Intelligence Interviewing
The Phase Two report from the Intelligence Science Board's Study on Intelligence Interviewing has been approved for release.
It distills the current state of social/behavioral science thinking on key issues in the Intelligence Interviewing process, including:
- Persuasion
- Power
- Interests & identities
- Stress
- Resistances
- Memory
It also includes a couple of detailed case studies with teaching notes.
You can find a link to the report on the next post.
- Randy Borum
Non-Scribd Link to the Intelligence Interviewing Report
You can access the report HERE.
Intelligence personnel who are trying to elicit information from a prisoner or a detainee can effectively do so in a non-coercive manner, according to the Intelligence Science Board (ISB), an official advisory group to the Director of National Intelligence.
Quote:
The United States and other democracies can benefit from exploring and learning more in the area of non-coercive intelligence interviewing
The Board said in a sequel (pdf) to its December 2006 report on "Educing Information" (pdf). That earlier study found that existing U.S. intelligence interrogation practices were not scientifically well-founded.
Quote:
The study team could not discover an objective scientific basis for the techniques commonly used by U.S. interrogators.
The newly disclosed follow-on report, dated April 2009,
Quote:
is written primarily for individuals concerned with 'high-value' detainees and those who focus mainly on strategic interrogation.
It provides a survey of behavioral science perspectives on topics relevant to the interrogation process -- including persuasion, power, stress, resistance, and memory -- as well as two case studies of actual interrogations.
A copy of the ISB report was obtained by Secrecy News. See "Intelligence Interviewing: Teaching Papers and Case Studies," A Report from the Study on Educing Information, Intelligence Science Board, April 2009 (211 pages).
The ISB report adopted the new term "intelligence interviewing" instead of "interrogation" in part because it said "interrogation" is freighted with stereotypes often involving coercion. The report emphasized the utility of non-coercive interrogation but acknowledged the difficulty of empirically establishing its superiority to coercive questioning.
Quote:
During Phases I and II, contributors could find no studies that compare the results of 'coercive' interrogations with those of non-coercive intelligence interviews. It is also difficult to imagine how such studies might be conducted in a scientifically valid, let alone morally acceptable, manner.
The ISB study notably dissected the "ticking time bomb" scenario that is often portrayed in television thrillers (and which has "captured the public imagination"). The authors patiently explained why that hypothetical scenario is not a sensible guide to interrogation policy or a justification for torture. Moral considerations aside, the ISB report said, coercive interrogation may produce unreliable results, foster increased resistance, and preclude the discovery of unsuspected intelligence information of value (pp. 40-42).
Quote:
There also are no guarantees that non-coercive intelligence interviewing will obtain the necessary information,
the report said.
Quote:
However, the United States has important recent examples of effective, non-coercive intelligence interviewing with high value detainees.
The ISB said its report could
Quote:
provide experienced and successful interviewers a more formal understanding of the approaches they may have used instinctively. It may also help them to communicate their expertise to their colleagues... This [report] is intended to foster thinking and discussion and to encourage knowledge-based teaching, research, and practice. It does not, and cannot, offer doctrine or prescriptions. It is a start, not an end.
The mission of the Intelligence Science Board is
Quote:
to provide the Intelligence Community with outside expert advice and unconventional thinking, early notice of advances in science and technology, insight into new applications of existing technology, and special studies that require skills or organizational approaches not resident within the Intelligence Community.
Seek and ye shall not find
in the 25 instances of "coerc" in the April 2009 Report linked in this thread, or in the 147 instances of "coerc" found in the "prequel" December 2006 Educing Information Report (several threads have discussed it), a precise, overall definition of "coercive" interrogation techniques.
The 2006 report discusses various "coercive" methods; and so, provides a better feel for that term than the 2009 report.
That being said, the best definition (by examples) of "coercive" interrogation is found in the so-called KUBARK Interrogation Manual (ToC snip):
Quote:
IX. THE COERCIVE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION OF RESISTANT SOURCES 82-104
A. Restrictions 82
B. The Theory of Coercion 82-85
C. Arrest 85-86
D. Detention 86-87
E. Deprivation of Sensory Stimuli 87-90
F. Threats and Fear 90-92
G. Debility 92-93
H. Pain 93-95
I. Heightened Suggestibility and Hypnosis 95-98
J. Narcosis 98-100
K. The Detection of Malingering 101-102
L. Conclusion 103-104
The 2009 report cites KUBARK nada; the 2006 report cites it 125 times and has a separate chapter devoted to it:
Quote:
5. KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Review:
Observations of an Interrogator – Lessons Learned and Avenues for Further Research, Steven M. Kleinman, p. 95
I'm positing you are looking for a legal-neutral definition of "coercive" and "non-coercive" interrogation - if so, look to KUBARK (snip from ch IX):
Quote:
L. Conclusion
A brief summary of the foregoing may help to pull the major concepts of coercive interrogation together:
1. The principal coercive techniques are arrest, detention, the deprivation of sensory stimuli, threats and fear, debility, pain, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis, and drugs.
2. If a coercive technique is to be used, or if two or more are to be employed jointly, they should be chosen for their effect upon the individual and carefully selected to match his personality.
3. The usual effect of coercion is regression. The interrogatee's mature defenses crumbles as he becomes more childlike. During the process of regression the subject may experience feelings of guilt, and it is usually useful to intensify these.
