cus historical review ffloflsflm
TITLE: Counterintelligence Interrogation AUTHOR: C. N. Gesehwind
VOLUME: 9 ISSUE: Winter
A collection ol orllclos on Ihe historical, operational, doctrinal, and theoretical aspects of intelligence.
All statements of fact, opinion or analysis expressed in Studies in Intelligence are those of
the authors They do not necessarily reflect official positions or views of the Central Intelligence Agency or any other US Government entity, past or present. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US Governmenl endorsement of an article's factual statements and interpretations.
Soma precepts for the practicalof an esoteric art.
. N. Gesehwlnd
The general topic of faterrogationast one, opening into all Betas of theoretical axtd applied psychology and leading at Its distant limits In one direction to the weJlsprlngs of human naturenother to the roots of political power. The specialized form we call counterintelligencedone to secure Informationostile intelligence service and the cooperation of the subjectiew to neutralizinga more subtle art than the mterroga-tion, say, of ordinary prisoners of war or criminal suspects, basalmost equally far-reaching. The ordinary Intelllgcnoe officer cannot begin to master the enormous body of literature on the topic.1
Because of this andeally first-class talent forfor managing people fna rarity, what is neededatter of practical realityimplified doctrine and standard procedures that officers of average ability can follow. The soaring doctrines of the theorist and the virtuoso have to be brought down to earth and confined to what will work for you and mo. This kind of simplification bas been performed In several guides andant to discuss In this article are selected aspects of counterintelligence interrogation which have been sUghted or ta my opinion simply require highlighting.
ood place to (ample It istudy for Development of, by Albert D. Basermaa ot the Bureau of
Sodal Setnxa Br March. Inc, ssrRh tta busUoeraphy of hundrW* at* lafertaoet.he seal repot,o oootrart AF) 1TVT. mossitaeed by the Room Aft* Drvelopmept Center wtra bchakal asnitance from tha Air Farce OSce of Scientific Rarudi.
'See Inaesrafarifs* Caaste (Cooner* Imlllniim Corpstil Pea-Lng. USateOiijeaee School. Fort Holabtid,IBM) aodlarrorarlon.qsactaflyIB,atanogataoa.*1
Iteculiar feature of most works on interrogation that they begin with the "bow to" phase; one starts outoom face to face
with theeady to interrogate him. In reality, many thingi have to be done before we reach that point. The followingcite some of them.
The need. First of all we have to decide whether thehas to be interrogated.Inot be embarked upon unlessnavoidable Doesrealty know enough to be worth while? Can he dofor us if we swing him around? Would some otherbetter worth our ttrneJ
In answering these questions, we have toind our purpose, at least latent in most CI intenogations, of getting tbe subject towith us, later, perhaps tn ao entrapment or double-agent operation, perhaps for example by surfacing hostile operations or testifying in court. We have to guardery natural desbe to get the truth out of someone Just because we want to proveor satisfy our curiosity. It takes just as long and costs just as much toumoes to lay open the secrets of an opposition case officer who has defected.
- Now there will be times when we do not know enoughubject to decide whetherorth interrogating or not We should get thefile checks, other Investigation, screeningweecision. In this connection,mportant to bear in mind that some agent handlersendency to push their disposal or dbdpline problems Into interrogation channels Those in charge of interrogations should be careful never toigoke, or act until they have reviewed whatever operational files there are.
econd thing to behe control situation. Authorities vary on many points in interrogation doctrine but they are all agreed on one: the better the centrol, tbe better tbe outlook foran firmly behind bars can be putood deal more control than one weafe bouse, not to mention his own heme Though obvious,ften overlooked.
We should therefore catalog, in writing, the factors of control which we have and those we can develop. Can we jail the man? Can we convince him that we can? Could be flee across tbe border, or would heorse fate there? Are his emotional treasures (family, etc) where we can reach them? What hard evidence have wc inor witnesses? Are wc free to use It? These and many other questions must be studied.
