t of coercion usually weakens o r d e s t r o y s

r e s i s t a n c e m o r e effectively than coercion itself. The t h r e a t
to inflict pain, f o r example, can trigger f e a r s m o r e damaging
than t h e immediate sensation of pain. In fact, most people
under e stimate t h e i r capacity to withstand pain. The s a m e
principle holds f o r other f e a r s : sustained long enough, a
strong f e a r of anything vague or unknown induces r e g r e s s i o n ,
 whereas the materialization of the f e a r , the infliction of some
f o r m of punishment, is likely to come a s a relief. he subject . .,
finds that he can hold out, and his resistances a r e strengthened. ' ,...
"3.ngeneral, direct physical brutality c r e a t e s only resentment,
hostility, and further defiance. " (18)

The effectiveness of a threat depends not only on what

s o r t of person the interrogatee i s and whether he believes
that his questioner can .and w i l l c a r r y the threat out. but also
on the interrogator's reasons for threatening. If the ,interrogator
threatens. because he is angry, the subject frequently senses
the fear of failure underlying the anger and i s strengthened
i n his own resolve t o r e s i s t . Threats delivered coldly a r e
m o r e effective than those shouted in rage. It is especially
important that a t h r e a t not be uttered i n response t o the
interrogatee's own expressions of hostility. These, i f ignored,
can induce feelings of guilt, whereas r e t o r t s in kind relieve
the subject's feelings.

Another r e a s o n why t h r e a t s induce compliance not

evoked by the inflection of duress is that the threat grants
'the interrogatee t i m e for compliance. It is not enough that a
r e s i s t a n t source should lx placed under the tension of f e a r ;
he must also discern an acceptabie escape route. Biderman
observes, "Not only can the shame o r guilt of defeat i n the
encounter with the interrogator be involved, but also the more
fundamental injunction t o protect one's self-autonomy o r
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 the
f p r e s s u r e toward e a r l y compliance from such anxieties, for
the greater i s the t h r e a t to self-esteem which i s involved
in contemplating t h e possibility of being 'forced to' comply
. .. . " (6) In brief, the threat is like a l l other coercive
x
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 worse
than useless. It "has the highest position in law a s a -
defense, but in many 5 i i t e ~ ~ o g a t i osituations
n it i s a highly
ineffective threat. Many prisoners, in fact, have refused
t o yield i n the face of such threats who have subsequently
been 'broken' by other procedures. " ( 3 ) The principal
r e a s o n i s that the ultimate threat i s likely to induce s h e e r
hopelessness if the interrogatee does not believe that i t
i s a t r i c k ; he f e e l s that he is a s likely to be condemned
a f t e r compliance as before. The threat of death i s also
ineffective'when used against hard-headed types who
r e a l i z e that silencing them forever would defeat the
i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s purpose. If the threat is recognized a s a
bluff, it w i l l not only fail but also pave the way t o failure
f o r l a t e r coercive r u s e s used by the interrogator.

No r e p o r t of scientific investigation of the effect

of debility upon the interrogatee's powers of resistance
h a s been discovered. F o r centuries interrogators have
employed various methods of inducing physical weakness:
prolonged constraint; prolonged exertion; e x t r e m e s of heat,
cold, o r m o i s t u r e ; and deprivation o r d r a s t i c reduction of
food o r sleep. Apparently the assumption i s that lowering
the source ' s physiological resistance w i l l lower his
psychological capacity f o r opposition. If this notion were
valid, however, it might reasonably be expected that those
subjects who a r e physically weakest a t the beginning of
an interrogation would be the quickest to capitulate, a
concept not supported by experience. The available
evidence suggests that resistance i s sapped principally
by psychological r a t h e r than physical p r e s s u r e s . The
-
t h r e a t of debility f o r example, a brief deprivation of
food - m a y induce much m o r e anxiety than prolonged
hunger, which w i l l r e s u l t after a while in apathy and,
p e r h a p s , eventual delusions or hallucinations. In b r i e f ,
i t a p p e a r s probable that the techniques of inducing debility
become counter-productive at an e a r l y stage. The discomfort,
tension, and r e s t l e s s s e a r c h for an avenue of escape a r e
followed by withdrawal symptoms, a turning away f r o m
external stimuli, and a sluggish unresponsiveness. . .
,
Another objection to the deliberate inducing of
-:
debility i s that prolonged exertion, l o s s of sleep, etc. ,
themselves become patterns t o which the subject adjusts
through apathy. The interrogator should use his power
over the resistant subject's physical environment t o
disrupt patterns of response, not t o c r e a t e them. Meals
and sleep granted irregularly, in m o r e than abundance
or l e s s than adequacy, the shifts occuring on no discernible
time pattern, will normally disorient a n interrogatee and
sap h i s will t o r e s i s t m o r e effectively than a sustained
deprivation leading t o debility.
. -
H. Pain

Everyone is aware that people react v e r y

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

The wide range of individual reactions to pain

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

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

It h a s been plausibly suggested that, whereas pain

inflicted on a p e r s o n f r o m outside himself m a y actually foc-ES
o r intensify his will t o r e s i s t , his r e s i s t a n c e i s likelier t o
be sapped by pain which he s e e m s to inflict upon himself.
"In the simple t o r t u r e situation the contest i s one between
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 e
in t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r o c e s s and a f t e r o t h e r t a c t i c s have .,
f a i l e d , h e i s a l m o s t c e r t a i n to conclude that the i n t e r r o g a t o r .'. .
i s becoming d e s p e r a t e . He may then decide that if h,e c a n
j u s t hold out a g a i n s t this final a s s a u l t , he will win the struggle
a n d h i s f r e e d o m . And h e i s likely to be right. ~ n t e r r o ~ a t e e s
who have withstood pain a r e m o r e difficult to handle by o t h e r
methods. T h e effect h a s been not to r e p r e s s the subject but .

t o r e s t o r e h i s confidence and maturity.

