Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

not reach the depth required in an intelligence interrogation. Third, resistance
instructors, though talented professionals, lack the training, linguistic skills,
and subject matter expertise required of interrogation personnel. In sum, the
employment of resistance instructors in interrogation — whether as consultants
or as practitioners — is an example of the proverbial attempt to place the square
peg in the round hole. (NOTE: In the months after 11 September 2001, special
operations personnel, many of whom have received resistance training, were
quick to request interrogation support from the SERE community based on
well-entrenched memories of the skill and polish of resistance instructors during
intense role-play scenarios.) 28
The Objective of an Interrogation: Information or Confession
[U]nlike a police interrogation, the [intelligence] interrogation
is not aimed at causing the interrogatee to incriminate himself
as a means of bringing him to trial. Admissions of complicity are
not…ends in themselves but merely preludes to the acquisition
of more information. 29
While interrogations conducted to support law enforcement objectives have
many similarities to those designed strictly to satisfy intelligence requirements,
there are several subtle yet important differences. The methods employed
within each context are essentially interchangeable, with discernible differences
identifiable only in nuance. At the same time, the fundamental objectives can
be strikingly different. From a process perspective, the ultimate objective of
the interrogation will inform — and significantly influence — the methodology
employed.
The confession that can be such a monumental achievement in the law
enforcement world is often of little interest to the Intelligence Community.
Conversely, the exhaustive detail necessary to support subsequent intelligence
analysis and production often ranges far beyond that needed to support a conviction.
While law enforcement seeks to establish responsibility, the Intelligence
Community seeks to exploit knowledgeability. In sum, law enforcement attempts
to understand the past; intelligence attempts to probe the future.
Other key differences must be clearly understood. Law enforcement
officials must adhere to federal and state laws pertaining to rights of the accused
(including legal representation and the right to remain silent), standards of
evidence, investigative parameters established by the prosecution, and limits
on the duration of custody. In contrast, the activities of intelligence officials are
governed by international and federal guidelines pertaining to the treatment of
prisoners, priority intelligence requirements, the need to manage a potentially
28
During his recall to active duty from June 2003 to January 2005, the author served as the
Department of Defense Senior Intelligence Officer for Special Survival Training.
29
KUBARK, 4–5.
99