IX. TH.t: COERCIVE COUNTERINTELLIGENCEINTERROGATION OF RESISTANT SOURCES

A. Restrictions

The pu:;-pose of this part of the handbook is to presentbasic inionuation about coercive techniques available for usein the interrogation situation. It is vital that this discussion

not be misconstrued as constituting authorization for the useof coercion at field discretion. As was noted earlier, thereis no such blanket authorization.

For both ethical and pragmatic reasons no interrogator

may take upon himself the unilateral responsibility for usingcoercive methods. Concealing from the interrogator's super­iors an intent to resort to coercion, or its unapprovedemployment, does not protect them. It places them, andKUBARK, in unconsidered jeopardy.

B. The Theory of Coercion

Coercive procedures are designed not only to exploit theresistant source I s internal conflicts and induce him to wrestlewith himself but also to bring a superior outside force to bearupon the subject's resistance. Non-coercive methods are not

.".

82

~...• 0-

S

likely to succeed if their selection and use is not predicatedupon an accurate psychological asseSSlnent of the s ouree. Incontrast. the Sanle coercive lnethod lnay succeed against personq.who are very unIik~ each other. The changes of success rise"'.,.,steeply. nevertheless, if the coercive technique is lnatched tothe sour ce's personality. Individuals react differently even tosuch seelningly non-discriminatory stiInuli as drugs. Moreover,it is a waste of time and energy to apply strong pressures on ahit-or-lnis s basis if a tap on the psychological jugular willproduce cOlnpliance.

All coercive techniques are designed to induce regression.As Hinkle notes in liThe Physiological State of th~ InterrogationSubject as it Affects Brain Function"(7), the result of externalpressures of sufficient intensity is the loss of those defenses:xnost recently acquired by civilized rn.an: II ••• the capacity tocarry out the highest creative activities, to rn.eet new, chal­lenging, and co:xnplex situations, to deal with trying interpersonalrelations, and to cope with repeated frustrations. Relativelys:xnal! degrees of horn.eostatic derangern.ent, fatigue, pain, sleeploss, or anxiety :xnay iInpair these functions. II As a result,"lnost people who are exposed to coercive procedures will talkand usually reveal sorn.e information that they rn.ight not haverevealed otherwise. II

One subjective reaction often evoked by coercion is afeeling of guilt. Meltzer observes, "In some lengthy interro­gations, the interrogator :xnay, by virtue of his role as the solesupplier of satisfaction and punishInent, assurn.e the s.tature andimportance of a parental figure in the prisoner's feeling andthinking. Although there may be intense hatred for the interro­gator, it is not unusual for warln feelings also to develop. Thisanlbivalence is the basis for guilt reactions, and if the interro­gator nourishes these feelings, the guilt may be strong enoughto influence the prisoner's behavior. • •• Guilt makes COln­pliance more likely.••• II (7).

Farber says that the response to coercion typicallycontains II ••• at least three important eleInents: debility,dependency, and dread. II Prisoners' l ••• have reduced'via­bility, are helplessly dependent m their captors for the

83

satisfact ion of their In any basic needs, arid experience theeInotional and Inotivational reactions of intense fear and anx­iety. • • • AInong the / American; POW's pressured by theChinese COInInunists, the DDD syndroIne in its full-blown fonnconstituted a state of discomfort that was well-nigh intolerable. II

(11). If the debility-dependency-dread state is unduly prolonged,however, the arrestee Inay sink into a defensive apathy froInwhich it is hard to arous e hiIn.

Psychologists and others who write about physical orpsychological duress frequently object that under .sufficientpres sure subjects usually yield but that their ability to recalland cOInInunicate inforInation accurately is as iInpaired as thewill to resist. This pragmatic objection has sOInewhat the SaInevalidity for a counterintelligence interrogation as for any other.But there is one significant difference. Confession is a neces­sary prelude to the CI interrogation of a hitherto unresponsiveor concealing source. And the use of coercive techniques willrarely or never confuse an interrogatee so cOInpletely that hedoes not know whether his own confession is true or false. Hedoes ~ot need full Inastery of all his powers of resistance anddiscriinination to know whether he is a spy or not. Only'sub­jects who have reached a point v.h ere they are under delusionsare likely to Inake false confessions that they believe. Once atrue confession is obtained, the classic cautions apply. Thepressures are lifted, at least enough so that the subject canprovide counterintelligence infonnation as accurately as possi­ble. In facl, the relief granted the subject at this tiIne fitsneatly into the interrogation plan. He is told that the changedtrea1:tnent is a reward for truthfulness. and an evidence thatfriendly ha.iJ.dling will continue as long as he cooperates.

The profound Inoral objection to applying duress past thepoint of irreversible psychological daInage has been stated.Judging the validity of other ethical argum.ents about coercionexceeds the scope of this paper. What is fully clear, however,is that cont rolled coercive Inanipulation of an interrogatee Inayimpair his ability to Inake fine distinctions but will not alter hisability to answer correctly such gross questions as "Are you aSoviet agent? What is your assigmnent now? Who is your presentcase officer ?II

84

S~T

"

".