I. . Heightened Suggestibility and Hypnosis

In r e c e n t y e a r s a number of hypotheses about hypnosis

h a v e been advanced by psychologists and o t h e r s in the guise of
p r o v e n p r i n c i p l e s . Among these a r e the f l a t a s s e r t i o n s that a
p e r s o n connot b e hypnotized against h i s will; that while
hypnotized h e cannot be induced t o divulge information that h e
w a n t s urgently t o conceal; and that h e will not undertake, in
t r a n c e o r through post-hypnotic suggestion, actions t o which
h e would n o r m a l l y have s e r i o u s m o r a l o r ethical objections.
If t h e s e a n d r e l a t e d contentions w e r e proven valid, hypnosis
would have s c a n t value f o r the i n t e r r o g a t o r .

But d e s p i t e the f a c t that hypnosis h a s been a n object of

s c i e n t i f i c inquiry f o r a v e r y long t i m e , none of t h e s e t h e o r i e s
h a s y e t b e e n t e s t e d adequately. Each of t h e m i s in conflict
w i t h s o m e o b s e r v a t i o n s of fact. In any event, an interrogation
handbook cannot and need not include a lengthy d i s c u s s i o n of
hypnosis. T h e c a s e officer o r i n t e r r o g a t o r needs to know
enough about the subject to understand the c i r c u m s t a n c e s under
w h i c h h y p n o s i s c a n be a useful tool, so that he can r e q u e s t
e x p e r t a s s i s t a n c e appropriately.

O p e r a t i o n a l p e r s o n n e l , including i n t e r r o g a t o r s , who
chance to have s o m e lay experience o r skill in hypnotism
should not t h e m s e l v e s u s e hypnotic techniques f o r interrogation
o r o t h e r o p e r a t i o n a l p u r p o s e s . T h e r e a r e two r e a s o n s f o r
t h i s position. T h e f i r s t i s that hypnoti.sm used as a n operational
tool by a p r a c t i t i o n e r who i s not a psychologist, p s y c h i a t r i s t ,
o r M. D. can produce i r r e v e r s i b l e psychological d a m a g e . The
 -
lay practitioner does not h o w enough to u s e the technique
safely. .The second reason i s that an unsuccessful attempt
to hypnotize a subject f o r purposes of interrogation, o r a
successful attempt not adequately covered by post-hypnotic
.
a m n e s i a o r other protection, can easily lead to l u r i d and
e m b a r r a s s i n g publicity o r legal charges.

Hypnosis i s frequently called a s t a t e of heightened

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

Martin T . O r n e h a s written a t some length about

hypnosis and interrogation. Almost all of h i s conclusions
a r e tentatively negative. Concerning the r o l e played by the
will o r attitude of the interrogatee, Orne s a y s , "Although
the c r u c i a l experiment h a s not yet been done, t h e r e i s
little o r no evidence to indicate that t r a n c e can be induced
against a p e r s o n ' s wishes." He adds, I ! . . .the actual
o c c u r r e n c e of the t r a n c e state i s related t o the wish of
the subject to e n t e r hypnosis." And he a l s o o b s e r v e s ,
". . .whether a subject will o r will not e n t e r t r a n c e depends
upon h i s relationship with the hyponotist r a t h e r than upon
the technical procedure of trance induction. These
views a r e probably representative of those of many
psychologists, but they are not definitive. As Orne
himself l a t e r points out, the interrogatee ". . . could be
given a hypnotic drug with appropriate v e r b a l suggestions
to talk about a given topic. Eventually enough of the drug
would be given to cause a shoxt period of unconsciousness.
When the subject wakesn, the interrogator could then r e a d
f r o m h i s 'note;' of the hypnotic interview the information.
presumably told him. I ' (Orne had previously pointed cz.l.t, *.
that this technique requires that the interrogator p o s s e s s
significant information about the subject without the subject's
knowledge.) "It can readily be s e e n how'this.. .maneuver.. .
would facilitate the elicitation of information in subsequent
interviews. ' I (7) Techniques of inducing t r a n c e in r e s i s t a n t
subjects through preliminary administration of so-called
silent drugs (drugs which the subject does not know h e has
.taken) o r through other non-routine methods of induction
a r e s t i l l under investigation. Until m o r e f a c t s a r e known,
the question of whether a r e s i s t e r can be hypnotized 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 be

hypnotized, his resistance does not cease. He postulates
'I... that only in r a r e interrogation subjects would a
sufficiently deep trance be obtainable to even attempt to
induce the subject to discuss m a t e r i a l which he is unwilling
to discuss In the wakLng state. The kind of Lnformation which
can be obtained in these r a r e instances is s t i l l a n unanswered
question." He adds that it is doubtful that a subject in trance
could be made to reveal information which h e wished to
safeguard. But h e r e too Orne s e e m s somewhat too cautious
o r p e s s h i s t i c . Once an interrogatee is in a hypnotic trance,
his understanding of reality becomes subject to manipulation.
F o r example, a KUBARK interrogator could tell a suspect
double agent in trance that the KGB is conducting the questioning,
and thus invert the whole f r a m e of reference. I n other words,
Orne i s probably right in holding that m o s t r e c a l c i t r a n t subjects
will continue effective resistance as long as the f r a m e of
r e f e r e n c e is undisturbed. But once the subject is tricked into
believing that h e is talking to friend r a t h e r than foe, o r that
divulgLng the truth is the best way to s e r v e h i s own purposes,
his r e s i s t a n c e will be replaced by cooperation. The value
of hypnotic trance is not that i t permits the interrogator to
impose his will but rather that it can be u s e d to convince the
interrogatee that there is no valid reason not to be forthcoming.
 -
A t h i r d objection r a i s e d by.Orne and o t h e r s i s that
m a t e r i a l elicited during t r a n c e i s not reliable. Orne s a y s ,
". . . i t h a s been shown that the accuracy of such information.. .
would not be guaiant-eed since subjects in hypnosis a r e fully
capable of lying. ' I Again, the observation i s c o r r e c t ; no known
manipulative method g u a r a n t e e s veracity. But if hypnosis
i s employed not a s an immediate instrument f o r digging out
the truth but r a t h e r a s a way of making the subject want to
align himself with h i s i n t e r r o g a t o r s , the objection evaporates.

