The Use and History of Advanced Interrogation Techniques

The Use and History of Advanced Interrogation Techniques

Legal Notice: This article was written purely for educational and informational purposes. Some of the techniques described in it are not considered legal or ethical today. Spectiva does not legitimize or encourage any crime.

Introduction 01

Intelligence is divided into 5 core disciplines: Human Intelligence (HUMINT), Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), Imagery Intelligence (IMINT), Open Source Intelligence (OSINT), and Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT). The oldest of these disciplines, and the ancestor of the others, is human intelligence. Human intelligence, briefly, refers to intelligence gathered from human sources.

At the heart of human intelligence lies knowing the human being, because whatever the purpose, in order to be able to direct a person and make them do what you want, you must first know them very well; this is why the books and texts people have written about human beings over the centuries have become the raw material of human intelligence.

In the field manual (FM 2-22.3) that the U.S. Army made public in 2006, the information-gathering activities of human intelligence are classified into eight categories: 

• - Tactical Questioning

• - Screening

• - Interrogation

• - Debriefing

• - Liaison

• - Human Source Contact Operations

• - Document Exploitation

• - Captured Enemy Equipment

Tactical questioning: quick, initial questioning for information of immediate tactical value

Screening: identifying and assessing a person's areas of knowledge, their cooperativeness, and possible approach techniques. It is not itself an information-gathering technique; it is a time-saving filter that quickly picks out those who have valuable information

Interrogation: systematically extracting information from a person in custody, through direct and indirect questions, in order to meet specific requirements.

Debriefing: obtaining information voluntarily from cooperative sources who are not in custody

Liaison: coordinating operations and exchanging information with allied military-civilian institutions.

Human source contact operations: sources who agree to cooperate and provide information on a one-time or ongoing basis (recruiting human beings from the enemy element)

Document exploitation: systematic extraction of information from open/closed/printed/electronic documents. Captured documents are generally accurate and genuine.

Captured enemy equipment: materiel found on a detainee or on the battlefield that has military value or meets a requirement (those with TECHINT value)

Among these eight methods, interrogation — which is also the focus of this article — is often one of the most important in terms of both the amount and the value of the information it provides. Although the volume of information obtained through interrogation generally varies according to the prevailing conditions, in some cases it can become the primary source.

For example, after World War II, in a survey conducted among the U.S. forces in Europe, when 54 divisions, 18 corps, and 7 army intelligence officers were asked, it was found that 43% of all intelligence in the European theater of operations came from human intelligence, and that 84% of that came from interrogation.

In this article we will first address the modern interrogation doctrine; then we will examine KUBARK — the overshadowed ancestor of this doctrine — its advanced coercive methods, and how these were used in the interrogations after 9/11.

Current Interrogation Doctrine 02

Interrogation is defined as the information-gathering process carried out to obtain the maximum amount of usable information from a source. The types of sources interrogated are divided into 3 main categories;

• ● Cooperative and Friendly: shows little resistance during interrogation, speaks comfortably except on self-incriminating matters.

• ● Neutral and Non-partisan: usually cooperates in a limited way, answers what is directly asked, rarely volunteers.

• ● Hostile and Antagonistic: usually does not talk; the interrogator must show self-control, patience, and tact.

The interrogation process consists of 5 phases;

• - Planning and Preparation

• - Approach

• - Questioning

• - Termination

• - Reporting

In the planning stage, the intelligence requirements are determined and the purpose of the interrogation is clarified; all available documents and records about the source are examined, and the source's personality and weak points are assessed; finally, the approach strategy and its alternatives are determined. This stage is the phase that most affects the success of the interrogation.

The approach phase begins with the first contact between the source and the interrogator. In this phase, instead of intelligence questions, somewhat softer questions such as background questions and the circumstances of capture are asked. 

Since the success of the interrogation largely depends on developing the source's willingness to communicate early, the interrogator takes great care. In this phase the aim is to establish rapport (a relationship of harmony/trust) with the source and win voluntary cooperation, which is why the interrogator manipulates the source's emotions and weaknesses in order to gain cooperation.