4. When regression has proceeded far enough so that the subject's desire to yield begins to overbalance his resistance, the interrogator should supply a face-saving rationalization. Like the coercive technique, the rationalization must be carefully chosen to fit the subject's personality.
5. The pressures of duress should be slackened or lifted after compliance has been obtained, so that the interrogatee's voluntary cooperation will not be impeded.
We could, of course, spend a lot of fruitless and useless bytes talking about the evidentiary admissibility of "coerced" statements, and various aspects of the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisoned tree rule. I don't feel like doing that right about now.
Regards
Mike
Motivational Interviewing
Motivational Interviewing
Entry Excerpt:
Motivational Interviewing:
Improving Combat Advising to Strengthen Partnering with Afghan National Security Forces
by James Cowan, Nengyalai Amalyar and Mohammad Mustafa
Download The Full Article: Motivational Interviewing
Standing up a professional Afghan Na-tional Security Force (ANSF) is central to establishing a secure and more stable Afghan nation, and combat advising, as provided by US and coalition forces, is foundational to establishing a strong partnership with our ANSF brethren. Effective partnering, in turn, is critical to developing a capable and enduring ANSF. Given historical and evolving challenges and the contemporary importance of combat advising across US military operations, continuing efforts are necessary for further strengthening and preparing combat advisors to advise, coach, mentor, teach and partner with host nation security forces most recently in Afghanistan.
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
'National Security Interrogations: Myth and Reality'
Been awhile since the thread has been updated, but when looking for something else I came across this paper 'National Security Interrogations: Myth and Reality' by Steven Kleinman:http://content.thirdway.org/publicat...v._Reality.pdf
The Third Way labels itself as a 'moderate' "think tank" and appears to be Democratic Party dominated.
Book review: The Interrogator: An Education
Ali Soufan reviews “The Interrogator: An Education,” a new book by CIA veteran and former detainee interrogator Glenn Carle.
Quote:
It would be a struggle to find a CIA operative who endorses the use of enhanced-interrogation techniques. Carle’s experience and frustrations with the interrogation system bears out the fact that Anyone with actual interrogation experience knows that rapport-building techniques, which use knowledge to outwit detainees and gain cooperation, produce better intelligence than enhanced interrogation.
Link:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj
The Interrogator: An Education - author interviewed
Six questions posed and in the last states - on general national policy, not the art of interrogation:
Quote:
Frankly, I believe the main reason is that many people in the government have been sincere but deluded in their perceptions and actions in the “War on Terror.” I wrote my book because I was so distressed by so many aspects of the case: our erroneous and dangerous exaggeration of the terrorist threats facing us; what we have done to ourselves, our society, and our laws with our interrogation programs during the “War on Terror;” how our views about acceptable behavior have become coarser; our freedoms compromised unnecessarily; and how we unjustly kept a largely innocent man in prison for years, it seems, so as to bury in a dungeon the dark multiple, egregious errors.
Link:http://harpers.org/archive/2011/07/hbc-90008139
The second article is concerning with redactions made to the bbok at CIA insistence:http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/07/hbc-90008135
The psychology of interviewing suspects
A UK academic, a forensic psychologist, has written a short article, the full title being 'The psychology of interviewing suspects, from Woolwich to Boston'. It brings together a number of themes, with some links, so may help readers:http://theconversation.com/the-psych...o-boston-14827
Given the practice in the UK of many terrorism suspects remaining silent throughout police custody it is a moot point whether better interviewing will help.
Interviews vs Interrogations
The basic dichotomy is between the Interview (get information) vs the Interrogation (get confession). The former more closely resembles direct witness examination; the latter more resembles cross examination.
Starting with the basics,
Interview Techniques (~30 min.)
Quote:
1997 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center gov.ntis.ava20440vnb1 VP-023-97 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center - This video depicts an effective law enforcement interview using the five general stages: Introduction, rapport, questioning, summary, and close.
Since the UK author mentions it, let's look at the Reid Technique of interviewing and interrogation (Wiki)
Here's a sampling of Reid's four major points (about an hour total)
My opinion is that the Reid methodology (as to verbal cues and body language) includes some witchcraft and alchemy; but that opinion may derive from having been a student of Yale Kamisar, and not of Fred Inbau and John Reid.
Finally ...
Don't Talk to Police (~50 min.)
Quote:
A law professor explains how talking with police can get you convicted of crimes you're completely innocent of. The professor gives a long-time police officer equal time to rebut. The officer not only agrees with the professor, but reveals a few "tricks of the trade" that officers use in interrogations to convict people whether they're guilty or not.
A fun video - the lawyer missed his career opportunity as an auctioneer. The cop steals the show. BTW: The cop is an "interviewer", not an "interrogator".
Regards
Mike
Reid Technique Is Getting Old
Reid has been around a good while but some newer stuff is starting to filter into Police World.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnhph4d5frM
Douglas Starr on Reid and PEACE techniques.
Douglas Starr, a faculty member in Boston University’s College of Communication, was interviewed on Fresh Air yesterday in conjunction with his New Yorker (behind a pay-wall) article he wrote titled “The Interview.” He was trained in both the Reid and PEACE techniques in the course of putting the piece together. Most surprising (and not in a good way) assertion he made in the course of the interview was that confession typically trumps physical evidence in the American justice system.