Bargaining position- la every interrogationn overt or tacit bargaining Hruatioo, and the quidhe iingle most potent means of roovirrg the subject to notion Are we going to pay for bis Iniormation? Whit can we do for him if ho collaborates? Will be face jail if be does not? How can we protect him from retaliation? What can we do about his special problems? Before entering upon interrogation we must be quite clear as to what offers may be made or tmpbed and what may not
Cora end feeding. It should always bedvance where the subject will be boused and under what conditions, where he wfH be fed, how hb laundry wiD be handled, where he can go and what be can do for amusement, what medical care will be available, who will prov-.de transport, where be can get religious ministration, etc
Secvrffy. We do not need to be reminded about protecting our security from the subject, but what about his security? Will he be quartered out of sight from the public? How can he be transported securely? How will be be guarded? Can be go out nights? WiB he be supplied with funds and documentation to protect him? How and for bow long can be remain away from his regular hauntsattracting hostile atteritiOn? What cover can be arranged for our contact withI Interrogation differs from most other types In the critical respect that we may wish to keep ft completely secret, not only to protect ourselves and him but to safeguardpotentials and values that may be derived fromof which we may have no inkling until we are well along in tbe mterrogatloo.
Covert aids. We should have firm plans on whether and how to introduce stool pigeons among the subjects associates, whether to read his mail, surreptitiously search his belongings and quarters, put eavesdropping devices in hb vicinity, put him under surveillance, and soon.
Manpower.he question of what interrogators are to bemight say erpended. How much rime will they have? Will they have suitable facuities? What help will they have? Are they actually up to handling the subject? Will the polygraph be made available? How much control of it will the Interrogator have? Are recording devices on hand?
Legalities. Tbe basic paper work often turns out to be most There should be someand spelling out
the right to interrogate this particular subject and why. It la well to secure scene agieemeotrtmg from him also, ifecurity agreement Most subjects can be talked into signing some tort of paper. There mustlear-cut. understanding of bow the local law or legal officials fit into the picture. After the subject has com-plained to tbe district attorney is tbe wrong time to think about this aspect.
Females. Female subjects, whether young or old, require special handling not only because they aieTrnore difficult to' because tbey can cause scandals. If female Interrogators are notitress, possiblynirrmwindow, should always be arranged. Neglect of this point can lead to extremely painful md dents.
he use of interpreters poses many problems. In professional work there should be someone listening in at least from time to time to report what the Interpreter is really raying The availability and tbe ability of Interpreters should be deternuned in advance.
, Concurrent research. It would be nice to have an wterrogetor who knew all tbe topics of the Interrogation ax well as the subject did, but in most cases the mterrogator's knowledge will be deficient In one or more respects. He may therefore not recognize tbe significance of certain information the source provides or could provide, may waste valuable rime getting information that is already well known, may misinterpret information, or may not evenommonwith the robfect on what they are talking about. Every wterrogator. however well Wormed, bas blind spots and therefore needs to have his "lake" reviewed concurrently, while tlie subject is available to supply further or clarifying data.
This means that concurrent research support should be arranged. If not at the site of the interrogation then near enough that thecan have tbe drafts of his reports reviewed daily and can discuss the trend of the Interrogation with one or more competent analysts. In practice, unfortunately, the US. services have been so o( ganirod that the consumer analysts are far away and first see tbe mterrc^abon reports long after both subject and interrogator are busy with other things.
Spot interrogation. Many times tbe subject is available only atborderossible doubleefector who
has steady employmentrisoner of tbe police to wbom access tt but fleeting, or iome person whose contact with us must fce concealed. In such cases tbe planning must be especially thorough and details of questions well worked out with the help of the best analysts available.