The rapport established in this phase must be maintained until the interrogation ends, and even after it ends; because some sources may need to be interrogated more than once. If the interrogator establishes good rapport and then abandons this effort, the source notices that they are being taken less and less interest in as information is obtained from them, and may stop answering questions. 

Incentives can also be used in developing rapport. These may be immediate (coffee, cigarettes), short-term (food, a shower), or long-term. The most important thing to be careful about here is that the interrogator must not promise things they cannot deliver, otherwise the rapport that has been established may be lost.

In this phase, the approaches determined in the planning stage are tried one by one, beginning with the most likely one; these approaches are roughly as follows;

• ● Direct Approach: the interrogator asks the questions related to the sought information directly and does not conceal the purpose

• ● Incentive Approach: rewards cooperation by giving or withholding things the source has a weakness for

• ● Emotional Approach: the interrogator observes the source and identifies their dominant emotions and exploits them; for example, a source who has great love for their unit is told that by giving information they can shorten the war and save their comrades' lives, and that refusing will lead to their deaths, or, conversely, phrases such as "they left you there and abandoned you, they are the ones to blame for your capture, you owe them no loyalty" are used.

• ● Fear Approach: it is identifying and exploiting the prisoner's fears. As in the emotional approach, by constructing sentences that increase or decrease their fear, the source is pushed toward cooperation.

• ● Pride and Ego Approach: the aim is to get the source to convey information, willingly or unwillingly, by flattering them. For example; Why did you surrender so easily when you could have escaped through the nearby river crossing? 

• No one could have crossed the crossing, because it was mined.

• ● Futility Approach: the interrogator convinces the source that resistance is pointless; for example, to a soldier who was captured because their supplies ran out, it can be dictated that the other forces are in the same situation, that there is no longer any hope, and that the interrogators are their only hope.

• ● We Know All Approach: the interrogator first asks questions about known data; when the source gives a wrong or incomplete answer, the interrogator states the detailed answer themselves. When the source begins to give correct and complete information, the interrogator slips in the questions related to the needed information. If the interrogator does not object when the source lies, the source realizes that not everything is known and that they are being deceived, so the unknown questions are interspersed among the known ones. The interrogation is ended before the known questions run out.

● Establishing Identity: the interrogator states that the source has been identified by high authorities as a notorious person wanted for serious crimes, and insists on it even when the source says they are not; thus the source makes a sincere and detailed effort to clear themselves.

• ● Repetition: the interrogator listens carefully to the source's answer to a question, then repeats the question and the answer several times. They do this for every question; the source becomes so bored with the procedure that, in order to satisfy the interrogator and escape the monotony, they answer the questions fully and sincerely.

• ● Silence: the interrogator says nothing at all to the source and looks directly into their eyes, preferably with a slight smile on their face. It is important not to look away; on the contrary, it is important to make the source be the first to break eye contact. The source may say something to break the silence, but the interrogator does not respond until they are ready to break the silence.

• ● Rapid Fire: the interrogator asks a series of questions in such a way that the source cannot find time to fully answer one before the next is asked. This confuses the source and, because they have little time to construct their answers, pushes them toward contradicting themselves. The interrogator then confronts the source with their contradictions, and this produces even more contradictions.

• All of these approaches are legal approaches that are still applied today; in the later parts of the article, the advanced coercive approaches that were used in the past and later banned will be described.

There is no sharp transition between the approach and questioning phases; after the approach phase begins and a certain rapport relationship is established, the interrogator moves to the questioning phase. In the questioning phase the interrogator continuously assesses the source; if their interest and cooperation are declining, the interrogator returns to the approach phase and aims to re-establish rapport with a different approach. 

Throughout the interrogation, the interrogator shows no surprise, under any circumstances, at anything the prisoner says, because most sources convey information more comfortably if they get the impression that the information they are telling is already known to the interrogator.

