- Información
- Chat IA
Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation
CIA documents (CIA01)
Universidad del Bío-Bío
Comentarios
Vista previa del texto
r
I ·'
' ·.
. KUBARK COUNl'ERINTELUGENCE INTERROGATION
July 1963
'I,
I
T
KUBA COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
- IN:X 1- A. Explanation of Purpose 1-l · B. Exp1anatlon of Orga;atioo 3
ll. DEFINITIONS 4-
Ill. LEGAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 6-
IV. THE INTERROGATOR 10-
V. THEINTERROGATEE A. B. c.
Types o! Sources: Types of Sources: Other Clues
15- Iotelligeoce Categories 15 - Personality Categories 19- l8-2.
VI. SCREENING AND OTHER PRELiMINARIES A. B. c.
Screening Other Prelimlna Procedures Sununa
VII. PLANNING THE COUNt'ERINTELLlGENCE INTERROGATION A. The Nature o! Counterintelligence lnterrosation B. The Interrogation Plan C. The Specifics
30- 30- 33- 37
38 -5 1
38--42. 42.-- 44-5 1
YUI. THE NON-COERCIVE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION 5l-Sl
i
~ ET
'
' •'
'
.,
'•
-
·.
'
'
-
s
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Explanation o£ Purpose
This manual cannot te anyone how to De, or become, a good interrogator. At bes t it can help readers to avoid the charactt.: risiic miatake s of poor interrogator s
Ito purpose io to provide guidelines for KUBARK inter rogation, and particularly the cou:intelligenc e interrogation of resistant s ources. Designed as au aid for interrogator• and others immediately concerned, It is based largely upon the publiohed results of extensive research, including ocientific inquiries cond by specialists in closely related subjects.
There is nothing mysteriouo about interrogation. It consists oi no more thaD. obtainiD needed Wormation through responses to questions. As is true of all craftsmen, some interrogators are rnore able than ot.her: and some o£ tbeir superiority may be innate. But sound interrogation nevertheless rests upon a knowledge of the subject matter and on certain broad principles, chiefly psychological, which are not hard to understand. The success of good iD depends in large measure upon their uae, conscious or not, of these principles and of processes and techniques deriving from them. Knowledge oi subject matter and oi tbe basic principles will not o£ ihel! create a successful interrogation, b11t it will make possible the avoidance of mistakes that are characteristic of poor interrogation. The purpose. t hen, is not t o teach the reader how to be a good interrogator but rather to tell bim what he must learn in ordeT to become a. good intet"rogator.
1
'
·.
- The 'interrogation o! a. renistant source who is a otaif o r
agent membet: o( an Orbit intelligence or security service or o!
a clandestine Cornm orgaoizatioil is one o! the most exacting
of professional task&. Uoually the odds still h the inte
rogator, but they are sharply cut by the traini:g. ai ence, patience and tougb s of the interrogatee. In Sl circun\ stances the interrogator needs a the help that be can get. And a. principal source of aid today is ocieotUic findings. The intelligence service which is able to bri,ng pertinent, modcr a knowledge to bear upon its problema enjoys buge advantage& over a 9ervice which conducts its clandestine business in e ighteenth century fashion. It is true that American psychologists have devoted somewhat more attention to Communist interrogation techniques, particularly "brainwasbing" , than to U. 5. ·practices. Yet they have conducted scienti inquiries into many subjects that arc closely related to interrogation: the effects oC debility and isolation, the polygraph, reactions to pain and fear, hypnosis and heightened suggestibility, narcosis, e tc. Thio work is o! suJ!icien t i:nportance and relevance that i t ia n o longer possible to discuss interrogation signifi cantly without reference to tb ps ycbological research conducted in the past decade. For this reason a. major purpose of this study is to !ocus relevant scientific findings upon Cl interrogation. Every effort bas been made to report and interpret these findings in our own language, in place o( the terminology employed by the psychologists.
This study is by no means confined to a resume and interpretation o! psychological lindlngs. The approach o! the psychologists is cu manipulative; that io, they suggest methods of imposing controls or alterations upon the interrogatee ft·om the outside. Except within the Com.mu frame of reference, they have paid ieee attention to the creation of internal controls--i .. e., conversion of the source, so that voluntary cooperation results. Moral considerations aside, the imposition of external techniques oC manipulating people carries with it the grave risk o! later lawsuits, adverse publicity, or other attempts t· strike back.
2
s E T
·. -
....
. ..
:... ..
'.