Supervision. Tbe interrogator must of course be alone witha good deal of the time, and be mustide latitudewith him. He may spendit of time discussingnecessarily being out of line. He cannot do bis job withbreathing down his nock. The simplest means ofof eioaed-circult TV,acropbooe tn tbe inter rogationthat when tbe supervisor Is minded and has time be can Listenwhat is going on. Thisood way to keep interrogatorstoes and keep some track of the development of themirror-window (if suitably camouflaged, asig
ne-way telephone is most helpful, one that does not ring but can be used by the mtcarogator for outgoingight and buzzer system to show when the corridors are free and! enable tbe Interrogator to call for assistance or block the corridor is oneumber of refinements that can be elaborated at an inteicenter but are usually too costly for smaller setups.
t Is important to be sure the refreshment facilities arc adequate. Toilets, macks, coffee, etc, must be bandy and controlled by the Interrogator without his having to leave the subject alone.
DisjxW. Planning should be quite ooncrete on what Is to become of the subject after the interrogation is over. Provision for theof receipts, quit-claims, security and rccontact agreements, etc sbould be made inon can't tell when an mtenogabon may suddenly be terminated.
Conoerrton. It will almost alwaysajor objective to win the cxoperatloo of the subject at least to the extent of maintaining secrecy. is your Interrogator able to argue Ideologies? Can be handle the man Inay as to win his allegiance? These are matters to have In hand before the struggle begins.
Tbe golden rule of counterintelligence Interrogation is take care of tbe housekeeping before the how-to part, being sure that everything Is as efficient, secure, dignified, and impressive as you can possibly make it.
The Interrogator Job
Itruism to say that most men who have the ability to handle mterrogation have more sense than to want to. La many ways the Interrogator hasorgotten man of intelligence andlooked uponuestion-machine and seldom given adequate career prospects. The work Is fust about the hardest there is, for ft includes the two separate fobs of questioning people and writing reports. And ft Is of key Importance: foterrogatioa andare the twin pOlars of counts
Tbe Communist services have provided the most elaborate mterro-gatioo careers and facilities procurable. They rely very heavily upon mterrogation not only to get facts but to grind people down to their specifications. Successful mterrogaton can look forward to positions of increased importance. One Eastertain Gustav Szinda, who used to beat subjects up first and ask questions afterward, with the twin objectives of knocking them ofi balance and convincing them that he meant it when he threatened violence, eventually wound up as chiefrovincial headquarters of his service.ave been given such positions as chief of operations and Illegal rezident abroad. Tbe Communists consider mterrogation training to be the buildingundamental skill,uccessful Interrogator they seem to look upon as so heavily compromised to tho regime as to be trusted on foreign missions.
We, on the other hand, seem to have made therudge assign-meat which does not lead anywhere. The easiest way out of this dangerous situation would be toalf-year or so of mterrogation duty routine in the development of all officers who aspire to run secret agents. This wouldeservoir of Interrogators for any situation, train agent handlers In the skills of questioning and reporting, strongly reinforce their knowledge of counterintelligence topics, foreign languages, hostile thinking, etc, and at the same time provide manpower with motivation to handle tbe presently much neglected basic job of interrogation.
In any case, those upon whom the mterrogation task Is laid require more than routine good liandilng; they have to be made to feel that ,hdt wakppreciated and the greatest care taken to steer their careers away from blind alleys. Above all one must see to it that unimportant or curiosity interrogations are not imposed uponmen; notlung is so demoralizing to an interrogator as to struggle wilh worthless subjects toroduct that will soon find
Its way into the classified trash. As good sources become scarce,. develops to fish out marginal ones and dubious Individuals such as fabricators for the sale of producing some kind of reportresort to this practice risks killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
The best protection against seen misuse Is to give established Interrogators the resporuibility for assessing and evaluating their sources. If an interrogatorubject shows signs of mental aberrations or other deficiencies or Is worthless Ln point of knowledge, his judgment should be accepted unless there are very important reasons for overriding it In the latter case these should be candidly explained. If at all possible, interrogators should function ha groups ortaff ledenior mtrarogator.reat morale-bunder and stimulant to productive competition.
Thi Hcno of
The generalf tirtfrrogitocs tn eliciting enmplbnr* nukes fordifficulty k> andyriaguse base* of tbetrfa> rale of success It appsreatly achieved by many different ktndi of pefsonsliUd.tda variety of loetbocu, oo the basts of asruou>Uons and liaes
ofi which. So the eaten! that they are aiUculated at til. sir lie
fluently unfounded or mutually fescompaUble."