The questioning phase begins when the interrogator moves to questions related to the interrogation objectives. In the questioning phase, 6 types of questions can be used; these are: direct questions, follow-up questions, irrelevant questions, repeated questions, control questions, and prepared questions.

• Direct Questions: they form the basis of most interrogations and are most often applied to cooperative sources. The questions are asked directly and without concealing the purpose. The interrogator considers the source's possible reaction to the questions and avoids questions that might disturb the source or damage the rapport.

• Follow-up Questions: asked to clarify the parts left incomplete in a question the source has previously answered. The interrogator must spontaneously detect the gaps and ask about them. It also allows details unrelated to the purpose of the interrogation to be learned.

• Irrelevant Questions: questions that are not related to the purpose of the interrogation, asked in order to conceal the interrogation's objectives, strengthen the relationship with the source, or split the source's focus.

• Repeated Questions: by asking a previously asked question again, the reliability of information previously obtained is checked, or a question the source previously refused to talk about is asked again.

• Control Questions: developed from recently confirmed information that is unlikely to change. Asked in order to check the accuracy of the source's answers.

• Prepared Questions: usually questions on a subject in which the interrogator is not competent, prepared before the interrogation by a relevant expert and given to the interrogator. They are usually on technical subjects.
  

In order to obtain the needed information at the maximum level, the interrogator should ask direct and follow-up questions; in order to check the accuracy of the answers and strengthen the relationship, they should ask repeated and irrelevant questions at certain intervals.

After the questioning phase ends, the termination phase is entered. In this phase the source is told that the accuracy of the information they have given will be checked, and their reaction is observed; afterward the source is told that they may be interrogated again later, and the interrogation is ended.

Termination may occur for many reasons; these are;

• - The source continues to be uncooperative throughout the approach phase

• - The source is injured, sick, or elderly

• - The interrogation requires more than one interrogation period to obtain the necessary intelligence information

• - The source changes their attitude; has become more aggressive, bored, or talkative

• - The interrogator cannot maintain rapport and loses control of the interrogation

• - The interrogation objectives have been achieved.

• - The interrogator is needed for another interrogation

• - The source's information is so valuable that they must be evacuated to the next echelon immediately.
  

After the termination phase, the reporting phase is entered. The interrogator classifies all the obtained information and reports it to the relevant units.

Advanced Interrogation - KUBARK 03

We have described the doctrine accepted today; but what was the situation in the past? To understand this, we need to look closely at the 1963 manual KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation. KUBARK is the code name the CIA used for itself in documents; the manual takes its name from there. The manual was prepared not for ordinary sources but for sources who have received security training and are prepared to resist. It is an important document because it is considered the ancestor of coercive techniques.

The basic hypothesis of this manual is this: a person's resistance breaks down when their personality is reduced to an earlier and more vulnerable level. In this process, called regression, the aim is to weaken the source's capacity to make their own decisions, making them open to being directed and dependent on the interrogator's authority. 

In the regression process, as the person's state slides from maturity to an infantile state, the learned or structured personality traits are lost in reverse chronological order; so much so that the most recently acquired traits (which are the most recently acquired traits used in resistance) are the first to be lost

Various methods can be used to trigger this regression process; the basic aim of the most frequently used of these is to disrupt the source's sense of time. For example, the source may be left alone for days; the source may be sent back to their cell and allowed to sleep for 5 minutes, then the interrogation continued as if 8 hours had passed; meals may be given at odd hours (like lunch and dinner an hour apart); day and night may be mixed up by moving the clock back and forth; there are these and various other methods.

Apart from these, there are other regression techniques that target different points. For example, as soon as the source is taken into custody, their own clothes are immediately taken away and replaced with beltless clothes two sizes too big; here the aim is to damage the sense of self and reduce resistance.

