Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

interrogator seeks to use his control advantages to introduce external, “moving
away” pressure on the source to comply. For example, the interrogator can place
the source in isolation; establish mind-numbing routine or constant, unsettling
change in the source’s daily activities; or introduce physicality into the interaction.
The myriad forms of coercive methods essentially attempt to obtain capitulation
in this manner.
By contrast, the “pull” approach views interrogation as not unlike a
recruitment. The interrogator, having invested sufficient time in assessing the
source’s personality and — most important — that which the source values,
seeks to introduce internal, “moving toward” pressure. When this is deftly
accomplished, the interrogator presents the source with an attractive goal (i.e.,
freedom, better treatment, communication with family) that appears to be within
the source’s sphere of influence through cooperative behavior. In essence, the
source comes to recognize — through implicit or explicit communication from
the interrogator — that the source’s actions can achieve these goals. For the
interrogator, the challenge is to ensure that the path to the source’s objectives will
lead directly through the accomplishment of the interrogator’s own objectives. In
a recruitment, this might mean that to achieve the source’s goal (e.g., removing the
autocratic regime currently ruling his country, sending his children to college in
the United States, etc.), the source would need to help the case officer by agreeing
to serve as an agent reporting on specific targets of intelligence interest. In an
interrogation, the line between the source and his or her goal (e.g., early release)
runs directly through the interrogator’s objective (i.e., actionable intelligence on
priority information requirements).
While a dearth of evidence exists regarding the efficacy of either the “push” or
“pull” model of interrogation, there are two important considerations, one relating
to time intensity and the other to the scope of information. Both approaches are
likely to be time-intensive (despite the seemingly popular belief that coercive
measures are more likely to produce the desired intelligence in time to resolve the
“ticking time-bomb” scenario). But in the best of circumstances, it is anticipated
that the control model would obtain information only in direct response to the
specific questions posed. In contrast, the “rapport” model is more likely to obtain
not only similar kinds of information, but also additional information within the
scope of the source’s knowledgeability that was not necessarily addressed by the
interrogator. In the former, the source seeks minimal fulfillment of requirements
to move away from the pressure of control; in the latter, the source is more prone
to provide satisfaction of requirements and additional self-initiated reporting to
enhance rapport…and expedite movement toward objectives.
The Effects of Isolation
“The symptoms most commonly produced by isolation are
superstition, intense love of any other living thing, perceiving
inanimate objects as alive, hallucinations, and delusions.”
The apparent reason for these effects is that a person cut
off from external stimuli turns his awareness inward, upon
136