It seems to me that thisubstantially correcto say there are all forts of people and all sorts of approaches that work.o best way. There are not even many general rules. People are complex, variable, and vulnerable or Invulnerable at the most unexpected points. More important depending on the person doing the Interrogation and tbe personal equation that evolveshim and the subject the vulnerabilities may change. An elderly woman, for example, maytrong Interest inersonable young male interrogator and entirely reject another elderly woman. On the other hand, she may refuse to talk at all except to another woman ha tbe same age bracket Many people, of course, make adaptations, so that an interrogator not basically compatible with the subject assigned him may soon get along swimmingly.
Blcfersnaa. ep. eat.
The tricks and tactics of Interrogation worked out by generations of Interrogators can be found fn many books; all of them have vaUdity some of tho time. There are many tomes on bow to assess
the vulnerabiUties of subjects, mostly In rather abstruse psychological language. What It all boils clown to is that what works with one person may not work with another.
It seems to me that we have again to fall back beavfly on whatbe main the managerial aspects. We have to arrange asetting and props In accordance with the role to be given the subject to our toterrogation psyeftodrruna. Is he to play the roleapturodellowerrifiedero? Aneing entitled to evrayxooslderataan anduspect? Is be to change roles,o when and how? When weontrolled situation, we have enormous power toole upon the subject because we can rnanipulate his environment
Urisen our subject is highly scceusricared, be wtU hardly realize he Is beingart to play. He may, of course, seek toart of his own, but If we have assessed him and tbe situation correctly and approach him skillfully, we can fairly easffy maneuver him at least to take one of two roles we prefer. Insensibly he drifts Into the part and begins to respond as If be were the personIn that role.
In counterintelligence interrogation, no matter where we start we want at the end to have our subject playing the sameoracle; this Is the pose that makes him as productiveusher. We can hardly startf be I) recalcitrant, but we can lead toward It from the beginning by getting him to pontificate on trivia and harmlesshe beathead In that direction.
The worst Interrogators are those who (usually unconsciously) want to be the heroes of the drama themselves and so beat tbe(mentally) to the ground The interrogator must firmly suppress all impulses to dramatize himself, unless for the purpose of arousing the subject to compete. He can boast of bis own operationalfor example, and ouite possiblyecalcitrant subject to top his story.
We must decide early oo whether we are going to interrogate on many topics and In detail or cnJyew or superficially. When we are inong siege, the managerial aspects become veryindeed, and the problems of writing, accuracy, concurrent research, and keeping the subject productive become more difficulL If we confine ourselvesewrare usneed not expect too much trouble with the source once be has been made productive.
I III I'
Malcing the subject productive is the first goal of any mterrogation. and it can be reached, as we have said, by many avenues. Themay range from coping with open hostility to worfdng around tofotti block)aper of this length we bad better concentrate on ways ofecalcitrant subject into an Oracle, and of theseew that are not covered in nearly every work on inter -rogation. The following are some tfaat^have proved profitable.
Ht/pnottrrn.egal and control situation where chemical or natural hypnotism can be induced fry qualified practitioners, its value does not lie in questioning an entranced subject You get worthless suggestion results, fabrications, and distortions. What It can do fs enable you to change the subject's attitude toward the mterrogation. He can be made to see foes as friendsood CI Interrogator of course Isoe, butan who wants to get the subject on hisnd pent-hypnotic suggestion can often make himafter he Is out of his trance.
The polygraph. This machine Is the stethoscope of interrogators, used in diagnosis of areas of deception. It isabulous stalking bone, odcrUig the Interrogator many openings to give the subject an excuse for not holding out any longer.