Hypnosis o f f e r s one advantage not inherent in other

i n t e r r o g a t i o n techniques o r aids: the post-hypnotic suggestion.
Under favorable c i r c u m s t a n c e s it should be possible to
a d m i n i s t e r a silent drug to a r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e , persuade
h i m a s the d r u g t a k e s effect that he i s slipping into a hypnotic
t r a n c e , place h i m under a c t u a l hypnosis a s consciousness i s
returning, shift h i s f r a m e of r e f e r e n c e so that h i s reasons
f o r r e s i s t a n c e become r e a s o n s f o r cooperating, interrogate
h i m , and conclude the s e s s i o n by implanting the suggestion
that when he e m e r g e s f r o m t r a n c e h e will not r e m e m b e r
anything about what h a s happened.

T h i s sketchy outline of possible u s e s of hypnosis 'in

the interrogation of r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e s h a s no higher goal
than to r e m i n d operational personnel that the technique
m a y provide the answer to a p r o b l e m not otherwise soluble.
To repeat: hypnosis i s distinctly not a do-it-yourself project.
T h e r e f o r e the i n t e r r o g a t o r , b a s e , o r center that i s considering
i t s use m u s t anticipate t h e timing sufficiently not only to s e c u r e
the obligatory h e a d q u a r t e r s p e r m i s s i o n but also to allow f o r an
e x p e r t ' s t r a v e l t i m e and briefing.

J. Narcosis

J u s t a s the t h r e a t of pain may m o r e effectively induce

compliance than i t s infliction, so an interrogatee's mistaken
belief that h e h a s been drugged may make h i m a m o r e useful
interrogation subject than h e would be under narcosis. Louis
A. Gottschalk c i t e s a group of studies a s indicating "that 30 to 50
p e r cent of irrdividuals a r e placebo r e a c t o r s , that i s , respond
 with symptomatic relief to taking an inert substance. " . ( 7 )
In the inter rogation situation, moreover, the effectiveness
. .
of a placebo may be enhanced because of i t s ability to placate
the conscience. The subject's p r i m a r y source of r e s i s t a n c e
to confession o r divulgence may be pride, p a t r i o t i s m ,
p e r s o n a l loyalty to s u p e r i o r s , o r f e a r of retribution if he i s
r e t u r n e d to their hands. Under such circumstances h i s
n a t u r a l d e s i r e to escape f r o m s t r e s s by complying with the
i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s wishes may become decisive if h e i s provided
. an acceptable rationalization f o r compliance. "I w a s drugged"
i s one o'f the b e s t excuses.

. -
Drugs a r e no more the answer t o the i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s
p r a y e r than the polygraph, hypnosis, o r other aids. Studies
and r e p o r t s "dealing with the validity of m a t e r i a l extracted
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 judicious
I
choice of a drug with minimal side effects, i t s matching to
the subject's personality, careful gauging of dosage, and a
.
s e n s e of timing. .[make] silent administration a hard-to-equal
, ally f o r the hypnotist intent on producing self-fulfilling and
ine scapable suggestions. ..the drug effects should prove. ..
compelling to the subject since the perceived sensations originate
entirely within himself. ' I (7)
 P a r t i c u l a r l y important i s the reference to matching the
drug to the personality of the interrogatee. The effect of m o s t . L

d r u g s depends m o r e upon the personality of the subject than .'.

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

P e r s o n s burdened with feelings of shame or guilt a r e

likely to unburden t h e m s e l v e s when drugged, especially if
t h e s e feelings have been reinforced by the interrogator.
A n d like the placebo, the drug provides a n excellent
rationalization of helple s s n e s s for the interrogatee who
w ants to yield but h a s hitherto been unable to violate h i s
own values o r loyalties.

Like other coercive media, d r u g s may affect the content

of what a n interrogatee divulges. Gottschalk notes that c e r t a i n
drugs "may give r i s e to psychotic manifestations such a s
hallucinations, illusions , delusions, o r disorientation" , so
that "the verbal m a t e r i a l obtained cannot always be considered
valid." (7) F o r t h i s r e a s o n d r u g s (and the other aids discussed in
t h i s section) should not be used persistently to facilitate the
interrogative debriefing that follows capitulation. Their function
i s to cause capitulation, to aid in the shift f r o m resistance to
cooperation. Once t h i s shift h a s been accomplished, coercive
techniques should be abandoned both f o r m o r a l reasons and
because they a r e unnecessary and even counter-productive.

T h i s discussion does not include a l i s t of drugs that

have been employed f o r interrogation purposes o r a
discussion of their p r o p e r t i e s because these a r e medical
considerations within the province of a doctor rather than
an interogator .
 K. The Detection of Malingering

The detection of malingering i s obviously not a n . .-

'. . ,

interrogation technique , coercive o r o t h e r w i s e . ~ u t ht e

h i s t o r y of interrogation i s studded with t h e s t o r i e s of p e r s o n s
who have a t t e m p t e d , often successfully, t o evade t h e
mounting p r e s s u r e s of interrogation by feigning p h y s i c a l
o r m e n t a l i l l n e s s . KUBARK i n t e r r o g a t o r s may encounter
seemingly s i c k o r i r r a t i o n a l i n t e r r o g a t e e s a t t i m e s a n d
p l a c e s which m a k e it difficult o r next-to-impossible t o
s u m m o n m e d i c a l o r other professional a s s i s t a n c e . B e c a u s e
a f e w t i i s m a y m a k e it p o s s i b l e f o r the i n t e r r o g a t o r t o
distinguish between the m a l i n g e r e r and t h e p e r s o n who is
genuinely i l l , a n d b e c a u s e both i l l n e s s and m a l i n g e r i n g a r e
s o m e t i m e s produced by coercive i n t e r r o g a t i o n , a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n
of t h e topic h a s been included h e r e .

