Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

Introduction
Any interaction between two or more points of view can be seen and analyzed
as a “negotiation.”
Negotiation includes personal and professional interactions — for example,
one can theoretically even “negotiate with oneself.” Applying the tools of
negotiation theory can make almost all human interactions more effective. We
offer some standard ideas in negotiation theory to those concerned with educing
information (EI), in the hope that these tools may help in eliciting useful and
accurate information from a source. 687
Negotiation theory encompasses far more than the tools presented here.
Other aspects that might also be pursued include the role of emotions, the role of
“constituencies” on each side, the use of coalitions by each side, the use of implicit
and explicit threats, the theory and practice of “sequencing” tactics, etc.
Little, if any, operationally useful negotiation literature relates to educing
information from uncooperative sources. EI “negotiations” in any case fall outside
the usual purview of negotiations experts. Parties involved in EI may have very
different interests, sets of knowledge or lack of knowledge, and perceptions of
what is important and even what is real: in short, wide differences in culture as
well as language. The interaction may involve one or more translators. In some
cases even the identity and first language of a source may be unknown. Each side
may be away from home and under great stress. Sources may be highly dissimilar,
which may add to the challenge of building expertise in EI. The patterns of
power and powerlessness of each of the parties in EI interactions, as identified in
“negotiations” terms below, may appear unusual for both parties. (As an example,
a detained source may seem “powerless,” but a source who is prepared to commit
suicide has a very powerful last resort or “fallback” position. In addition, if the
need for information is very urgent and the United States has a tight deadline, the
U.S. interrogator has less negotiating power.)
The contributors to this paper have extensive experience with the theory
and practice of negotiation, but no actual experience or firsthand knowledge of
U.S. interrogation practices and activities. This paper therefore simply offers
ideas from negotiation theory and experience for possible discussion by people
concerned with EI activities and EI research.
The paper does not prescribe any one “negotiation strategy” for EI. It sets
forth a “negotiations way of thinking” about EI: a way of thinking that, in fact,
considers many strategies. (This way of thinking may — or may not — have
been used intuitively by individuals in intelligence, military, or law enforcement
communities who conduct interviews and interrogations with detained persons.)
We present some standard tools in negotiation theory and then apply them to the
687
We will use the term “sources” (or “detainees”) to indicate persons from whom information is
sought, and use male pronouns on the assumption that most are male.
286