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

==Reliability of Casual Observation==

Great attention has been given to the degree to which persons are able to make judgments from casual observations regarding the personality characteristics of another...the level of reliability in judgments is so low that research encounters difficulties, when it seeks to determine who makes better judgments...the interrogator is likely to overestimate his ability to judge others than to underestimate it, especially if he has had little or no training in modern psychology.40
The reliability of casual observations made by interrogators has too often gone unchallenged. Unfortunately, the fact that someone is a “trained” interrogator is
38 The term “want” in this context refers to creating conditions that make cooperation appear to be an attractive, even self-serving alternative for the source rather than a characterization of the source’s efforts to escape physical or psychological force.
39 KUBARK, 12.
40 KUBARK, 12–13.
   103

too frequently construed as evidence that the individual possesses an uncommon ability to make rapid and valid assessments of a source with little background information or direct exposure to support that judgment.
While extensive and consistent experience in interrogation can offer a person the opportunity to develop above-average assessment skills, this ability is contingent upon several important factors. First, each assessment must be subsequently evaluated to determine validity (once additional corroborating or contradicting information is available) and the method(s) used explicitly described, deconstructed, and recorded to definitively capture that cause and effect for future study and possible employment. Second, the key processes used in a given assessment should be examined, evaluated, and corroborated or discredited by trained behavioral science professionals. Finally, the individual interrogator must be sufficiently disciplined to avoid drawing unsupported, possibly self-serving conclusions as to his or her assessment skills. In this regard, it would be helpful to keep in mind the caveat set forth in the [[KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation|KUBARK manual]]: An interrogation is not a game played by two people, one to become the winner and the other the loser.

Assessment, in the context of interrogation, is a multi-dimensional concept. The interrogator must be able to effectively — and accurately — assess a source’s emotional state, psychological set, veracity, and knowledgeability. Individuals cannot attain the ability to meet such a broad-based challenge successfully in a single, even months-long training course. Training in assessment must begin early in an interrogator’s professional preparation and be followed by continuous study, research, and practice. Although a considerable body of knowledge already exists in this area and could be profitably mined for supporting techniques and procedures, new and original studies of assessment in the unique context of interrogation are needed.
Analytical Support to Interrogation

The interrogator should be supported whenever possible by qualified analysts’ review of his daily “take;” experience has shown that such a review will raise questions to be put and points to be clarified and lead to a thorough coverage of the subject in hand.41

In prosecuting the Global War on Terror, the targets of primary interest from both an operational and intelligence perspective are terrorism’s critical centers of gravity: financing, transportation, logistics, communications, and safe havens. Just as it would not be reasonable to expect any single analyst to be an accomplished subject matter expert in more than one (or possibly two) of these areas, it should not be assumed that any single interrogator can be prepared to explore the full knowledgeability of sources who have information pertaining to these key target areas. It is therefore important for interrogators to have on-scene analytical support for precisely the purposes identified in the above quotation.
 41 KUBARK, 13.
  104

While the Joint Interrogation Facilities established during the 1990-91 Gulf War were equipped with on-site intelligence support centers, the level of expertise of the personnel assigned and the real-time access to intelligence information systems fell short of what would be required of a world-class effort. In contrast, the World War II Joint Interrogation Center at Fort Hunt, VA, included a robust analytical support annex that was shaped by, and expanded in response to, the specific needs of the interrogation cadre. As a result, interrogators were able to design highly productive lines of questioning, effectively detect attempts at deception, and often obtain compliance from prisoners as a result of the semblance of dominant knowledge (a graphic example of Cialdini’s authority principle in persuasion42).

Interrogation centers would be well-served by the support of an on-site analytical cell staffed with bona fide subject matter experts and configured to exploit secure information systems that would facilitate real-time access to larger intelligence centers. This would have a considerable positive impact on the ultimate value of the intelligence products generated at the field level. Given the historical precedent, this is clearly an eminently achievable goal.