The ideological argument. Every interrogator should be prepared to refute tenets of Communism such as that the end justifies the means. The Ideological line visubject, however, should oot be to prove him wrong but to provide him with ratlonallratioiu which he can use to justify to himself his changing sides (which every person to some extent wants to do),
Tfte quid pro quo. CI officers are sometimesosition to make substantial offersecalcitranta chance to "work against the Communists oo ourtc. Backstopped and approved on the proper level, such inducements can occasionally shortcut weeks of effort.ew subjects who do not want to say so are actually very much interested in "wbal'i ha ft for me."
Threats Threats to turn the subject over to local authorities, to return him to the Cocomunists, of blacklisting, public exposure, solitary confinement, deprivations, deportation, confiscation ofphysical violence, etc are dangerous rristruments. for if they fail of their effect It usually means the loss of Irrecoverable ground Under no dreurnatanceshreat be made overtly without
having been cleared beforehand on the highest level The fearcan be stimulated easily and safely by manipulating the situation toay as to imply the threat.
If threats are employed, lt should always be implied that thehimself is toleave us no choice butever be ordered to comply "oreaders familiarJaimer case will recall that he was told he left us no choicebUcklist him everywhere. This potent threat to bisbrought him almost at once around to an agreement tothe truth now if we would keep^quiet and not bar rum fromEssentially tbe threat ts the basisuid proshould always be prepared to carry out an explicit threat, forwill generallyuff.
Cmjrcritation. Theretrong temptation, when weossession of hard evidence suchitness, documents, or self-contradiction, to face the subject with it Certainly in many cases It becomes necessary eventually to use this type of ammunition openly, but tbe moment should be put off until all else has failed, always until after our advantage has been used fn polygraph testsecision made not to run any. There Is nothing so valuable to interrogators asuestion on which the subject is known to lie, especially when he lias no idea that we know ft
A woman agent of the East German MfS. for example, was observed shoplifting by our surveiuants. in the general polygraphshe was casually asked whether she stole things, and the resultant reaction became an invaluable gauge. Later interrogated oo tha same point, she almost inunediately admitted U; If this had happened before the polygraph test the effect would have been lost Coming as It did, the confession was the turning point In the mterrogation, proving an entering wedge for other detailed admlssioos.
In the instructions issued by Communist services to their agents there isection on what to do under interrogation. They are told to stick to their story and try to find out what evidence there is against them, and particularly to be alert for arrything indicating who has betrayed them. It Is well to bearind fn surfacing evidence in tlsemaneuver or fn tbe *wc knowploy.
Dividc-and<cmquer tactic. Whenever two or more persons are under mterrogation on tbe same topic, for example two agents from the same network, the opportunity arises to play one ofi against the
other, not only as sources of detail exposing and refuting cover stories gntJ other lies, but also aslever interrogator can get tbe joeji acron to each subject that tbe other is leaking, especially if he has reliable derogatory information be can let slip Into his questieo-fgmt In tbe still hours of tbe night, when the subject is free to mull over the day's exchange, be will rtuxnble on the "slips" and then ngnificance, with very weakening effect on his morale.
bree things very hardubject are to have to go back over tneToame grnurki, to change abruptly from topic to rbpic, aod to be interrogated at irregular intervals, say once at dawn,time at midnight, etc They arc particularly effective tf done under the pretense of "ernergencles in which your help is needed" rather than ashostile measure. Bert harassment which goes so far as to impair the functioning of the subjects nervous system reduces his capacity to provide accurate and complete information. All harassment and threats build up the subject's sense of moraland so bis resources for resistance. Isolation We often find that resistant subjects are kept Inounds with open-mesh fences, windows, etc, wbich allow them visual contact with the outside world. In some cases tbey have been allowed to listen to broadcasts or receive newspapers. Resisten draw great strength from this. They should be Isolated visually and fn every other way, so that they come to regard the prison as their world and gradually respond to the fully controlled environment
Violence. There is Utile doubt that violence, correctly applied, often gets crude results quickly' but it lowers tbe moral caliber of the organization en-ploying it and toon exvrupts the mterrogiboo staff, wbich degenerates until it cannot operate without violence. There are many more powerful persuaders, and violence should never be used
Most of the following topics are eachook to themselves; here we are Onlyew points where an interrogition can be helped or hurt.