Most p e r s o n s who feign a mental o r physical i l l n e s s

do not b o w enough about it to deceive the well-informed.
M a l c o l m L. M e l t z e r s a y s , "The detection of m a l i n g e r i n g
depends t o a g r e a t extent o n the s i m u l a t o r ' s f a i l u r e . to
understand adequately t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the r o l e h e
i s feigning. ... Often h e p r e s e n t s s y m p t o m s which a r e
exceedingly r a r e , existing rnainly in t h e f a n c y of t h e l a y m a n .
One such s y m p t o m i s the delusion of misidentification,
.
c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the. .belief that h e i s some powerful
o r h i s t o r i c p e r s o n a g e . T h i s s y m p t o m i s v e r y unusual i n
t r u e p s y c h o s i s , but is used by a n u m b e r of s i m u l a t o r s . In
schizophrenia, the o n s e t tends to be g r a d u a l , d e l u s i o n s
do not spring up full-blown over night; i n simulated d i s o r d e r s ,
the o n s e t i s usually f a s t and delusions m a y be r e a d i l y
available. T h e feigned psychosis often contains m a n y
contradictory and inconsistent s y m p t o m s , r a r e l y existing
together. T h e -lingerer tends to go to e x t r e m e s in h i s
p r o t r a y a l of h i s s y m p t o m s ; h e e x a g g e r a t e s , o v e r d r a m a t i z e s ,
g r i m a c e s , s h o u t s , i s o v e r l y b i z a r r e , and c a l l s a t t e n t i o n
to himself in o t h e r w a y s . . . .
"Another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the m a l i n g e r e r i s t h a t h e
w ill usually s e e k to evade o r postpone examination. A study
 of the behavior of lie-detector subjects, f o r example, showed
t h a t p e r sons l a t e r 'proven guilty1 showed c e r t a i n s i m i l a r i t i e s
of behavior. The guilty p e r s o n s w e r e reluctant to take the
.
.
. . .
t e s t , and they t r i e d in v a r i o u s ways to p o s t p e ~ ecr delz? it.
They often appeared highly anxious and s o m e t i m e s took a
h o s t i l e attitude toward the t e s t and the examiner. Evasive
t a c t i c s s o m e t i m e s a p p e a r e d , such as sighing, yawning, .
m o v i n g about, a l l of which foil the examiner by obscuring
the recording. Before the examination, they f e l t i t n e c e s s a r y
to explain why t h e i r r e s p o n s e s might mislead the examiner
into thinking they w e r e lying. Thus the p r o c e d u r e of subjecting
a s u s p e c t e d - m a l i n g e r e r to a lie-detector t e s t might evoke
behavior which would r e i n f o r c e the suspicion of fraud. (7)

Meltzer a l s o n o t e s that m a l i n g e r e r s who a r e not

professional. psychologists can usually be exposed through
Rorschach tests.

An important e l e m e n t in malingering is the f r a m e of

m i n d of the examiner. A p e r s o n pretending madness
awakens i n a professional examiner not only suspicion but
a l s o a d e s i r e to expose the f r a u d , w h e r e a s a well p e r s o n
who p r e t e n d s to be concealing mental i l l n e s s and who
p e r m i t s only a m i n o r symptom o r two to peep through i s
m u c h l i k e l i e r to c r e a t e in the expert a d e s i r e to expose
t h e hidden sickness.

~eltzeo r b s e r v e s that simulated m u t i s m and a m n e s i a

can usually be distinguished f r o m the t r u e s t a t e s by
n a r c o a n a l y s i s . The r e a s o n , however, i s t h e r e v e r s e of
the. popular misconception. Under the influence of appropriate
d r u g s the m a l i n g e r e r will p e r s i s t in not speaking o r in not
r e m e m b e r i n g , w h e r e a s the symptoms of the genuinely
afflicted will t e m p o r a r i l y disappear. Another technique
i s to p r e t e n d to take the deception seriously, e x p r e s s
g r a v e concern, and t e l l the "patient" that the only remedy
f o r h i s i l l n e s s is a s e r i e s of e l e c t r i c shock t r e a t m e n t s
- o r a f r o n t a l lobotomy.
i n t e r r o g a t o r a c c e s s to the information he s e e k s , he i s not
o r d i n a r i l y concerned with the attitudes of the source. Under
. .
s o m e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , however, this pragmatic indifference
can be short-sighted. If the interrogatee r e m a i n s semi-
hostile o r r e m o r s e f u l a f t e r a successful interrogation h a s
ended, l e s s time may be r e q u i r e d to complete h i s conversion
(and conceivably t o c r e a t e an enduring a s s e t ) than might be
needed to deal with h i s antagonism if he i s m e r e l y squeezed
and forgotten.
 X. INTERROGATOR'S CHECK LIST . .\ .

T h e questions t h a t follow a r e intended as r e m i n d e r s f o r the

interrogator and his superiors.

1. Have l o c a l ( f e d e r a l o r o t h e r ) l a w s affecting KUBARK's

c o n d u c t of a u n i l a t e r a l o r joint i n t e r r o g a t i o n b e e n c o m p i l e d a n d
learned?

2. I f the i n t e r r o g a t e e is to b e held, how long m a y h e b e

legally detained?

3 . A r e i n t e r r o g a t i o n s conducted b y o t h e r ODYOKE d e p a r t -
m e n t s a n d a g e n c i e s with foreign c o u n t e r i n t e l l i g e n c e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
being c o o r d i n a t e d with KUBARK if s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of
c h i e f / K u B A ~ KD i r e c t i v e o r ChieffKUBARK D i r e c t i v e ‘?

H a s a planned KUBARK i n t e r r o g a t i o n s u b j e c t t o the same p r o v i s i o n s

been appropriately coordinated?

4. Have applicable KUBARK r e g u l a t i o n s a n d d i r e c t i v e s b e e n

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

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

p.'
*.

9. Is the s o u r c e 1 -, o r
will questioning be completed elsewhere? If a t a base o r station,
w i l l the interrogator, interrogatee, and facilities be available f o r P5J -
...
..
the t i m e e s t i m a t e d a s n e c e s s a r y to the completion of the .process? ....,
Zf h e is to be s e n t to a center, has the approval of the center o r of .
....
~ e a d ~ u a r t ebrese n obtained? ..
".: . ..
..
...
10. Have all appropriate documents c a r r i e d by the prospective
i n t e r r o g a t e e b e e n subjected to technical a n a l y s i s ?
I

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 potential

i n t e r r o g a t e e and persons closely associated with him by .emotional,
family, o r b u s i n e s s t i e s ?
..
13. Has a preliminary a s s e s s m e n t of bona fides been c a r r i e d
o u t ? With what r e s u l t s ?