Regression is not the only way to break resistance; threat and fear are also generally resistance-breaking, but there is a point to be careful about here: most people underestimate their own capacity to endure pain, and for this reason the threat of pain is often more resistance-breaking than the pain itself; in addition, the actual occurrence of pain can strengthen resistance, because it often relieves the vague inner fear. Pain applied especially at a late stage shows the interrogator's helplessness; it becomes harder to handle a source who endures pain with other methods (their sense of self and resistance may rise again).

In general, in advanced coercive interrogation techniques the aim is mostly to trigger regression, and in this respect KUBARK can be considered the doctrinal ancestor of coercive techniques. Rather than describing more theoretical technical information, let us examine how these techniques were used in the 9/11 interrogations and what was developed on top of these techniques.

9/11 Interrogations 04

Although KUBARK is the doctrinal ancestor of these coercive techniques, it could not be applied verbatim in the 9/11 interrogations. The reason for this is that KUBARK is actually a theoretical manual that explains the logic of breaking resistance through regression, not a concrete and standard technical resource to be applied as-is in the field. In addition, it was written in 1963 with the trained agents of the Cold War in mind; against the highly determined suspects of 9/11, this theory needed to be turned into a more concrete and harsher application.

For this reason the CIA, taking KUBARK's logic as a basis, moved toward developing harsher new techniques on top of it, and for this it assigned Mitchell and Jessen, former Air Force personnel who held doctorates in psychology. The techniques this pair developed were largely based on reverse-engineering the SERE training program, which prepares U.S. soldiers to resist in the event of possible captivity. As a result of the program, 13 new techniques emerged that resembled the KUBARK methods but were far more coercive/harsh. These are;

• Abdominal slap: The interrogator stands about 30 cm from the detainee and strikes their abdomen with the back of the hand. The aim is not to injure; it is to arouse feelings of hopelessness, fear, and humiliation.

• Collar grab: The interrogator grabs the detainee's shirt collar with both hands and, while demanding an answer to a question, quickly pulls them toward himself. The aim is to gather the detainee's attention with a sudden jolt and make them feel that control is with the interrogator.

• Confinement in a small space: The detainee is confined in a small box for a long time. If the box allows standing, the duration goes up to 18 hours; if it is a small box requiring one to crouch to fit, up to 2 hours. The aim is to create feelings of helplessness and loss of control through immobility and claustrophobic pressure, wearing down resistance.

• Dietary manipulation: The detainee's solid food is cut off; they are forced to live only on a liquid or soft diet. The aim is to lower resistance by weakening the body (exhaustion) and to make the detainee dependent on the interrogator for their most basic needs.

• Facial hold: The interrogator places their palms on either side of the detainee's face and holds firmly to prevent them from moving their head. The aim is to take control by making the detainee feel they cannot escape; it usually sets the stage for techniques such as the slap.

• Facial slap: The interrogator delivers a slap with fingers spread, between the chin and the ear. The aim, more than pain, is to break the detainee's expectation that "no physical force will be used on me."

• Nudity: The detainee is left naked. The aim is to increase feelings of helplessness and humiliation; it is usually used together with other techniques.

• Stress positions: The detainee is put into sitting or standing positions that keep the muscles constantly tense, and is forced to maintain them for a long time. The aim is to make the source of the pain the detainee's own body rather than the interrogator, so that they exhaust their resistance themselves.

• Sleep deprivation: Usually applied together with stress positions; the detainee is prevented from sleeping for up to 180 hours. Many detainees have reported hallucinating after this period. The aim is to create mental and physical breakdown and collapse the capacity to resist.

• Wall standing: The detainee stands about 1.2 meters from the wall, leans forward, and reaches out so that only their fingers touch the wall; they are asked to hold this position for an indefinite time. The aim, as with stress positions, is for the detainee to tire out with their own muscles and be driven to exhaustion and submission.

• Walling: The interrogator, while demanding an answer to a question, quickly slams the detainee by the back against (a flexible wall prepared to prevent injury); it is repeated until an answer is obtained. The aim is to create shock and terror with the loud noise and sudden impact; the real goal is not to injure but psychological jolting.