Querttonnaira. It shouldunction of the concurrent researchork out asiographic questionnaire as possible, sounior mterTOgator, if no one else is available, can get down tbe main facts on which the mterrogation plan will have
to be based. The standard Personal Information Report forms in use are inadequate but far better than nothing. Special questionnaires should also be devised to cover each main topic. By usingwe do risk stereotyping the questioning process, but we gain so much In tbe way of systematic coverage that the disadvantage is trivial This is hard work that has to be done before the subject bas even been contacted. Ittaff job.
Subject assessment. Tomes have been written on bow totho character of tedividttals, their strengths, mterest^Jweaknesses etc Itact that the best chie to the fArtnre behaviour of any man fa his past performance. The more you can find outbe subject's past reactions fn situations which confronted him with unpleasant choices and problems, the better you can determine who should interrogate him and can plan the interrogatioo tactics. It fa quite beyond this paper to get into details on this enormous topic The plethora of aids is confusing. If you have psychiatricit may prove quite valuable. The polygraph can be used as an assessrnent tooL So can handwriting analysis. Direct mterviews, .batteries of tests, etc, all have some validity. But the situation fa often the determining factor.
asically dishonest miUiooaire would scarcely everhief because he has no need to steal, while an honest man faced with necessity can perform quite spectaculareakling being asked to divulge Information when It would mean deatheloved child will putellattle,ardnosed fighter type may be quite easily induced to cooperate in exchangeortune or the chance to doersonal enemy. It fa accorcWly illusory to devote too much time toubjects inherent resistance potential
Far more Important fa to select an mterrogator whose personal eonatioo meshes with the subject's. And that fa easily done by tryingew people tn harmless personal mterviews. Most of us have the gift of being able to tell whether we like and are liked by given individuals. Another very impcrtant thing fa to bo sure to determine whether the subject can in fact tell an accurate story about anything. Some criniinals with jail experience habitually putcreen of confusing tales on any and all topics when confronted by authorities. Such people can often be trapped by stool pigeons.
Cine, on bona fides. Only detailed research and investigation can confirm bona fides. There are, however, some warning signs that
should be looked for. Subjects who use or understand jargon they could not know unless they were "hep" should be trapped withi. provocation, etc Subjects who defend one or another aspect of Communist doctrine while disavowing Communist affiliations should always be viewed with suspicion. Subjectsund of "guard bouse lawyer" talk, like those who do not seem to be able toiraight story about anything, are often found to have had extensiveNiinul Involvement Subjects who get off on side issues In great detail but are brief on certain central matters an worried about the latter.
f octet titter. Never forget to turn but all peckers, cuff linings, etcwhere possibleull body search. Make cure the subjecthance to explain each Item.
interrogation plan. This should be made by the interrogator and approved by the supervisor. It should includeNever start without oot
Story building As far as possible, the first mterrogaboo should be conducted as If It were tbe last, with detail piled on detail Itood Idea to have different people give the subject "once over h'ghtfy" treatments. As he tells and re-tells his story he will develop U, plug loopholes, resolve contradictions, add corroborative detail, learn how to talk under questioning eric, making the job of the detailed Interrogator and the breaking of recalcitrance harder and harder. Some subjects even begin to believe their own lies.
Commanders should politely but firmly resist the efforts of visiting firemen to "get immediate informationew important points" while the detailed mterrogation is postponed. If there Is need for haste on particular matters, as in order to get evidence for making arrests, this Interrogation should be done, in detail by the assigned interrogator. The visiting Bremen can if need be sit (or better just listen) In, but itery bad error to let them take over unless political coeissderations have pt" rdetjee These smash-and-grabnot only contaminate the subject by providing him with all sorts of information In their efforts to get immediate answers but also put him in the position of being able to say much later, when cornered: "Oh thatold the big man with the white mustache all abouthe tell you?"