14. If an a d m i s s i o n of p r i o r association w.ith one o r m o r e

. .
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 s

p r a c t i c a b l e ? M o r e tha-n once? When?

16. Is it e s t i m a t e d that the prospective interrogatee is likely

to p r o v e cooperative o r r e c a l c i t r a n t ? If r e s i s t a n c e is expected,
what is its anticipated source: fear, patriotism, personal 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 the

eqiiipment available? Installed?

22, Have arrangements been made .to feed, bed, and guard
the subject as n e c e s s a r y ?

23, Does the interrogation plan c a l l f o r m o r e than one 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 the

i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s manipulation and control?

25. What disposition is plannedfor the interrogatee a f t e r

the questioning ends?

26. I s it possible, early in the questioning, to determine

the subject's p e r s o n a l response to the interrogator o r i n t e r r o g a t o r s ?
What i s t h e interrogator's reaction to the subject? Is t h e r e a n
emotional r e a c t i o n strong enough to d i s t o r t r e s u l t s ? If so, can the
i n t e r r o g a t o r be replaced?

27. If the s o u r c e is resistant, w i l l noncoercive o r coercive

techniques b e u s e d ? What is the reason f o r the choice?

28. Has the subject been interrogated e a r l i e r ? 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 the
preliminary a s s e s s m e n t formed before interrogation started?
If there a r e significant differences, what a r e they and how do
they affect the plan f o r the remainder of the questioning?

30. During the opening phase, have'the subject's voice,

eyes, mouth, gestures, silences, o r other visible clues suggested
a r e a s of sensitivity? If 80, on what topics?

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

32. Has the opening phase been .followed by a reconnaissance?

What a r e the key a r e a s of resistance? What tactics and how much
p r e s s u r e will 5e required to overcome the resistance? Should the
estimated duration of 'mterrogation be revised? If so, a r e f u r t h e r
arrangements n e c e s s a r y f o r cofitinued detention, liaison support,
guarding, o r other purposes ?

33. In the view of the interrogator, what is the emotional

reaction of the subject to the interrogator? Why?

34. A r e interrogation reports being prepared a f t e r each

session, f r o m notes o r tapes ? /

.-
35. What disposition of the interrogatee is to be made a f t e r <. -
question'mg ends ? If the subject is suspected of being .a hostile ..
agent and if interrogation has not produced confession, what
m e a s u r e s w i l l be taken to ensure that he is not left to operate as
before, unhindered and unchecked? <--,.
..-.
:.
.. ..
36. A r e any promises made to the interrogatee unfulfilled
when questioning ends ? Is the subject vengeful? Likely to t r y to
..
s t r i k e back? How? .-.
;

37. If one o r m o r e of the non-coercive techniques discussed

on pp. 52-81 have been selected f o r use, how do they match the
subject's personality?

38. A r e coercive techniques to be employed? If so, have

all field personnel in the interrogator's direct chain of command
been-notified? 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 be

confined, c a n KUBARK control h i s environment fully? Can the
n o r m a l routines b e disrupted f o r interrogation purposes?

42. -1s solitary confinement t o - b e u s e d ? Why? Does the

place of confinement permit the practical elimination of s e n s o r y
stimuli?

43. A r e t h r e a t s to b e employed? A s p a r t of a plan? Has

the nature of the t h r e a t been matched to that of the i n t e r r o g a t e e ?

44. If hypnosis o r drugs a r e thougtt necessary, h a s Head-

q u a r t e r s b e e n given enough advance notice ? Has adequate allowance
been made f o r t r a v e l time and other prelLmLnaries?

45. I s the interrogatee suspected of malingering? If the

interrogator is uncertain, a r e the s e r v i c e s of a n e x p e r t available?

46. A t the conclusion of the 'mterrogation, h a s a comprehensive

s u m m a r y r e p o r t been p r e p a r e d ?

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

consulted during the preparation of this study have not been included
h e r e . T h o s e that have n o r e a l bearing on the counter'mtelligence in-
terrogation of r e s i s t a n t s o u r c e s have been left out. Also omitted
a r e some s o u r c e s considered elementary, inferior, o r unsound. I t
i s not c l a i m e d that what r e m a i n s is comprehensive a s well as selective,
f o r the n u m b e r of published works having some relevance even to the
r e s t r i c t e d subject is o v e r a thousand. But It is believed that all the
i t e m s l i s t e d h e r e m e r i t reading by KUBARK persomiel concerned with
interrogatibn,

1. Anonymous ( 1 , Interrogation, undated.

This paper i s a one-hour l e c t u r e on the subject. I t is thoughtful, forth-
b
right, a n d b a s e d on extensive experience. I t deals only with interrogation -
following a r r e s t and detention. Because the scope is n e v e r t h e l e s s broad,
the d i s c u s s i o n is b r i s k b u t necessarily l e s s than profound.

2. Barioux, Max, "A Method f o r the Selection, Training, and

Evaluation of I n t e r v i e w e r s , Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring 1952,
Vol. 16, No. I. This a r t i c l e deals with the problems of interviewers
conducting public opinion polls. It i s of only slight value f o r Lnterroga-
t o r s , although it does suggest pitfalls produced by asking questions
that suggest t h e i r own a n s w e r s .

3 . Biderman, A l b e r t D . , A Study f o r Development of Improved

Interrogation Techniques: Study SR 177-D (U), S e c r e t , final r e p o r t of
Contract A F 18 (600) 1797, Bureau of Social Science R e s e a r c h Lnc.,
Washington, D. C . , M a r c h 1959. Although this book (207 pages of text)
'

i s principally concerned with lessons derived f r o m the interrogation

of A m e r i c a n POW'S by Communist s e r v i c e s and with the problem of
r e s i s t i n g interrogation, it a l s o deals with the interrogation of r e s i s t a n t
subjects. It h a s the added advantage of incorporating the findings and
 views of a number of scholars and specialists in subjects closely
r e l a t e d to interrogation. A s the frequency of citation indicates,
this book was one of the m o s t useful works consulted; few KUBARK '*.
" .,
i n t e r r o g a t o r s would fail.to profit f r o m readlng it. I t a l s o contains
a descriminating but undescribed bibliography of 343 items.