.. ~ .. :
S·r/E T
iX. THE COERCIVE COUNT:ERINTELLIGENC:E INTERROGATION OF RESISTANT SOURCES
A. Restrictions
The purpose of this part of the handbook is to present basic information about coercive techniques available for use in the interrogation situation. lt is vital that this discussion not be misconstrued as constituting authorization for the use o{ coercion at field discretion .. As was J'loted earlier, there i. s no such blanket authorization.
For both ethical and pragmatic reasons no interrogator may take upon himself the =ilateral responsibility fo•· uoing coercive methods~ Concealing h ·om the interrogator• 6 super- tors an inten t to resort to coercion, or its unapproved employznent, does not protect them.. It places them, and KUBARK, in unconsidered jeopardy.
B. The Theory o{ Coercion
Coercive procedures a.:re desigr\ed oct only to exploit the resiStant source•s internal conflicts and induce hiln to wrestle with himself but also to br-ing a superior outside force to beat" upon the subject's resistance. Non.-c methods are not
'
..
...
I I· ~· ' .,
I
r
likely to succeed if their selection and use is oot predicated upon an accurate psychological assessment o£ the source. In contrast, the same coercive method may &ucceed against persons who are very UDl each other. The changes o£ success .rise steeplyt nevertheless, if the coercive technique is matched to the sour ce 1 s personality. Individuals .react dH!erently even to such seemingly noo-discril:nin stimuli as diuga. Moreover, it i a waste o£ time and energy to apply strong pre on a bit-or-miss basis if a tap on the psychological jugular will produce compliance.
All coercive techniques are designed to induce regression. As Hinkle notes in "The Physiological State of th~ Interrogation Subject as it Affects Brain FUllction"(7), the result o! external press ... res o£ sw!icient intensity is the loss at those defense• most recently acquired by civilized man: ". • • the capacity to carry out the bighest creative activities, to meet new, chal- lenging, and complex situations, to deal witb tx-ying interpersonal >:elations, and to cope with repeated frustx-ations. Relatively small degrees o{ homeostatic derangement, fatigue, pain, sleep loss, or anxiety may i:npair these functions." As a result, nmost people wbo are exposed to coercive procedures will talk a usually reveal some in!onnation that they :might not have revealed otherwise. !r
One subjective reaction often evoked by coercion is a feeling of guilt. Melt:z:er observes, "In some lengthy interro- gations, the interrogator may, by virtue of his x-ole as the sole supplier o£ satisfaction and pllllishment, assume the atatux-e and bnportance of a parental figure in the prisoner's feeling and tbinking. Although there may be intenoe hatred for the interro- gator, it is not \lll\l&ual !or warm feelings also to develop. This ambivalence is the basis tor guilt reactions, all if tbe interro- gator nourishes these feelings, the guilt may be strong enough to influence the prisonel" 16 behavior.. ... Guilt makes com- pliance more likely .... " (7).
Farber says tbat the response to coercion typically contains ' 1 .... at lea&t three important element9: debility, dependency. 3-I:Id dread. •• Prisoners ••. ,. have reduced· via- bility, a::-c bclpleaaly dependent <n their captor• !or the
B
' s ·'
####### I ..
'
... ·'
,
I
When an interrogator s enses tlia the subject•s resis tance is wavering, that his desire t o yield is g:rowiDg stronger ttan his wi. to continue his resistance, the time bae c ome to p r ov id ~ hiin witlt t"' ~ accep2b!e ra.tioo: a fa ce-saving reason or· excuse for compliance. Novic e interrogators may be tempted to sei:t" upon the initial yielding triumphantly and to personalize the victory. Such a temptation must be rejected immediately. An interrogation is not a game played by two people, one to become the wiD and the other the loser. It is simpl y a method o{ ob - taining correct and useful information. Therefore the interro- gator should intensify the subje ct's desire to cease struggling by showing him how he cau do eo without seeming to abandon p rin- ciple. self-protection , or other initial causes: o f zesietance. If, instead of providing the right rationalization a t the right time, the inter r ogator sei:tes gloatingly upo<> the subject's wavering, oppo- sition will stiffen again.
'·
The following are the principal coercive techniques of in- terrogation: arrest, detention, d~privation of sensory stimuli through solitary confinement or si=ilar methods, threats a fear, dehilit)•, pa, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis, nar- cosis, and induced regression. This section also· discusses the detection of malingering by int.,rrogatees aud the provision o( appropriate rationalizations for capitulating and cooperating.