• Waterboard: The detainee is laid on their back on a board with the head slightly lower, and water is poured onto their face. The aim is to obtain maximum fear and submission by making them experience the terror of drowning and death firsthand.

• Cold water dousing: The detainee is stripped and cold water is poured over them, or they are put into a makeshift tub filled with cold water; sometimes they are exposed to cold water naked, in a stress position. The aim is to break resistance through physical shock and the threat of hypothermia.

These techniques did not remain only on paper; they were also applied in the field. Although the most detailed records we have come from a parallel program run not by the CIA but by the army, they clearly show us how similar techniques were actually applied. Let us look at these records through the Hoffman report published in 2015 and the evidence files shared along with it;

(Hoffman Report: an independent investigation report that reveals the torture and interrogation relationships between the American Psychological Association and the U.S. Department of Defense and the CIA.)

The most striking example of these records is the interrogation log of Mohammed al-Qahtani, who was denied entry into the U.S. while he was planned to take part in the 9/11 attacks and is therefore called the "20th hijacker." Here are some examples from the records of this interrogation, which lasted for months:

• - He was repeatedly made to stand up to prevent him from sleeping.

• - When he refused to drink water, water was poured over him.

• - His request to use the toilet was refused and he was made to urinate in his pants.

• - Photographs of 9/11 victims were taped to his body.

• - He was exposed to loud music.

• - His hair and beard were cut with scissors.

• - His personal space was invaded by a female interrogator.

• - Coffee was given and then poured on the floor as punishment.

• - Trash was swept over him.

• - He was made to write letters to the 9/11 victims.

• - He was subjected to a matching test of photographs of women in bikinis.

• - He was strip-searched.

• - He was given dog training. (sit, come, bark)

• - His mother and sister were made an example of as whores.

• - He was scolded for making mistakes in the bikini-women matching test.

• - He was allowed only 4 hours of sleep in short cycles. (30 min, 1 hour)

• - He was left naked in front of female interrogators.

• - Liar/coward/failure was written on the wall in Arabic.

• - Despite his offer to talk in order to protect his beard, his beard was cut again.

• - Photographs of a 3-year-old victim were taped to his chest.

At first glance, for an ordinary person, physical torture may seem much more effective and logical than the treatments just described, but the truth is not exactly so. First of all, physical pain does not produce the same effect on everyone; while each person's pain threshold is different, what they endure the pain for is also a very big factor. For example, when a person is subjected to physical torture over beliefs held sacred, such as their homeland, flag, or religion, their resistance often increases rather than decreases. Beyond this, physical violence often produces false confessions, and most confessions are not of a kind that can be immediately verified, which is why it often causes serious loss of time. For this reason, instead of physical torture, methods that trigger regression are often preferred.

Regression is not the only alternative to physical torture. There are also many approaches that exist in KUBARK and were later hardened even further by adding to them. For example, the ones we saw in the interrogation records: leaving him naked in front of female interrogators, making an example of his mother and sister as whores, cutting his beard, the bikini-women matching tests, etc.; all of these are approaches aimed at damaging the honorable-warrior identity and at breaking the inner resistance based on the sacred values we mentioned earlier.

HIG and the Verdict of Science 05

So, did all these coercive methods work in the end? When these post-9/11 interrogations became public and turned into a great scandal, this question began to be seriously researched. The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), established in 2009, financed a scientific research program for this purpose, and the question being sought was simple: which works better, coercion or a relationship of trust (rapport)? The result of years of work came out quite clearly: coercion was not working.

One of these studies examined real terrorist interrogations; in the analysis carried out over a total of 288 hours of recordings and 29 suspects, it was found that even the slightest harsh or coercive behavior by the interrogator silenced the suspect, increased their resistance, and lowered the amount of information obtained. In contrast, a respectful, rapport-building approach brought more information. In the researchers' words, it may not always be possible to improve engagement, but it is always possible to make it worse.

