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

== Veracity vs. Knowledgeability ==
It is important to determine whether the subject’s knowledge of any topic was acquired first hand, learned indirectly, or represents merely an assumption. If the information was obtained indirectly, the identities of sub-sources and related information about the channel are needed. If statements rest on assumptions, the facts upon which the conclusions are based are necessary to the evaluation.75

One of the weaknesses attributed specifically to human intelligence (and especially to interrogation) is the questionable reliability of the information provided by a source. “Prisoners often lie!” is the oft-repeated mantra chanted by those who have ardently embraced the technical side of intelligence gathering (while overlooking the numerous examples of how camouflage, concealment, and deception or spoofing have successfully fooled imagery and signals intelligence analysts, respectively). Nonetheless, reliability is a critical factor in the human intelligence equation.

Simply stated, source reliability can be broken down into two categories: veracity and knowledgeability. Veracity refers to the truthfulness of the source, while knowledgeability refers to the scope of first-hand information a source possesses. Although two fundamentally different concepts, they can, at times, become interwoven.

• A source may tell the interrogator the truth about the topics raised in the course of the interrogation. The source may, however, have a wider range of knowledgeability than he or she has allowed to become known. Essentially, the source has told the truth...just not the whole truth.
• Conversely, a source may tell the interrogator more than he or she really knows. In an effort to secure some real or imagined form of reciprocity from the interrogator, the source speaks truthfully about all he or she knows...and then some. This “extra” may be the product of speculation, imagination, and/or fabrication.
• The end game of deception, then, occurs in two primary ways: 1) the source might purposefully falsify information and/or 2) the source might withhold known information on specific topics. While there are unique dangers inherent in each of these scenarios, both could lead to corrupted data being reported as intelligence information.
In addition to systematic questioning techniques and subject-matter expertise, assessing the veracity and knowledgeability of the source requires that the interrogator have a third critical skill: detecting deception. Scientific (and popular) literature abounds with studies of how, why, and when people deceive. Searching for reliable indicators, researchers have focused on body movements (e.g., micro-

75 KUBARK, 62.
122

expressions), vocal cues (e.g., changes in pitch), verbal errors (e.g., so-called Freudian slips), language patterns (e.g., repeating the question), and measurable changes in physiological processes (e.g., polygraph examination and voice stress analysis). While many individuals — including interrogators — are convinced of their ability to effectively and consistently detect deception, most are unable to clearly describe the set of behaviors that provided that insight. Further, most studies indicate that these individuals’ confidence in their lie-catching ability is not substantiated by performance in controlled conditions.

Although numerous studies have investigated the ability of one individual to reliably identify another’s efforts to deceive, these studies have been conducted almost exclusively in the safe environment of laboratory conditions. For the
“deceiver,” there really are no significant consequences involved if he or she is “caught.” As a result, there is minimal stress involved, yet most theorists suggest that it is stress that causes the psycho-physical changes that, in turn, are manifested
by external cues (e.g., stereotypical grooming behaviors).