C. Arrest
The manner and timing of arrest can coDl::r ibute substantially to the interrogator •e purposes. "What we aim to do is to enoure that the manner o£ arrest achieveo, i£ possible, surprise, and the maxi=um amount of menial discorr io order to catch the suspect off balan.. ce and t o deprive him of the initiative. One should therefore a him at a moment when be least expects it and when his mental and physical resistanc e is at its lowest. The ideal time at which to arrest a person is ln the early hours of the morning because surprise is achieved then, and because a person's resistance physiologically as well ae psychologi cally is at its lowest.... If a person cannot be arrested in the early hours ••• , the n the next best time is in the evening • .••
ss
.. (1)
D. Detention
1!, .~rough the cooperation of .. liaison service or by uni- lateral rneans .. ~l arx-angements have been made £or the confinement o( a resistant source, the cil'C\ll'llstances of detention are ar- ranged to enhance within the subject hie feelings of being cut ofi h·om the known and the reassuring, and of being plunged into the strange. Usually his own clothes are i taken away, because fatnUiar clothing reinforces identity and thus the capacity for resista... (Prisons give close hai cuto and issue prison garb for the s;une reason.) U the interrogatee is espec:ia- ly proud or neat, it may be useful to give hii:n an outftt that is one or two s izeo too large and to !ail to provide a belt, 9 o that he must hold hi& pants up.
The point is that man's sense of identity depends upon a continuity in his &~roundings. habits, appearance, actions, relations with others, etc. Detention pe:nnits the interrogator to cut through theoe links and throw the interrogatee back upon hia own unaided internal resources.
Little ia gained if coofinernent merely replaces one routine with another. Prisoner~ who lead m un'arled lives u •.• cease to care about their utterances, dress, and cleanli- ness. They become dulled, apathetic, and depressed." (7) And apathy can be a very e defense against i. Control of the source '• enviromnent pe:rmlta tbe interrogator to
86
-S ~ ET
the greatest fears and hence the greatest i:langer of giving way to Oyn'lptoms: previouG experience is a powerful aid in goi ahead, de&pite the symptoms. "The symptoms most commonly produced by isolation are superstition, intenoc love of any other living thing, perce ivi. lnanirnate objects as alive, hallucinations, and delusions." (26)
The apparent reason for these effect s is that a per son cut oU {rom extern a l sti turns his awareneGe inward, upon hi- sclf, and. then projects the contents of bia own unconscious outward6, so that he endows his faceless environment with his OWll attributes, fears, and forgotten memories. Lilly notes, "It Is obvious that in factors U\ the mind tend to be projected outward, that some of the mind's activity which is usually reality- bound now becomes free to turn to phantasy and ultimately to b.a and delusion. 11
A nwnber o f experime n s conducted at McGUl University,
the National Institute of Mental Health, and other sites have a t -
tempcd to COOle as clooe as possible to the eliznination o( sensory
stiznuli, or to masking remaining stimuli, chiefly sounds, by a
stronger but wholly monotonous overlay. The results o(these
experiments have little applicability to interrogation because the
circu.xnst are dissi. Some of the findings point toward
hypotheses that seem relevant to interrogat ion, but conditions
li<e those o( detention for purposes o( counterintelligence interro-
gation have not been ciupllcated lor experimentation.
At the National l titute o{ Mental Health two subjects were ". su::>ded with the body and aU but the top of the head immersed in a tank containing slowly flowing water at 34. s· c (94. 5 ' F) •... " Both subjects wore bla-out masks, ·which en- closed the whole head but allowed breathing and nothing else. The sound level wao extremely low; the subjec t beard only his own brcathU\g and some faint sounds of water from the piping. Neither subject stayed i the tank longer than three l1ouu. Both passed quickly !rom normally directed thinking throagh a tension resultU\g {rorn un&atisfied hunger for sensory etUnuli a concentration upon the !ew available sensati to private reveries and f~ntasics and eventually to visual i somewhat resembling hallucination&.
s
' '•
·.
...
. ·'
.. ..
.. . ..
...
. '
: .·
'
..
I
'
''In our exoerirnenls, we notice that a fter immersion the d a y apparentl y is started over, i., the subject feels as if h e has risen from. bed afresh; this eHect persist s , and the subject finds he i s o u t of step with the clock for the :rest of the day ...