4. Biderman, Albert D. , "Communist Attempts to E l i c i t F a l s e

Confession f r o m A i r F o r c e P r i s o n e r s of War", Bulletin of the New York
Academy of Medicine, September 1957, Vol. 33. An excellent a.nalys is
of the psychological p r e s s u r e s applied by Chinese Communists to
A m e r i c a n POW'S to extract "confessionsll f o r propaganda purposes.

5. Biderman, Albert D., "Communist Techniques of Coercive

Interrogationll, A i r Intelligence, July 1955, Vol. 8, No. 7. This s h o r t
a r t i c l e does not discuss details. Its subject is closely r e l a t e d to that
of item 4 above; but the focus is on interrogation r a t h e r than the eli-
citation of I'confes 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 compared'with Milton W.
Horowitz's "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. Blake
f 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 the
chapters by D r s . Orne and Meltzer. He will find that the book is .,
by scientists f o r s c i e n t i s t s and that the contributions consistently . .-..
demonstrate too theoretical an understanding of interrogation p e r se.
H e will a l s o find that practically no valid experimentation the r e s u l t s
of which w e r e unclassified and available to the authors has been 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 does
contain m u c h useful information, a s frequent references in this
study show. The combined bibliographies contain a total of 771
items.
 13. Gill, Merton, Inc., and M a r g a r e t Brenman,
Hypnosis and R elated States: Psychoanalytic Studies in
Regression, international Universities P r e s s Inc. , New Y ork,
1959. This book is a scholarly and comprehensive examination
of hypnosis. The approach is basically Freudian but the a u t h o r s
a r e neithe; narrow nor doctrinaire. The book d i s c u s s e s the
induction of hypnosis, the hypnotic s t a t e , theories of induction
and of the hypnotic condition, the concept of regression- as a
b a s i c element in hypnosis, relationships between hypnosis and
d m g s , sleep, fugue, etc., and the u s e of hypnosis'in
psychotherapy. Interrogators may find the comparison
between hypnos is and llbrainwashLngllin chapter 9 m o r e
r e l e v a n t than o t h e r parts. ~ h e ' b o o ki s recommended,
however, not because it contains any discussion of the
employment
- .
of hypnosis in interrogation ( i t does not) but
b e c a u s e i t provides the interrogator with sound information
about what hypnosis can. and cannot do.

14. Hinkle, Lawrence E. Jr. a n d Harold G , Wolff,

llCommunist Interrogation and Indoctrination of Enemies
of the State1!, AMA Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry,
August
- 1956, Vol. 76, No. 2. This a r t i c l e s u m m a r i z e s
the physiological and psychological reactions of A m e r i c a n
p r i s o n e r s to Co~llmunistdetention and interrogation. I t
m e r i t s reading but not study, chiefly because of the vast
differences between-~orrrmunistinterrogati'on of A m e r i c a n
POW'S and KUBARK interrogation of known o r suspected
personnel of Communist s e r v i c e s o r parties.
 -
15. Horowitz, Milton W. , "Psychology of Confession. I '
J o u r n a l of C r i m i n a l Law, Criminology, and P o l i c e Science, 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 y
a u t h o r i t y wielding power g r e a t e r than h i s own; (3) he beli'eves t h a t
evidence damaging t o h i m is available t o o r p o s s e s s e d b y the a u t h o r i t y .
(4) t h e a c c u s e d is cut off f r o m friendly support: ( 5 ) self-hostility i s
g e n e r a t e d ; a n d (6) confession t o authority p r o m i s e s relief. ~ l t h o u ~ h
t h e a r t i c l e is e s s e n t i a l l y a speculation r a t h e r than a r e p o r t of v e r i f i e d
f a c t s , it m e r i t s close reading.

16. Inbau, F r e d E. and John E. Reid, L i e Detection a n d

C r i m i n a l Investigation, Williams and Wilkins Co. , 1953. The
- o l.y-g r a- p h . It
f i r s t p a r t of t h i s book c o n s i s t s of a discussion of the ~
w i l l b e m o r e useful t o t h e KUBARK i n t e r r o g a t o r than the second, which
d e a l s with t h e elements of c r i m i n a l interrogation.

17. KHOKHLOV, Nicolai, In the Name of Conscience, David

,%Kay Co., New York, 1959. This e n t r y is included chiefly b e c a u s e
of t h e c i t e d quotation. I t does provide, however, s o m e i n t e r e s t i n g
i n s i g h t s into t h e affitudes of a n interrogatee.

18. KUBARK, Communist Control Methods, Appendix 1:

"The Use of Scientific Design and Guidance D r u g s and Hypnosis i n
C o m m u n i s t Interrogation and Indbctrination P r o c e d u r e s . " S e c r e t , no
date. The appendix r e p o r t s a study of whether Communist i n t e r r o g a -
tion methods included s u c h a i d s a s hypnosis and d r u g s . Although
e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n in t h e s e a r e a s i s , o f . c o u r s e , conducted i n C o m m u n i s t
c o u n t r i e s , the study found no evidence that s u c h methods a r e u s e d in
C o m m u n i s t i n t e r r o g a t i o n s - - o r that they would be n e c e s s a r y .

19. KUBARK (XUSODA), Communist Control Techniques,

. S e c r e t , 2 A p r i l 1956. This study i s a n a n a l y s i s of the m e t h o d s u s e d
by C o m m u n i s t State police in the a r r e s t , interrogation, a n d 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 i's
i n t e r e s t i n g , it d o e s not p r e s e n t t e s t e d evidence t h a t the a n a l y s i s of
a s u b j e c t ' s handwriting would be a useful aid t o a n i n t e r r o g a t o r .
R e c o m m e n d e d , n e v e r t h e l e s s , f o r i n t e r r o g a t o r s u n f a m i l i a r with the
subject.?

