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

== The “Magic” of Rapport:35 The Emotional Component of Interrogation ==
One general observation is introduced now, however, because it is considered basic to the establishment of rapport, upon which the success of non-coercive interrogation depends...The skilled interrogator can save a great deal of time by understanding the emotional needs of the interrogatee. Most people confronted by an official — and dimly powerful — representative of a foreign power will get down to cases much faster if made to feel, from the start, that they are being treated as individuals.36
Despite the impressive success achieved by interrogators who have mastered the skill of effectively establishing rapport with a source — the celebrated Luftwaffe interrogator Hanns Scharff37 providing but one well-known example
— methods for rapport-building continue to receive relatively little attention in current interrogation training programs. There seems to be an unfounded yet widespread presumption that all persons inherently possess the skills necessary for building rapport and therefore do not require any supplemental training to hone this ability. While the [[KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation|KUBARK manual]] has gained a degree of infamy through its association with coercive means, it also, in an interesting stroke of irony, consistently emphasizes the value of rapport-building as an essential tool for the interrogator.

The devaluation of rapport — that is, building an operational accord with a source — as an effective means of gaining compliance from a resistant source is in large measure the product of the misguided public debate over the role of interrogation in the Global War on Terror, one that seems invariably to focus on the “ticking bomb” scenario. The point can be safely made that for every instance where a source might have information about an imminent, catastrophic terrorist event, there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of interrogations where the information requirements are far less urgent and the opportunity exists for a
35 Rapport is one of the interrogator’s most powerful tools in gaining a source’s cooperation. It must be made clear that, in the context of an interrogation, the term “rapport” is not limited to the idea of friendship that builds between two individuals (although this may actually occur over the course of an extended interrogation). For the purposes of this paper, the term will be used to imply a state in which a degree of accord, conformity, and or/affinity is present within a relationship. Source: Jerry Richardson, The Magic of Rapport (Capitola, CA: Meta Publications, 1987), 13.
36 KUBARK, 11.
37 Raymond F. Toliver, The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Joachim Scharff, Master Interrogator
of the Luftwaffe (Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, Ltd., 1997).
   102

thoughtful, systematic approach. In the case of the latter, the interrogator might be well served in designing an effective approach regime by asking himself/ herself, as recommended in the [[KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation|KUBARK manual]], “‘How can I make him want to tell me what he knows?’38 rather than ‘How can I trap him into disclosing what he knows?’” 39 Operational accord seeks to effectively, albeit subtly, gain the source’s cooperation and maintain that productive relationship for as long as possible without betraying indicators of manipulation or exploitation on the part of the interrogator.

One constructive paradigm for interrogation, yet one that is rarely considered, views it in terms of a recruitment (or even, perhaps, a seduction). Returning to the basic definition of interrogation noted at the beginning of this paper, it consists of no more than obtaining needed information through responses to questions. To achieve that objective, one can “pull” (i.e., elicit compliance) or “push” (i.e., coerce capitulation). While the former is likely to obtain information that can often exceed the interrogator’s expressed scope of interest — as the source often possesses both greater depth and breadth of knowledgeability than the interrogator might assume — the latter will, in the best of circumstances, only obtain information responding to questions directly asked. Even then the information will often be limited to the minimum necessary to satisfy the interrogator.
Effectively establishing an operational accord with a source — especially in a cross-cultural setting — must become a major component of interrogator training and included in that problem set of necessary yet difficult to define, measure and train skills needed by all HUMINT operators. A review of studies in interpersonal conflict resolution and relationship-building under competitive circumstances (e.g., sales, counseling, negotiation, etc.) can provide a meaningful starting point from which to launch original research for specific application in the interrogation context.