Drs. Wexler, Mendelson, Leiderman , and Solomon conducte d a somewh similar experiment on sev e nteen paid v o l u nteer s. These subjects were 11 • •• placed in a t ank-type respirator with a specially built matt ress .... The vents o f the :respirato r were left open, so that the subject breathed for himseLf. His arm s and legs were enclosed in comfortable but rigid cylinders to inhibit movement a nd tactile contact. The subject lay o n bis back and was unab l e t o see any part o f bis body. The motor of the respirator was run constantly, producing a dull, repet itive auditory stimulu s. The roo rn. admi t t e d n o n atural light, a n d artificia l light was minimal and cons t a n t." (4Z) Alth ough the es<ablisbed time l was 3 6 h ours and though all p hysic a l n e eds were taken care of, only 6 of the 17 completed the stint. The other eleven soon asked fo>: release. :Four of these terminated tbe experiment becaus e o f anxiety and panic : seven did so because of physical discomfoJ:'t. Tbe confirmed earlier findings that (I) the deprivation of sensoX'y s tirnull induces stress; ( 2) the stress becomes unbearable for most subjects; (3) t h e subject has a growing oeed for physical and social stimuli; and ( 4 ) some subjects p rogressively lose touch with realit)•, focus inv., and produce delusions, hallucinations, a other p a th o logical effect •·
In summarizing some scientific r e porting on sensory and perceptual depriv ation, Kub:.ansky offers the following observations:
"Three s tudies suggest that the more well-adjusted o r 'normal' the subject i s , the m o r e he is affected by depriv ion of 9ensory stimuli. Neuroti c a n d psycho t i c subjects are either comparatively unaffected or show decreases in anxiety, h allucinationsj etc. u (7)
89
r
.·.
I.
s T
whereas the materi a-liz;ation of the !ear. the inJlic ion o£ some f o r m o £ punishment, is likely to come as a relie!. The s ubjec t finds tha t b e can bold out, and his resistance• are strengthened. urn genei-al, direct p hysica bru talit~· creates only resentment, hostility, and further defiance." (18)
The effectiveness of a threat depends not only on what sort of person the i is and w h ether be believes that b$ questione>: can .and will car>:y the threat out bnt also on the interrogator's reasons £or threatening. I! the i."lterrogator threatens. because he Ia angry. the subject frequently senses the fear o f failure underlying the anger and is s trengthened in his own resolve t o reei st. Thre,ats delivered coldly are more effective than those shouted ln rage. It is especially important that a threat not be uttered in response to the interrogatee 'sown expressions o{ hostility. These, i£ ignored, can induc e feelings n! gvilt, wherea s retorts in kind relieve the subject's feelings.
Another reason why threats induce compliance not evoked by the inflection of duress is that the threat g>:ants 'the interrogatee time !or compliance. lt is not enough that a. resistant source should replaced under the tension of fear; be must also discern an acceptab l e escape rotlte. Bide1:man obse>:ves, " Not only can the s hame or guilt of defeat in tbc encounte r with the i nterrogator be involved, but also the more fundam ental injun ~tion to protect one's sel.£-autonom or 'will'.... A simple de!ense against threats to tbe sel£ from the anticipation of being !creed to comply 'is, o( course, t o com p i y 'deliberately' or 'voluntarily'.... To the extent that the foregoing interpretation holds, the more intensely motivated the lliiterrogatee:7 is to resist, the more inten s e i s the pressurr; toward early compliance from such. anxieties, for the greater is the threat to sell-esteem which is involved in contemplating the possibility o! being 'forced t o ' comply ...• " (6) In brief, th threat is like all other coercive techniques in being m ost effective when so us8d as to foster regression and when joined with a sug gested way out of the dilemma. a rationalization acceptable to the intcrrogatee.
91
. f
:
' •,
. ....
r
The threat of death has often been ·row>d to be worse
than u seless. lt 11 ha the highest position in law as a.
dfnse , but in rr,a Llterzogad :Situations it is a highly
ineffective threat. tA prisoners, in iact, have refused
to yi in the face of such threats who have subsequently
been 'broken ' by other procedures." (3} The principal
reason is tb the ultimate threat is likely t o induce s heer
hopelessness i1 the inter:rogateo does not believe that il
i s a trick; he feels that he is aa likely to be condemned
after complio ;u before. The threat o f death is also
inei!ective ·when used against hard-headed types who
reali:z that silencing tbem forever would de!eat the
interrogator's purpose. U the threat is recognized a a
bluff, it will not only fail but a lso pave the way tO failure
for later coercive ruses used by the interrogator.
G. Debility
N o report of scieDti!ic investigation oi the effect
of debility upon the: interrogatee • s powel:' .s of resistance
bas been discovered. For centuries interrogators haye
employed various methods of inducing physical weakness:
prolonged constraint; prolonged exertion: extremes of heat.
cold, or :noistu and deprivation or drastic :-eduction of
food or s leep. Apparentl y the assumption is that lowering
the so u re 's physiologi c a l resistance will lower his
psychological capacity for opposition. l{ this notion were
valid, however, it might reasonably be expected that those
subjects who are physically weakest at the beginning of
an interrogation would be the quickest to capitulate. a
concept not supported by experience. The available
evidence suggests that resistance is sapped pdncipally
by p sychological rather than physica l pressures. The
threat of debility - for example, a brief deprivation of
food - may induce much more anx than proiongeo
hunger, whic h will result after a while in apathy and,
perhaps. eventual delusions or haLlucinatiOn$. In brief,
it appears probable that the tec h ique s of i nducing debility
becorne counter-productive at an earl y stage. The discomfort,
tension. and restless search !or an a. vn u c of escape are
E T
..