24. Lefton, R o b e r t J a y , "Chinese C o m m u n i s t 'Thought

Reform.': Confession and Reeducation of W e s t e r n Civilians, "
B u l l e t i n of the New York Academy of Medicine, S e p t e m b e r 1957,
Vol, 33. A sound a r t i c l e about Chicom brainwashing techniques. The
i n f o r m a t i o n w a s compiled f r o m first-hand i n t e r v i e w s with p r i s o n e r s
who h a d been s u b j e c t e d to the p r o c e s s . Recommended a s background
reading.
 25. Levenson, B e r n a r d and Lee'Wiggins, A Guide f o r
Intelligence Interviewing of Voluntary F o r e i g n Sources, Official
Use M y , Officer Education R e s e a r c h Laboratory, ARDC, Maxwell :,

Air F o r c e B a s e (Technical Memorandum OERL-TM-54-4. ) A good, - .,

'..
though generalized, t r e a t i s e on interviewing techniques. As the title
shows, the subject is different f r o m that of the p r e s e n t study.

26. Lilly, John C., "Mental Effects of Reduction of Ordinary

Levels of P h y s i c a l Stimuli on Intact Healthy P e r s o n s . Psychological
R e s e a r c h R e p o r t #5, A m e r i c a n P s y c h i a t r i c Association, 1956. After
presenting a s h o r t s u m m a r y of a few autobiographical accounts
w r i t t e n about relative isolation a t s e a (in s m a l l Goats) o r polar regions,
the author d e s c r i b e s two experiments designed to m a s k o r d r a s t i c a l l y
reduce m o s t s e n s o r y stimulation. The effect was t o speed up the
r e s u l t s of t h e m o r e u s u a l s o r t of isolation (for example, s o l i t a r y
confinement), Delusions and hallucinations, preceded by o t h e r
symptoms, appeared a f t e r s h o r t periods. The author does not discuss
the possible relevance of his findings t o interrogation.

27, Meerlo, J o o s t A. M., The Rape of the Mind, World

P.ublishing Go., Cleveland, 1956, This book's p r i m a r y value f o r the
i n t e r r o g a t o r is that it will make him a w a r e of a number of elements
i n the r e s p o n s e s of a n i n t e r r o g a t e c which are not directly related to
the questions a s k e d o r the interrogation setting but a r e instead the
product of ( o r a r e at least influenced by) all questioning that the subject -
h a s undergone e a r l i e r , especially as a child. F o r many i n t e r r o g a t e e s
the i n t e r r o g a t o r becomes, f o r b e t t e r o r w o r s e , the p a r e n t o r authority
symbol. Whether. the subject is submissive o r belligerent m a y be
d e t e r m i n e d i n p a r t by his childhood relationships with his p a r e n t s .
Because t h e same f o r c e s a r e at work i n the interrogator, the i n t e r r o -
gation m a y b e chiefly a cover f o r a deeper l a y e r of exchange o r
conflict between the two. F o r the i n t e r r o g a t o r a p r i m a r y value of
this book (and of much r e l a t e d psychological and psychoanalytic
work) is t h a t it m a y give him a deeper insight into himself.

28, Maloney', James C l a r k , "Psychic Self- Abandon and

%ortion of Confessions, " International Journal of Psychoanalysis,
J a n u a r y / F e b r u a r y 1955, Vol. 36. This s h o r t a r t i c l e r e l a t e s the
psychological r e l e a s e obtained through confession ( i , e., the s e n s e of
well-being following s u r r e n d e r a s a solution to a n otherwise unsolvable
conflict) with religious experience generally and s o m e t e n Buddhistic
p r a c t i c e s p a r t i c u l a r l y . The i n t e r r o g a t o r will find little h e r e that i s .
not m o r e helpfully d i s c u s s e d i n other s o u r c e s , including Gill and
B r e n m a n ' s Hypnosis and Related States. Marginal. .,

29. Oatis, William N., "Why I Confes'sed, " 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 the
w r i t e r ' s p r o f e s s i o n of innocence ("I a m not a s p y and n e v e r was")
with a n account of how he was brought t o "confess" to espionage within
t h r e e d a y s of his a r r e s t . Although Oatis w a s periodically deprived
of s l e e p (once f o r 42 h o u r s ) and forced to stand until w e a r y , the
C z e c h s obtained the "confession" without t o r t u r e o r s t a r v a t i o n and
without sophisticated techniques.

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. The'
a u t h o r concludes that scientific testing of graphology is needed to
p e r m i t a n objective a s s e s s m e n t of the c l a i m s m a d e in its behalf. This
a r t i c l e should b e r e a d i n conjunction with No. 23, above.

31. Schachter , Stanley, The Psychology of Affiliation:

E x p e r i m e n t a l Studies of the Sources of G r e g a r i o u s n e s s , Stanford
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Stanford, California, 1959. A r e p o r t of 133 pages,
chiefly c o n c e r n e d with e x p e r i m e n t s and s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s p e r f o r m e d
at t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota by D r . ~ c h a c h t e rand colleagues. The
p r i n c i p a l findings c o n c e r n relationships among anxiety, s t r e n g t h of
affiliative t e n d e n c i e s , and the o r d i n a l position (i. e. , r a n k in b i r t h
sequence a m o n g siblings). Some tentative conclusions of significance
f o r i n t e r r o g a t o r s a r e reached, the following among them:

a. "One of the consequences of isolation a p p e a r s t o be

a psychological s t a t e which in i t s e x t r e m e f o r m r e s e m b l e s a
full-blown anxiety attack. I ' (p. 12. )

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 KUBARK's
interrogation problems. Recommended a s background reading.

33, Singer,
- Marg -
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 11,
Secret, Washington, 1951. A comprehensive t r e a t i s e on Russian
intelligence and police s y s t e m s and on the history of Russian t r e a t -
ment of captives, m i l i t a r y and civilian, during and following World
W a r PI. The appendix contains some specific c a s e s u m m a r i e s of
physical t o r t u r e by the s e c r e t police. Only a s m a l l p a r t of the book
- deals with i n t e r rogation. Background reading.
 36; U, S. Army, 7707 European Comrnand Intelligence
- Center,
Guide f o r Intelligence Interrogators of ~ a ' s t e r nCases, Secret, April
1958. This specialized study is of some marginal value f o r KUBARK
i n t e r r o g a t o r s dealing with Russians and other Slavs. . .
'\ .',

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

Techniques of Interrogation, ~ n s t r u c t o r solder I-6437/A, J a n u a r y
1956. This folder consists largely of an article, " ~ i t h o u T t orture, "
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 -inArgosy,
May 1950) a r e exclusively concerned with the. interrogation of P O W Is.
Although Scharff claims .that the methods used by G e r m a n Military
Intelligence against captured U. S. A i r F o r c e personnel ". . . were
a l m o s t i r r e s i s t i b l e , the basic technique cons is ted of i m p r e s s ing
upon the p r i s o n e r the false conviction that his information was a l r e a d y
known to the G e r m a n s in full detail. The success of this method 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, POW'S, and refugees, a n d the employment
of i n t e r p r e t e r s and of the polygraph. Although this text does not
concentrate upon the basic problems confronting KUBARK interrogators,
it will r e p a y reading.

