Structured Interviews of Experienced HUMINT Interrogators

Abstract

The task force that led to the creation of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) recommended that the HIG fund a program of research aimed at establishing scientifically supported interrogative best practices. One of the ways to identify 'best practices' is to rely on direct reporting from subject-matter experts. In this study, 42 highly experienced military and intelligence interrogators were interviewed about their interrogation-related practices and beliefs, including such topics as training and selection, the role of rapport, perceptions regarding the techniques employed, lie detection, and the roles of interpreters and analysts. Interrogators indicated that excellent interpersonal skills on the part of an interrogator, an emphasis on rapport and relationship-building techniques, and the assistance of well-prepared interpreters and analysts are key components of a successful interrogation. It is our hope that the results of this study will stimulate research, influence training models, and ultimately contribute toward an interrogative best-practice model.

Drawing the fine line between interrogation and torture: towards a Universal Protocol on Investigative Interviewing

“…Physical coercion, intimidation and deception were reasons cited for providing false information both by interrogators and detainees. Similar results were obtained in a survey commissioned by the task force that led to the creation of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) by Obama's administration (Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, & Meissner, 2014) with 42 highly experienced military and intelligence interrogators. The conclusions are quite in line with the well-known qualitative study with a focus group of veteran interrogators by Arrigo and Wagner (2007).…”

Science‐based interviewing: Information elicitation

“…We do not recommend lying to the subject about evidence, as such tactics have been shown to be factors in false confessions (Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, ; Kassin & Kiechel, ; Moston et al, ). In addition, such deception is high‐risk: Should the deception be revealed to the subject, it is likely to erode the relationship between the subject and the interviewer which is otherwise supportive of effective interviewing (Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, & Meissner, ; Scharff, ). However, it is possible to affect the subject's perception of the evidence, which is one outcome of the SUE technique.…”

Strategic disclosure of evidence: Perspectives from psychology and law.

“…In a more recent study, almost half of the 42 US military and intelligence interrogators interviewed claimed to use evidence presentation tactics to elicit information from detainees (Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, & Meissner, 2014). Clearly the disclosure of evidence is a popular and important technique in forensic contexts.…”