Recording hints. Fall tape recordings are usuallyecause they include too many rarelirriinary and clarifying verbal exchanges
and other confused matter. Cut the recorder in while you summarize out loud, paragraph by paragraph, what the subject has just said, asking him to confirm or correct you. This greedy reduces volume and error and in effect gives you the first draft of your report.
Reporting hints. AD interrogation reports, unless tbey have been fully verified by research, should be Ubeled "UncvaluatedThey should distinguish carefully between what tbe subject has directly observed, what be has heard, and what be deduces, eg.,
heomment should always be carried tn footnotes, never inserted fn the
body of'tlie report. If the results of research and check-ups such as coruurnatory name-traces are to be mentioned, they too should appear as footnotes. There should alsotatement Worming the reader bow much confirmatory research was done;eavilyreport will give the impression of having been fully researched although only aspectsivotal nature (or those interesting the interrogator) bad been checked out
Maps and plans. Beware of letting the subject have maps orplans to work with until he bas drawn what he can from memory. Nothingabricator better than tomap thrust into his hands from which to give verisimilitude to bis lies about installations, escape routes, etc. When the subject bas produced his memory work the comparison with maps and plans wfll yield many interesting Insights.
Questions on organization and functions. The rarest of birdsan who really knows bow his organization is set up and functions. It is well to be very careful in taking any subjects say-so, no matter bow sincere and confident he is, on bow his outfit works. The best safeguard is to do detailed biographical and job interrogationsall his colleagues; then do an organization and functionthen examine whether the job descriptions of udividuals confirm the organic picture.
Two-manrolific sourceeavy burdeningle interrogator. It Is not extravagant but highly efficient to use two interrogators alternately oo different topics, one questioning while the other is off writing up what be bas gleaned, so that the subject Is kept continuously occupied. This not only leaves no time for idling and brooding buteasure of variety andinto the utenogation process.
Operational officers as interrogators. Tbcir use li often unavoidable,fa handling double agents. Il is poor practice to use them for oidiru'y interrogations, both because it ties up specialized manpower apt] because no operatiooal officer can be expected to buckle down to detailed Interrogation work not directly affecting his own operation.
Interrogator training. Other things being equal, ft Is better to get people wbo are Interrogators mora or less by nature and Inclination, fhe training really has to be done oo the job. _JtJji_posEblejo lecture anda dry-run, ground-school type of traTung, with each manellow student and being In turn Interrogated (the hitter arpect is oftenut tbe best results and tbe quickest assessment of ultimate suitability are obtained by putting the man to work interrogating real but second class subjects Sometimescan be made to assign candidates to local security or police interrogation workew months.
CI background. No interrogator will be useful or productive unless he has bad full CI opera boos training and experience and acquires an extensive and detailed knowledge of the organization, functions,tactics, methods, etc of the Communist services against which he is to work.
indigenous tnterrogatori.ule, these willreat deal of trouble winning the confidence of Indigenous subjects, wbodistrust their countrymen's security and resent tbe Impositionere fellow countryman's will If they have to bo used, then-original motivation should gradually be reinforced, as by Inducing them to apply for VS. citizenship andareer path that leads to attractive goals. One should make sure that they are soon moved oo to other and better work, oot left stuck In anrut
Thettitude. The most important single attribute every successful interrogator appears to have ts an Inflexibleto get the facts. Persons who quail at difficulties, look for fast and easy solutions, are lazy, have turned out to be misfits in other fobs, etc should not be disposed of into tbe mterrogation team. They will not only lower morale but be the cause of costly failures. When the recalcitrant subject meets with an interrogator who he senses Is absolutely deternunod, his resistance Is mvariably weakened And the subject soon perceives the caliber of the man wbo faces htm.
r i i
Never forge* that some day the subject may have an opponhinity to tell his side of the story to tbe press or other public medium, friendly or hostile. He certainly wul talk to individuals. What he should honestly be able to say about us is that we arc tough but fair. If he decides to paint us in other colors falsely, he probably won't be coo-vmcing. In any case, let's not provide him with arrunimitioaOriginal document.