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 close
I 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 .
.?. .
.I

1903, 4th edition, 1948. Most of this book is but i n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to . .... . ..

;.
.-.
t h e subject of t h i s study; it i s p r i m a r i l y concerned with tripping up 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 warnings

a 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 e
r e p o r t s a n e x p e r i m e n t designed t o t e s t the r e s u l t s of eliminating m o s t
s e n s o r y s t i m u l i and m a s k i n g o t h e r s . P a i d volunteers spent p e r i o d s f r o m
1 hour a n d 38 minutes t o 36 h o u r s in a t a n k - r e s p i r a t o r . The r e s u l t s
included inability t o c o n c e n t r a t e effectively, daydreaming and
fantasy, illusions., delusions, and hallucinations. The suitability of
t h i s p r o c e d u r e as a m e a n s of speeding up the effects of s o l i t a r y 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 noted

d b r i n g the p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s study.

1. B r a i n w a s h i n g , A Guide to the L i t e r a t u r e , p r e p a r e d
by the Society f o r t h e Invesfigation of Human Ecology, I n c . ,
F o r e s t H i l l s , New York, December 1960. A wide v a r i e t y of
m a t e r i a l s i s r e p r e s e n t e d : scholarly and scientific r e p o r t s ,
g o v e r n m e n t a l a n d organizational r e p o r t s , l e g a l d i s c u s s i o n s ,
b i o g r a p h i c a l a c c o u n t s , f i c t i o n , journalism, and miscellaneous.
T h e n u m b e r of i t e m s in e a c h category i s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , 139,
2 8 , 7 , 75, 10, 14, a n d 19, a total of 418. o n e o r two sentence
d e s c r i p t i o n s follow the t i t l e s . T h e s e a r e r e s t r i c t e d t o a n
indication of content and do not e x p r e s s value judgements. The
f i r s t s e c t i o n c o n t a i n s a n u m b e r of especially useful r e f e r e n c e s .

2. C o m p r e h e n s i v e Bibliography of Interrogation
T e c h n i q u e s , P r o c e d u r e s , and E x p e r i e n c e s , A i r Intelligence
Information R e p o r t , Unclassified, 10 June 1959. T h i s
bibliography of 158 i t e m s dating between 1915 and 1957
c o m p r i s e s "the m o n o g r a p h s on t h i s subject available in the
L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s a n d a r r a n g e d in alphabetical o r d e r by
a u t h o r , o r i n t h e a b s e n c e of a n a u t h o r , by title. " No
d e s c r i p t i o n s a r e included, except f o r explanatory sub-titles.
T h e m o n o g r a p h s , i n s e v e r a l languages, a r e not categorized.
T h i s collection is e x t r e m e l y heterogeneous. Most of the .
i t e m s a r e of s c a n t o r p e r i p h e r a l value to the i n t e r r o g a t o r .

3. Inter r o g a t i o n Methods and Technique s , KUPALM,

L - 3 , 0 2 4 , 9 4 1 , J u l y 1959, Secret/NOFORN. T h i s bibliography
of 114 i t e m s i n c l u d e s r e f e r e n c e s to four categories: books
a n d p a m p h l e t s , a r t i c l e s f r o m p e r i o d i c a l s , c l a s s i f i e d documents,
a n d m a t e r i a l s f r o m c l a s s i f i e d periodicals. No d e s c r i p t i o n s
(except sub-titles) a r e included. The range i s b r o a d , s o that
a number of nearly-irrelevant titles a r e included (e. g . ,
Employment psychology: the Interview, Interviewing in social
r e s e a r c h , and "Phrasing questions; the question of b i a s in
interviewing", f r o m Journal of Marketing).

4. Survey of the Literature on Interrogation Techniques,

KUSODA, 1 March 1957, Confidential. Although now somewhat
dated because of the sigriilicant work done since i t s publication,
this bibliography r e m a i n s the best of those l i s t e d . I t groups
i t s 114 i t e m s in four categories: Basic Recommended Reading,
Recommended Reading, Reading of Limited o r Marginal Value,
and Reading of No Value. A brief description of each i t e m i s
included. Although some element of subjectivity inevitably
tinges these brief, c r i t i c a l a p p r a i s a l s , they a r e judicious; and
they a r e a l s o r e a l t i m e - s a v e r s f o r i n t e r r o g a t o r s too busy to
plough through the a c r e s of print on the specialty.
 INDEX

A Page

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

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

C h a r a c t e r w r e c k e d b y s u c c e s s , the
C o e r cive i n t e r r o g a t i o n
.C onclusion of i n t e r r o g a t i o n 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 47
i 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 7
i' C ounterintelligence interrogation, definition of 4-5
C r o s s-examination 58-59
 Page

Debility
Debriefing , definition of
Defectors

D eprivation of s e n s o r y stimuli
D e tailed que stioning
Detention of i n t e r r o g a t e e s
D i r e c t i v e s governing interrogation
D o cument s of d e f e c t o r s
Double agent
Drugs see
Narcosis
Duress s e e also
Coercive
Inter rogation --......

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

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

Galvanic skin r e s p o n s e and the polygraph

Going Next Door technique
Graphology
G reedy-demanding c h a r a c t e r
 Page

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

Heightened suggestibility and hypnosis

Indicators of emotion, physical

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

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

Khokhlov, Nikolai

.Language considerations
 Page

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

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

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

ODENBY , coordination with

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

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

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

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

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

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

S t r u c t u r e of the interrogation 53-65

Swindlers 18-19
Systolic blood p r e s s u r e and the polygraph 80

Techniques of non-coercive interrogation

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

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