Editing KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Review: Observations of an Interrogator (section)

== A Systematic Approach to Interrogation: More Than the Sum of Its Parts==

Therefore, it is wrong to open [an] interrogation experimentally, intending to abandon unfruitful approaches one by one until a sound method is discovered by chance. The failures of the interrogator, his painful retreats from blind alleys, bolster the confidence of the source and increase his ability to resist. While the interrogator is struggling to learn from the subject the facts that should have been established before the interrogation started, the subject is learning more and more about the interrogator.59

This passage contains an exceptionally important warning, one that an interrogator must always keep in mind: while the interrogator is watching (and listening to) the source, the source is watching (and listening to) the interrogator.
The interrogator often enters the interrogation with two distinct advantages. First, sources may be suffering from the shock of capture that undermines their psychological and emotional stability (often causing them to say and do things against their own interests). Second, while a long-serving intelligence officer may have the experience of dozens of interrogations behind him or her, it is often the source’s maiden voyage into this uncertain territory. The interrogator can quickly surrender these advantages, however, by approaching the source in a hesitant, indecisive manner. This false start can be largely avoided through careful planning.

The MIS-Y interrogators of the Joint Interrogation Center routinely invested six hours in preparation for every hour spent in the actual interrogation of a prisoner. Their approaches, including alternatives, were carefully designed on the basis of extensive observation and assessment of the source. Intensive study of pertinent military, technical, economic, and/or political materials enabled the interrogators to demonstrate a solid understanding of the topics raised during the interrogation (contributing to the development of Cialdini’s authority effect). They were similarly prepared to question the source systematically, including the ability to consistently and logically follow up on new avenues of inquiry as they unfolded. Not only did this disciplined operating procedure enhance the depth and breadth of the information collected, but it also facilitated a strong degree of control over the source. Opportunities for the prisoner to gain confidence from the miscues of an ill-prepared interrogator were rare.

59 KUBARK, 42.