-.

-.

I

When an interrogator senses that the subject's resistanceis wavering, that his desire to yield is growing stronger thanhi.s wish to continue his resistance, the tiIne has come to provid~

him Wi+h the acceptable rationalization: a face-saving reason or·',.,excuse for c01npliance. Novice interrogators may be tempted toseize upon the initial yielding triumphantly and. to personalize thevictory. Such a temptation must be rejected immediately. Aninterrogation is not a game played by two people, one to becomethe winner and the other the loser. It is simply a method of ob­taining correct and useful information. Therefore the interro­gator should intensify the subjectls desire to cease struggling byshowing him how he can do so without seeming to abandon prin­ciple, self-protection, or other initial causes of resistance. If,instead of pr oviding the right rationalization at the right time, theinterrogator seizes gloatingly upon the subject1s wavering, oppo­sition will stiffen again.

The following are the principal coercive techniques of in­terrogation: arrest, detention, deprivation of sensory sthnulithrough solitary confinement or similar methods, threats and.fear, debility, pain, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis, nar­cosis, and induced regression. This section also· discusses thedetection of malingering by interrogatees and the provision ofappropriate rationalizations for capitulating and. cooperating.•

c. Arrest

The manner and timing of arrest can contribute substantiallyto the interrogator IS purposes. 'tWhat we aim to do is to ensurethat the manner of arrest achieves, if possible, . surprise, andthe maximum amount of mental discomfort in order to catch thesuspect off balance and to deprive him of the initiative. Oneshould therefore arrest him at a moment when he least expectsit and when his mental and physical resistance is at its lowest.The ideal time at which to arrest a person is in the early hoursof the m·orning because surprise is achieved then, and becausea person1s resistance physiologically as well as psychologicallyis at its lowest..... If a person cannot be arrested in theearly hours••• , then the ne~ best time is in the evening••••

85

.'.

., (I)

D. Detention

If, _~rough the cooperation of a liaison service Cir by uni­lateral means~iarrangements have been made for the confinementof a resista.:n.t source, the circlllllstances of detention are ar­ranged to enhance within the subject his feelings of being cutoff from the known and the reassuri.p.g, and of being plunged intothe strange. Usually his own clothes are i.rnm.ediately takenaway, because £am.iliar clothing reinforces identity and thus thecapacity for resistance. (Prisons give close hair cuts ap..d issueprison garb for the Sanle reason.) If the interrogatee i~' especial­ly proud or neat, it may be useful to give him. an outfit that isone or two sizes too large and to fail to provide a belt, so that heInust hold his pants up.

The point is that man's sense of identity depends upon acontinuity in his surroundings, habits,' appearance, actions,relations with others, etc. Detention ,permits the interrogatorto cut through these links and throw the interrogatee back uponhis own unaided internal resources.

Little is gained if confinement merely replaces one routinewith another. Prisoner~ who lead Inonotonously unvaried lives.' ... cease to' care about their utterances, dress, and cleanli­ness. They become dulled, apathetic, and depressed." (7) Andapathy can be a very effective defense against interrogation.Control of the source's environment permits the interrogator to

86

.:,

detennine his diet, sleep pattern, and other fundam.entals.Manipulating these into irregularities, so that the subject becom.e s :'.dis orientated, is very likely to create feelings of fear and help- " "lessness. Hinkle points out, "People who enter prison withattitudes of foreboding, appreh~nsion, and heJ.plessnes s generallydo less well than those who enter with assurance and a convictionthat they can deal with anything that they m.ay encounter • • • •Som.e people who are afraid of losing sleep, or who do not wish tolose sleep, soon succum.b to sleep loss •••• II (7)

In short, the prisoner should not be provided a routine towhich he can adapt and from. which he can draw som.e com.fort--or at least a sense of his own identity. Everyone has read ofprisoners who were reluctant to leave their cells after prolongedincarceration. Little is known about the duration of c onfineInentcalculated to m.ak.e a subject shift from. anxiety, coupled with adesire for sensory stim.uli and hum.an com.panionship, to a passive,apathetic acceptance of isolation and an ultim.ate pleasure in thisnegative state. Undoubtedly the rate of change is determ.ineda.1.Inost entirely by the psychological characteristics of the indi­vidual. In any event, it is advisable to keep the subject upset byconstant disruptions of patterns.

For this reason, it is useful to determ.ine whether the in­terrogattee has been jailed before, how often, under what circum.­stances, for how long, and whether he was subjected to earlier

interrogation. Fam.iliarity with confinem.ent and even withisolation reduces the effect.

E. Deprivation of Sensory StiInuli

The chief effect of arrest and detention, and particularly ofsolitary confinem.ent, is to deprive the subject of many or m.ost ofthe sights, sounds,. tastes, slD.ells, and tactile sensations to whichhe has grown accustOIned. John C. Lilly exainined eighteen auto­biographical accounts written by polar explorers and solitary sea­farers. He found " ••• that isolation per se acts on Inost personaas a powerful stress. • • • In all cases of survivors of isolationat sea or in the polar night, it was the first exposure which caused

87

.:.:.0:"

'-

the greatest fears and hence the greatest danger of giving wayto syznptoms; previous experience is a powerful aid in goingahead, despite the syznpto:ms. liThe s)1ll'lpto:ms most conunonlyp:roduced by isolation are superstition, intense love of any otherliving thing, perceiving inani.rn.a.te objects as alive, hallucinations,and delusions. II (26)

The apparent reason for these effects is that a person cutoff fro:m external stiInuli turns his awareness inward, upon hiIn­self, and then projects the contents of his ownuncons dousoutwards, so that he endows' his faceless environment with hisown attribute,s, fears, and forgotten me:mories. Lilly notes, IIItis obvious that inner factors in the mind tend to be projectedoutward, that so:me of the mind's activity which is usually reality­bound now becOInes free to turn to phantasy and ultimately tohalluc ination and delus ion. II

A nu:mber of experb:nents conducted at McGill Univers ity,the National Institute of Mental Health, and other sites have at­te:mpted to come as close as possible to the eliInination of sensorystiInuli, or to :masking remaining stimuli, chiefly sounds, by astronger but wholly Inonotonous overlay. The results or" theseexperi:ments have little applicability to interrogation because thecircumstances are diss iInilar. So:me of the findings point towardhypotheses that see:m- relevant to interrogation, but conditionslike those of detention for purposes of counterintelligence interro­gation have not been duplicated for experiInentation.

At the National Institute of Mental Health two subjects wereII • suspended with the body and all but the top of the headi:mmersed in a tank containing slowly flowing water at. 34.5' C(94.5' F) • .•• II Both subjects wore black-outmasks, 'which en­closed the whole head but allowed breathing and nothing else. Thesound level was extreInely low; the subject heard only his ownbreathing and SOIne faint sounds of water ft"om the piping. Neithersubject stayed ui the tank longer than three hours. Both passedquickly fro:m nor:mally directed thinking through a tens ion resultingfro:m unsatisfied hunger for sensory stimuli and concentration uponthe few available sensation~ to private reveries and fC).ntasies andeventually to visual i.In.agery so:mewhat resembling hallucinations.

88/S~ET

.........,

""

",, .

I :.

':"

1

IIIn our experilnents, we notice that after iInInersion the dayapparently is started over, i. e., the subject feels as if hehas risen froIn bed afresh; this effect persists, and thesubject finds he is out of step with the clock for the re st ofthe day. II

Drs. Wexler, Mendelson, LeiderInan, and SoloInonconducted a sOInewhat siInilar experiInent on seventeen paidvolunteers. These subjects were II ••• placed in a tank-typerespirator with a specially built Inattress.... Theventsof the respirator were left open, so that the subject breathedfor hiInself. His arInS and legs were enclosed in cOInfortablebut rigid cylinder s to inhibit InoveInent and tactile contact.The subject lay on his back and was unable to see any partof his body. The Inotor of the respirator was run constantly,producing a dull, repetitive auditory stiInulus. The roomadInitted no natural light. and artificial light was miniInaland constant. II (42) Although the established tiIne liInitwas 36 hour s and though all physical needs were taken careof, only 6 of the 17 cOInpleted the stint. The other elevensoon asked for release. Four of these terIninated theexperiInent because of anxiety and panic; seven did so becauseof physical discoIn£ort. The .results confirmed earlier findingsthat (1) the deprivation of sensory stiInuli induces stress;(2) the stress becoInes unbearable for Inost subjects; (3)the subject has a growing need for physical and social stiInuli;and (4) some subjects progre ssively lose touch with reality,focus inwardly, and produce delu.sions, hallucinations, andother pathological effects.

In sUIn~arizing SOIne scientific reporting on sensoryand perceptual deprivation, Kubzansky offers the followingobservations:

"Three studies suggest that the Inore well-adjustedor 'norInal' the subject is, the more he is affected bydeprivation of sensory stiInuli. Neurotic and psychoticsubjects are either cOInparatively unaffected or show decreasesin anxiety, hallucinations, etc. II (7)

89

SE~

'~'...

Sy<'E T

These findings suggest - but by no ~eans prove - thefollowing theories about solitary confinement and isolation:

1. The more com.pletely the place of confinementeliminates sensory stimuli, the more rapidly and deeply willthe interrogatee be affected. Results produced only a,fter weeksor months of imprisonment in an ordinary cell can be duplicatedin hours or days in a cell which has no light (or weak artificiallight which never varies), which is sound-proded, in whichodors are eliminated, etc. An environment still more subjectto control, such as water-tank or iron lung, is even moreeffective.

'.

.'

anxiety.upon the

2. An early effect of such an environment isHow soon it appear s and how strong it is depends

psychological characteristics of the individual.

3. The interrogator can benefit from the subject'sanxiety. As the interrogator becomes linked in the subject I smind with the reward of lessened anxiety, human contact, andmean,ingful activity, and thus with providing relief for growingdiscomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role. (7)

4. The deprivation of stimuli induces regressionby depriving the -subject I s mind of contact with an outer worldand thus forcing it in upon itself. At the same tirne, thecalculated .provision of stimuli during interrogation tends tomake the regressed subject view the interrogator as a father­figure. The result, normally, is a strengthening of thesubject's tendencies toward compliance.

F. Threats and Fear

The t~reat of coercion usually weakens or destroysresistance more effectively than coercion itself. The threatto inflict pain, for example, can trigger fear s more damagingthan the immediate sensation of pain. In fact, most peopleundere stimate their capacity to withstand pain. The sameprinciple holds for other fears: sustained long enough, astrong fear of anything vague or unknown induces regression,

'..

I

I •.••

whereas the materialization of the fear, the infliction of someform of punishment, is likely to come as a relief. The subject . "

finds that he can hold out, and his resistances are strengthened."in general, direct physical brutality creates only re'sentment,hostility, and further defiance." (18)

The effectiveness of a threat depends not only on whatsort of per son the interrogatee is and whether he believe sthat his questioner can .and will carry the threat out but alsoon the interrogatorls reasons for threatening. 1£ the 'interrogatorthreatens. because he is angry, the subject frequently sensesthe fear of failure underlying the anger and is strengthenedin his own resolve to resist. Threats delivered coldly aremore effective than those shouted in rage. It is especiallyimportant that a threat not be uttered in response to theinterrogatee I s own expressions of hostility. These, if ignored,can induce feelings of guilt, whereas retorts in kind relievethe subject's feelings.

Another reason why threats induce compliance notevoked by the inflection of dure::;s is that the threat grants

'the interrogatee t:inle for compliance. It is not enol.}.gh that aresistant source should 1:e placed under the tension of fear;he must also discern an acceptable escape route. Bidermanobserves, "Not only can the shame or guilt of defeat in theencounter with the interrogator be involved, but also the morefundamental injunction to protect one IS self-autonomy orlwill i

• • •• A simple defense against threats to the self fromthe anticipation of being forced to. comply is, of course, tocompl y 'deliberately' or 'voluntarily'. • •. To the extent thatthe foregoing interpretation holds, the more intensely motivatedthe LiJiterrogateeJ' is to resist, the more intense is thepressure toward early compliance from such anxieties, forthe greater is the threat to self-esteem which is involvedin contemplating the possi'l;>ility of being 'forced to' comply•••• II (6) In brief, the threat is like all other coercivetechnique s in being most effective when 80 used as to fosterregression and when joined with a suggested way out of thedilemma, a rationalization acceptable to the interrogatee.

91

sy<::

... : .. :"

The threat of death has often been found to be worsethan useless. It l'has the highest position in law as adefense, but in m.any interrogation situations it is a highlyineffective threat. Many prisoners, in fact, have refusedto yield in the face of such threats who have subsequentlybeen 'broken' by other procedures. II (3) The principalreason is that the ultiInate threat is likely to induce sheerhopelessness if the interrogatee does not believe that itis a trick; he feels that he is as likely to be condemnedafter compliance as before. The threat of death is alsoineffective' when used against hard-headed types whorealize that silencing them forever would defeat theinterrogator I s purpose. 1£ the threat is recognized as abluff. it will not only fail but also pave the way to failurefor later coercive ruses used by the interrogator.

G. Debility

No report of scientific investigation of the effectof debility upon the interrogatee's powers of resistancehas been discovered. For centuries interrogators hayeem.ployed various methods of inducing physical weakness:prolonged constraint; prolonged exertion; extremes of heat,cold, or moisture; and deprivation or drastic reduction offood or sleep. Apparently the assumption is that loweringthe sour~e IS physiological resistance will lower hispsychological capacity for opposit~on. 1£ this notion werevalid, however, it might reasonably be expected that thosesubjects who are physically weakest at the beginning ofan interrogation would be the quicke st to capitulate, aconcept not supported by experience. The availableevidence suggests that resistance is sapped principallyby psychological rather than physical pressures. Thethreat of debility - for example, a brief deprivation offood ~ may induce much more anxiety than proiongedhunger, which will result after a while in apathy and.perhaps, eventual delusions or hallucinations. In brief,it appears probable that the techniques of inducing debilitybecome counter-productive at an early stage. The discomfort,tension, and restles~ search for an avenue of escape are

yS Y.tt E T

",

:.

.-..

'.

I

followed by withdrawal symptoms, a turning away fromexternal stimuli, and a sluggish unresponsiveness.

Another objection to the deliberate inducing ofdebility is that prolonged exertion, los s of sleep, etc.,themselves become patterns to which the subject adjuststh~ough apathy. The interrogator should use his powerover the resistant subjectls physical enviromnent todisrupt patterns of response, not to create them. Mealsand sleep granted irregularly, in nlore than abundanceor less than adequacy, the shifts occuring on no discernibletime pattern, will normally disorient an interrogatee andsap his will to resist more effectively than a sustaineddeprivation leading to debility.

H. Pain

Everyone is aware that people react verydifferently to pain. The reason, apparently, is not aphysical difference in the intensity of the sensation itself.Lawrence E. Hinkle observes, liThe sensation of painseems to be roughly equal in all men. that is to say,all people have approximately the same threshold at whichthey begin to feel pain, and when carefully graded stimuliare applied to them, their estimates of severity areapproxinlately the scune. . •. Yet .•• when men are veryhighly nlotivateq.... they have been known to carry outrather complex tasks while enduring the most intensepain. II He also states, IIIn general, it appears thatwhatever may be the role of the constitutional endowmentin determining the reaction to pain, it is a much Ie s simportant determinant than is the attitude of the man whoexperiences the pain. II (7)

The wide range of individual reactions to painmay be partially explicable in terms of early conditioning.The person whose first encounters with pain werefrightening and intense may be more violently affectedby its later infliction than one whose original experienceswere Inild. Or the reverse may be true, and the Inanwhose childhood familiarized him with pain may dread

93

SE0T

",

.r--.

. ',.. '

it less,- and react less, than one whose distress is heightenedby fear of the unknown. The individual remains the determinant.

It has been plausibly suggested that, whereas paininflicted on a person from outside himself may actually focusor intensify his will to resist, his resistance is likelier tobe sapped by pain which he seems to inflict upon him~elf.

"In the simple torture situation the contest is one betweenthe individual and his tormentor (••.• and he can frequentlyendure). When the individual is told to stand at attentionfor long periods, an intervening factor is introduced. Theimmediate source of pain is not the interrogator but thevictim himself. The motivational strength of the individualis likely to exhaust itself in this internal encouriter. • .. Aslong as the subject remains standing, he is attributing tohis captor the power to do something worse to him, but there~s actually no showdown of the ability of the interrogatorto do 50•. 11 (4)

Interrogatee s who are withholding but who feel qualmsof guilt and a secret desire to yield are likely to becomeintractable if made to endure pain. The reason is that theycan then interpret the pain as punishment and hence asexpiation. There are also persons who enjoy pain and itsanticipation and who will keep back information that theymight otherwise divulge if they are given reason to expectthat withholding will result in the punishment that theywant. Per sons of considerable moral.or intellectualstature often find in pain inflicted by other s a confirmationof the belief that they are in the hands of inferiors, andtheir resolve not to submit is strengthened.

Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions,concocted as a means of escaping from distress. A time­consuming delay results, while investigation is conductedand the admissions are proven untrue. During this respitethe interrogatee can pull himself together. He may evenuse the time to think up new, more complex "admissions"that take still longer to disprove. KUBARK is especiallyvulnerable to such tactics because the interrogation isconducted for the sake of information and not for police purposes.

94/SE~ET

':,.......

0°

0 .. :

r.... 0"

'-

If an interrogatee is caused to suffer pain rather latein the interrogation process and after other tactics havefailed, he is alm.o st certain to conclude that the interrogatoris becom.ing desperate. He may then decide that if b,e canjust hold out against this final assault, he will win the struggleand his freedom.. And he is likely to be right. Interrogateeswho have withstood pain are more difficult to handle by otherm.ethods. The effect has been not to repress the subject butto re store his confidence and maturity.

1. . Heightened Suggestibility and Hypnosis

In recent years a num.ber of hypotheses about hypnosishave been advanced by psychologists and others in the guise ofproven principles. Am.ong these are the flat assertions that aperson connot be hypnotized against his will; that whilehypnotized he cannot be induced to divulge information that hewants urgently to conceal; and that he will not undertake, intrance or through post-hypnotic suggestion, actions to whichhe would norm.ally have serious moral or ethical objections.If these and related contentions were proven valid, hypnosiswould have scant value for the interrogator.

But despite the fact that hypnosis has been an object ofscientific inquiry for a very long time, none of these theorieshas yet been te sted adequately. Each of them is in conflictwith som.e observations of fact. In any event, an interrogationhandbook cannot and need not include a lengthy discussion ofhypnosis. The case officer or interrogator needs to knowenough about the subject to understand the circum.stances underwhich hypnosis can be a useful tool, so that he can requestexpert assistance appropriately.

Ope rational per sonnel, including interrogator s, whochance to have som.e lay experience or skill in hypnotism.should not them.selves use hypnotic techniques for interrogationor other operational purposes. There are two reasons forthis position. The first is that hypnoti.sm. used as an operationaltool by a practitioner who is not a psychologist, psychiatrist,or M. D. can produce irreversible psychological damage. The

9~

S~ET

"

~.' ·7·" ••"

-'

lay practitioner does not !mow enough to use the techniquesaiely..The second reason is that an unsuccessful attemptto hypnotize a subject for purposes of interrogation, or asuccessful attempt not adequately covered by post-hypnoticamnesia or other protection, can easily le~d to lurid andembarrassing publicity or legal charges.

Hypnosis is frequently called a state of heightenedsuggestibility, but the phrase is a desc"ription rather than adefinition. Merton M. Gill and Margaret B'renman state,"The psychoanalytic theory of hypnosis clearly implies,where it does not explicitly state, that hypnosis is a formof regression. II And they add, II ..• inductionLOf hypnosisJis the process of bringing about a regression, while thehypnotic state is the established regression. II (13) It issuggested that the interrogator will find this definition themost useful. The problem of overcoming the resistanceof an uncooperative interrogatee is essentially a problemof inducing regres sion to a level at which the re sistancecan no longer be sustained. Hypnosis is one way ofregressing people.

Martin T. Orne has written at some length abouthypnosis and interrogation. Almost all of his conclusionsare tentatively negative. Concerning the role played by thewill or attitude of the interrogatee. Orne says, IIAlthoughthe cruci,?l experiment has not yet been done. there islittle or no evidence to indicate that trance can be inducedagainst a person's wishes. II He adds, II ••. the actualoccurrence of the trance state is related to the wish ofthe subject to enter hypnosis. II And he also observes,II ... whether a subject will or will not enter trance dependsupon his relationship with the hyponotist rather than uponthe technical procedure of trance induction. II Theseviews are probably representative of those of manypsychologists, but they are not definitive. As Ornehimself later points out, the interrogatee II ... could begiven a hypnotic drug with appropriate verbal suggestionsto talk about a given topic. Eventually enough of the drug

'~'..

..'

:"

"."

. ""

. .~'.." ....

..:.

.....

would be given to cause a sho'rt period of unconsciousness.When the subje.ct wakesn, the interrogator could then readfro:m his 'notes' of the hypnotic interview the infor:matiori,.

"

presu:mably told hi:m. II (Orne had previously pointed out ....that this technique requires that the interrogator possesssignificant infor:mation about the subject,without the subject'sknowledge.) IIIt can readily be seen how this •.. :maneuver...would facilitate the elicitation of infor:mation in subsequentinterviews. II (7) Techniques of inducing trance in res istantsubjects through preli:minary ad:ministrationof so-calledsilent drugs (drugs which the subject does not know he has

.taken) or through other non-routine :methods of inductionare still under investigation. Until :more facts are known,the question of whether a resister can be hypnotized involun­tarily :must go unanswered.

Orne also holds that even if a res ister can behypnotized., his resistance does not cease. He postulatesII ••• that only in rare interrogation subjects would asufficiently deep trance be obtainable to even atte:mpt toinduce the subject to discuss :material which he is unwillingto discuss in the waking state. The kind of infor:mation whichcan be obtained in these rare instances is still an unansweredquestion." He adds that it is doubtful that a subject in trancecould be :made to reveal infor:mation which he wished tosafeguard. But here too Orne see:ms so:mewhat too cautiousor pes s i:mis tic. Once an interrogatee is in a hypnotic trance,his understa:nding of reality beco:mes subject to :manipulation.For exaUlple, a KUBARKinterrogator could tell a suspectdouble agent in trance that the KGB is conducting the questioning,and thus invert the whole frame of reference. In other words, ,Orne is probably right in holding that :most recalcitrant subjectswill continue effective resistance as long as the fra:me ofreference is undisturbed. But once the subject is tricked intobelieving that he is talking to friend rather than foe, or thatdivulging the truth is the best way to serve his own purposes,his resistance w ill be replaced by cooperation. The valueof hypnotic trance is not that it per:mits the interrogator toi:mpose his will but rather that it can be used to convince theinterrogatee that there is no valid reason not to be forthco:ming.

SE~

A third objection raised by. Orne and other s is thatmaterial elicited during trance is not reliable. Orne says,II ••• it has been shown that the accuracy of such information..•would not be guarant:eed since subjects in hypnosis are fullycapable of lying. II Again, the observation is correct; no knownmanipulative method guarantees veracity. But if hypnosisis employed not as an immediate instrulnent for digging outthe truth but rather as a way of lnaking the subject want toalign himself with his interrogators, the objection evaporates.

Hypnosis offers one advantage not inherent in otherinterrogation techniques or aids: the post-hypnotic suggestion.Under favorable circumstances it should be possible toadminister a silent drug to a resistant source, persuadehim as the drug takes effect that he is slipping into a hypnotictrance, place him under actual hypnosis as consciousness isreturning, shift his frame of reference so that his reasonsfor resistance become reasons for cooperating, interrogatehim, and conclude the session by implanting the suggestionthat when he emerges from trance he will not rememberanything about what has happened.

,This sketchy outline of possible uses of hypnosis °in

the interrogation of resistant sources has no higher goalthan to remind operational per sonnel that the techniquemay provide the answer to a probleln not otherwise soluble.To repeat: _ hypnosis is di"stinctly not a do-it-yourself project.Therefore the interrogator, base, or center that is consideringits use must anticipate the tirning sufficiently not only, to securethe obligatory headquarters permission but also to allow for anexpert's travel time and briefing.

J. Narcosis

Just as the threat of pain may more effectively inducecompliance than its infliction, so an interrogatee's mistakenbelief that he has been drugged lnay make him a more usefulinterrogation subject than he would be under narcosis. LouisA. Gottschalk cites a group of studies as indicating "that 30 to 50per cent of i:ldi vidual s are placebo reactor s, that is, respond

:.0 ~ ... ,.. '0,

.'f

-.

s~

with sytnptotnatic relief to taking an inert substance. ". (7)In the interrogation situation, tnoreover, the effectivene ssof a placebo tnay be enhanced because of its ability to placatethe conscience. The subject l s pritnary source of resistanceto confession or divulgence tnay be pride, patriotistn,per sonal loyalty to superior s, or fear of retribution if he isreturned to their hands. Under such circutnstances hisnatural desire to escape fronl stress by cOnlplying with theinterrogator:'swishes tnay becotne decisive if he is provided

. an acceptable rationalization for cOtnpliance. "I was drugged"is one 01 the best excuses.

Drugs are no tnore the answer to the interrogator'sprayer than the polygraph, hypnosis, or other aids. Studiesand reports "dealing with the validity of tnaterial extractedfronl reluctant infortnants •.• indicate that there is :10 drugwhich can force every infornlant to report all the infortnationhe has. Not only tnay the inveterate crinlinal psychopath lieunder the infl\.l:ence of drugs which have been tested, but therelatively nor!l1.a1 and well-adjusted fndividual !nay.alsosuccessfully disguise factual data. II (3) Gottschal,k reinforcesthe latter observation in nlentioning an exper itnent involvingdrugs which indicated that lithe tnore nor!l1.a1, well-integratedindividuals could lie better than the guilt-ridden, neuroticsubjects. II (7)

Nevertheless, drugs can be effective in overconlingresistance not ~issolved by other techniques. As has alreadybeen noted, the so-called silent drug (a phartnacologicallypotent substance given to a person unaware of its adnlinistration)can nlake possible the induction of hypnotic trance in apreviously unwilling subject. Gottschalk says, liThe judiciouschoice of a drug with tninitnal side effects, its tnatching tothe subject's personality, careful gauging of dosage, and asense of titning •.• [tnakei] silent adtnini stration a hard-to-equalally for the hypnotist intent on producing self-fulfilling andine scapable sugge stions ... the drug effects should prove ...cOlUpelling to the subject since the per ceived sensations originateentirely within hitnself. 11 (7)

........

Particularly itnportant is the reference to matching thedrug to the per sonality of the interrogatee. The effect of tnostdrugs depends more upon the personality of the subjec~ thanupon the physical characteristics of the drugs themselves. Ifthe approval of Headquarters has been obtained and if a doctoris at hand for adtninistration. one of the tnost important ofthe interrogator's functions is providing the doctor with afull and accurate description of the psychological make-upof the interrogatee. to facilitate the best po.ssible choic:e ofa drug.

Persons burdened with feelings of shatne or guilt arelikely to unburden thetnselves when drugged. especially ifthese feelings have been reinforced by the interrogator.A nd like the placebo. the drug provide s an excellentrationalization of helplessness for the interrogatee whowants to yield but has hitherto been unable to violate hisown value s or loyaltie s.,

Like other coercive tnedia. drugs tnay affect the contentof what an interrogatee divulges. Gottschalk notes that'certaindrugs II tnay give rise to psychotic tnanifestations such ashallucinations. illusions. delusions. or disorientation ll

• sothat lIthe verbal tnaterial obtained cannot always be consideredvalid. II (7) For this reason drugs (and the other aids discussed inthis section) should not be used persistently to facilitate theinterrogative debriefing that follows capitulation. Their functionis to cause capitulation, to aid in the shift froIn resistance tocooperation. Once this shift has been accoInplished, coercivetechnique s should be abandoned both for moral reasons andbecause they are unnece ssary and even counter-productive.

This discussion does not include a list of drugs thathave been etnployed for interrogation purposes or adiscussion of their properties because these are medicalconsiderations within the province of a doctor rather thanan interogator.

1/-S~ET

'"

~ .

.------------------------------

SEyr;K. The Detection of Malingering

The detection of malingering is obviously not aninterrogation technique, coercive or otherwise. But thehistory of interrogation is studded with the storie s of per sonswho have attelTI.pted, often successfully. to evade. thelTI.ounting pressures of interrogation by feigning physicalor lTI.ental illness. KUBARK interrogators lnay encounterseelTI.ingly sick or irrational interrogatees at tilTI.es andplaces which lTI.ake it difficult or next-to-irnpossible toSUlTI.lTI.on lTI.edical or other professional assistance. Becausea few tips lTI.ay lTIake it pos sible for the interrogator todistinguish between the lTIalingerer and the person who isgenuinely ill, and because both illness and lTI.alingering aresOlTI.etilTI.es produced by coercive interrogation, a brief discussionof the topic has been included here.

",

'-

Most per sons who feign a mental or physical illnessdo not know enough about it to deceive the well-inforlTI.ed.Malcolm L. Meltzer says, liThe detection of tnalingeringdepends to a great extent on the simulator I s failure. tounder stand adequa,.tely the characteristics of the r~ie heis feigning. . .. Often he presents sylTI.ptOlTI.S which areexceedingly rare, existing lTIainly in the fancy of the laylTI.an.One such symptolTI. is the delusion of lTI.isidentification,characterized by the ... belief that he is SOlTI.e powerfulor historic per sonage. This symptolTI. is very unusual intrue psychosis, but is used by a nUlTI.ber of silTI.ulator s. Inschizophrenia. the onset tends to be grad':lal, delusionsdo not spring up full-blown over night; in silTI.ulated disorders,the onset is usually fast and delusions lTIay be readilyavailable. The feigned psychosis often contains lTI.anycontradictory and inconsistent sylTI.ptOlTI.S J rarely existingtogether. The lTIalingerer tends to go to extrelTI.es in hisprotrayal of his sylTI.ptOlTI.S; he exaggerate s, overdralTI.atizes,grilTI.ace s, shouts, is overly b~zarre, and calls attentionto hilTI.self in other ways ....

"Another characteristic of the malingerer is that hew ill usually seek to evade or postpone examination. A study

101

S~

of the behavior of lie-detector subjects, for example, showedthat persons later 'proven guilty' showed certain similaritiesof behavior. The guilty per sons were reluctant to take thetest, and they tried in various ways to postpone or delay it.They often appeared highly anxious and sometimes took ahostile attitude toward the test and the examiner. Evasivetactics sometimes appeared, such as sighing, yawning,moving about, all of which foil the examiner by obscuringthe recording. Before the exatnination, they felt it necessaryto explain why their responses might mislead theexarninerinto thinking they were lying. Thus th'e procedure of subjectinga suspected -malingerer to a lie-detector test rnight evokebehavior which would reinforce the suspicion of fraud." (7)

Meltzer also notes that malingerers who are notprofessional psychologists can usually be exposed throughRor schach tests.

An important element in rnalingering is the frarne ofmind of the examiner. A person pretending madnessawakens in a professional examiner not only suspicion qutalso a desire to expose the fraud, whereas a well persc;>nwho pretends to be concealing mental illness and whopermits only a rninor sYInPtom or two to peep through ismuch likelier to create in the expert a desire to exposethe hidden sickness.

Meltzer observes that sirnulatedmutism and anmesiacan usually be distinguished from the true states bynarcoanalysis. The reason, however,' is the reverse ofthe. popular misconception. Under the influence of appropriatedrugs the malingerer will persist in not speaking or in notremembering, whereas the symptoms of the genuinelyafflicted will temporarily disappear. Another techniqueis to pretend to take the deception seriously, expressgrave concern, and tell the "patient" that the only rernedyfor his illness is a series of electric shock treC!-tmentsor a frontal lobotomy.

.~''''

.. : ...;

SEyCL. Conclusion

A brief sUlTIlTIary of the foregol.ng ITIay help topull the lTIajor concepts of coercive interrogation together:

1. The principal coercive techniques are arrest,detention, the deprivation of sensory stilTIuli, threats andfear. debility, pain, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis,and drugs.

2. If a coercive technique is to be used, or iftwo or lTIore are to be elTIployed jointly, they should be .chosen for their effect upon the individual and carefullyselected to lTIatch his personality.

3. The 1J,sual effect of coercion is regression.The intel."rogatee's ITIature defenses crulTIbles as he becolTIesTIlore childlike. During the process of regression the subjectTIlay experience feelings of guilt, and it is usually useful tointensify these.

4. When regression has proceeded far' enoughso that the subject's desire to yield begins to overbalancehis resistance, the interrogator should supply a face­saving rationalization. Like the coercive technique, theration.alization nlUst be carefully chosen to fit the subject'sper sonality.

5. The pressures of duress should be slackenedor lifted after cOlTIpliance has been obtained, so that theinterrogatee I s voluntary cooperation will not be ilTIpeded.

No lTIention has been ITIade of what is frequentlx- thelast step in an interrogation conducted by a COlTImunistservice: the attempted conver sion. In the Western .viewthe goal of the que stioning is information; once a sufficientdegree of cooperation has been obtained to permit the

'~'...

S E

interrogator acce s s to the information he seeks, he is notordinarily concerned with the attitudes of the source. Undersome cir cU!nstance s, however, this pragmatic indifferencecan be short- sighted. If the interrogatee remains semi­hostile or remorseful aiter a successful interrogation hasended, Ie ss time may be required to cO!nplete his conver sion(and conceivably to create an enduring asset) than might beneeded to deal with his antagonism if he is merely squeezedand forgotten.

lOVS E/R E T

.~"

: ..

...'.;'..

".

",

-.....