A meta-analysis that brought together dozens of studies reached the same conclusion: coercive methods significantly increased false confessions alongside true confessions, while rapport-based methods increased true confessions and reduced false ones. The reason for this, as we also touched on in the earlier parts of the article, is that most people deliberately make false confessions in order to stop the torture. Indeed, a similar claim is often made regarding the 9/11 files. Although it is not certain, it is said that the most valuable intelligence that led to Bin Laden was actually obtained through non-coercive methods, while the harsh techniques applied to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed largely produced false and misleading information.

In conclusion, rapport-based interrogation does not mean softness or making concessions; the interrogator does apply pressure to the source, but does so without damaging the relationship and cooperation. This is why the point reached today is actually the modern interrogation doctrine we described at the beginning of the article, that is, an approach based not on breaking the source but on building a relationship with them and winning voluntary cooperation. In short, after passing through a long and painful road, science confirmed the oldest principle of interrogation: the most effective way to get information from a person is not to crush them but to win them over.

Bibliography

1. Central Intelligence Agency. (1963). KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation. Washington, DC.

2. U.S. Department of the Army. (1992). Field Manual 34-52: Intelligence Interrogation. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army.

3. U.S. Department of the Army. (2006). Field Manual 2-22.3: Human Intelligence Collector Operations. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army.

4. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. (2002, 2005). Interrogation Memoranda (Torture Memos). Bybee & Yoo (August 1, 2002); Bradbury (May 2005).

5. U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (2014). Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program (Executive Summary). Washington, DC.

6. American Psychological Association. (2015). Report of the Independent Reviewer and Related Materials — Binder 1. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/independent-review/

7. Zagorin, A., & Duffy, M. (2005, June 12). Inside the Interrogation of Detainee 063. TIME.

8. Hoffman, D. H., Carter, D. J., Viglucci Lopez, C. R., Benzmiller, H. L., Guo, A. X., Latifi, S. Y., & Craig, D. C. (2015). Report to the Special Committee of the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association: Independent Review Relating to APA Ethics Guidelines, National Security Interrogations, and Torture. Sidley Austin LLP. https://www.apa.org/independent-review/revised-report.pdf

9. Alison, L., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., & Christiansen, P. (2013). Why tough tactics fail and rapport gets results: Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT) to generate useful information from terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(4), 411-431. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034564

10. Alison, L., Giles, S., & McGuire, G. (2015). Blood from a stone: Why rapport works and torture doesn't in 'enhanced' interrogations. Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice, 7(2), 5-23.

11. Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 459-486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9207-6

12. Evans, J. R., Houston, K. A., Meissner, C. A., Ross, A. B., LaBianca, J. R., Woestehoff, S. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2014). An empirical evaluation of intelligence-gathering interrogation techniques from the United States Army Field Manual. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 867-875. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3065

13. Granhag, P. A., Kleinman, S. M., & Oleszkiewicz, S. (2016). The Scharff technique: On how to effectively elicit intelligence from human sources. International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 29(1), 132-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/08850607.2015.1083341

14. Meissner, C. A., Surmon-Böhr, F., Oleszkiewicz, S., & Alison, L. J. (2017). Developing an evidence-based perspective on interrogation: A review of the U.S. government's High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group research program. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(4), 438-457. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000136

15. Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST). Masterclass: Eliciting Intelligence Information. https://crestresearch.ac.uk

16. Fein, R. A. (Ed.). (2006). Educing Information — Interrogation: Science and Art. Foundations for the Future (Phase 1 Report). Intelligence Science Board. National Defense Intelligence College Press, Washington, DC.

17. Lewis, N. A. (2004, November 30). Red Cross finds detainee abuse in Guantánamo. The New York Times.

18. Bloche, M. G., & Marks, J. H. (2005, November 14). Doing unto others as they did unto us. The New York Times.

19. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). (2004). Confidential report on the treatment of Guantánamo detainees.

20. EBSCO Research Starters. Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (Communication and Mass Media). https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/communication-and-mass-media/enhanced-interrogation-techniques