'
.... ..
.:.;::..
...
·.
it less,- and react less. by f ear of t h e unknown.
E T
than one whose castress i s heightened The individua l remains the determinant.
l t has been plausibly suggested that, whereas pain inflicted on. a person !rom outside himself may actually f~c•..!s or intensi1y his will to resist. his resistance i s likelier to be sapped by pain which be seems to i nflict upon himself. •'In the simple torture situation the contest is one between the individual and his tormentor ( ..•. a he can frequently endure). Wben the individual is told to stand at attention {or: long periods, an intervening factor is introduced. The immediate source o f pain i s not the interrogator but the victim himself. The motivational strengt h o f tbe individual is likely to exhaust itself in this internal encounter.... As long a s the subject remains standing, h e io attributing to his capto r the power to do some thing wors e to him, but there is actually no showdown o£ the ability of tbe interrogator to do so." (4)
lnterrogatee s who are withholding but who feel qualms of guilt and a secret desire to yield are likely t o becorne intractabl e if made to endure pain. The reason is: tha they can then interpret the pain a:s punish and hence a expiation. There are also persons who enjoy pain and its anticipation and who will keep b a c k information that they might otherwise divulge if they are given reason to expect that withholding will result i n the punishment that tbey want. Persons of considerable moral o~ )ntellectual stature o ften find in pain inflicted by others a confirm&tion of the belie ( that they are in the hands of inferiors, a n d the ir resol v e not t o submit i s strengthened.
Intense pain is quite likely to produ c e false confessions, concocte d as a means o( escaping from distress. A time- conswning delay result s ~ while investigation i s conducted and the adznissions are proven untrue. During t hi:~ Tespite the interrogatee can pull himself together. He may even use the time to think up newJ more compl 11 admissions,. that take still longer to disprove. KU:8ARK is especially vulnerable to such tactics because the interrogation is conducted for the sake of information a nd not for police purposes.
94
s ,E; E T
####### I
•'
:.
.. : ~-
..... ..
I
\
1.( an inte.rroga is caus~d to suife r paln cather l ate i n the in:er:rogation proces s a nd a!ter other tactics have {ailed , be is almost certain to conclude that th e interrogator is becoming desperat e. He may tb decide tha t i! b. can just hold out against this final assault, he will win the struggle and his freedom. And he is likely t o be right. lnterroga tees who have withstood p ain are more difficult to b &ndle b y other methods. The e!Iect has been cot to repre s s the subje c t but to restore his confidenc e an maturity.
- ·Heightened Suggestibility and Hypnosis
l n recent years a n umber of hypotheses about hypnosis have been advanced by psychologists and others in th e guis e o£ proven principles. Among these are the flat assertions tha t a perso n connot be hypnot\zed agains t his will; thAt while hypnotized be cannot be induced to divulge in that h e want s urg ently to con ceal; and that be will not undertake, in trance or t h r ough post-hypnotic suggestion, action s to which he would normally ha seri ous moral or e th\c.a o bjections. 1f these and related conten were proven valid, hypnosis woul d h ave scant value !or the I n t errogator.
But despite th e fact that hypnosis has been a object of sci.entili inquiry Cor a very long time, none o£ these theories has yet been tested adequately. Each of them Is i n conflict with Som e observations of fact.. In any event, a n interro gation handbook cannot and need not Include a lengthy discussion o! hypnosis. The case officer or interrogator n eeds to know e n ough about the subje c t to understa nd the c cu unde r w bi hypnos i s can b e a use!ul tool, so that he can r equest expert assistance app'r opri e l y.
Ope rational p~ rson, including interrogators, who cha nce to have some lay experience or skill In hypnotism should not th em se lv~s use hypnotic tec for interrogation or other operational pu:rposes. There a!:'e two reasons for t his position. T h e llrst I s that hypnot ism us•d as a n opera tional tool by a practiti who is n o t a psychologist, psychiatrist , O< M. can p<oduee irreversibl e psycholog lcal damage. T h e
s
•.
·.·.·.·
Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation
Asignatura: CIA documents (CIA01)
Universidad: Universidad del Bío-Bío
- Descubrir más de: