Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

almost nonexistent and interrogators employed only a limited range of questioning
techniques. 197 According to Gudjonsson, the main limitation of the model is that it
does not focus on the mental state and cognitive processes of the suspect. 198
Interrogation as Dialogue
An alternate and less traditional view conceives of interrogation as a dialogue
between suspect and interrogator, “characterized by an adversarial element.” 199
This model places great importance on understanding how the interrogation fits
into the scheme of critical dialogues in which individuals engage every day so
as to allow interrogators to overcome hurdles encountered in the interrogation
process and to give them ideas of how to move the dialogue forward at stalled
moments.
Although Walton suggests that the interrogation is a form of informationseeking
dialogue, he recognizes that “to conduct an interrogation as if it were
a persuasion dialogue, or a normal information-seeking dialogue, would result
in argumentation that is inappropriate, and even useless for this purpose.” 200
Moreover, unlike a traditional critical conversation, broken into stages where both
participants decide when to move from one stage to the next, the stages of the
interrogation (formative, preparatory, argumentation, and closing) “proceed not by
the agreement of both parties, but by the unilateral choices of the interrogator.” 201
Indeed, “interrogation is a type of asymmetrical dialogue in which one party tends
to be very powerful and the other party tends to be very passive.” 202 Because of
this, Walton argues that “the questioner must use tricky techniques to get any
results.” 203 Walton’s recommendations for the questioner include to 1) “appear
friendly and cooperative, even sympathetic to the respondent;” 2) “be very
patient, and give plenty of time for answers;” 3) “be methodical, and go by a list
of questions that have been previously prepared;” 4) “repeat questions that have
not yet been answered;” and 5) have the interrogation “go on for a long, indefinite
period of time.” 204
Within the context of interrogation as dialogue, Walton then identifies a
number of argumentation techniques that may be used in interrogations. The
first suggested technique is “the easiest way out,” whereby the interrogator seeks
to “wear the respondent down, and then inform him that if [he] just confess[es],
or give[s] [the interrogator] the desired information, then [his] problems will
be over.” 205 Similarly, the interrogator can use “the only way out” technique
whereby he or she makes the conditions “unbearable for the respondent…such
197
Id.
198
Gudjonsson, see note 110, p. 124.
199
Douglas Walton, “The Interrogation as a Type of Dialogue,” Journal of Pragmatics 35, no. 12
(December 2003), 1771-1802.
200
Id., p. 1798.
201
Id.
202
Id., p. 1799.
203
Id., p. 1778.
204
Id.
205
Id., p. 1784.
153