Intelligence Science Board views Interrogation

Got this in the newsletter from "Secrecy News, written by Steven Aftergood, published by the Federation of American Scientists":


INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE BOARD VIEWS INTERROGATION

The current state of scientific knowledge regarding the conduct
of interrogation and related forms of intelligence gathering
is limited by numerous gaps in theoretical and practical
understanding, according to a new book-length study from the
Intelligence Science Board, an advisory panel to the U.S.
intelligence community.

The study was prompted by "concerns about recent U.S.
interrogation activities, subsequent investigations, and the
efficacy of contemporary tactics, techniques, and procedures."

The ISB report is somewhat artfully titled "Educing
Information," a term that encompasses interrogation as well as
other forms of eliciting information.

The study notes that an accurate perception of the realities of
interrogation has been impeded by erroneous preconceptions
shaped by wish-fulfillment or popular culture.

"A major stumbling block to the study of interrogation, and
especially to the conduct of interrogation in field
operations, has been the all-too-common misunderstanding of
the nature and scope of the discipline."

"Most observers, even those within professional circles, have
unfortunately been influenced by the media's colorful (and
artificial) view of interrogation as almost always involving
hostility and the employment of force -- be it physical or
psychological -- by the interrogator against the hapless,
often slow-witted subject." (p. 95).

A detailed literature review, expert interviews and
consideration of the historical record present a more
qualified and uncertain picture.

Fundamentally, "there is little systematic knowledge available
to tell us 'what works' in interrogation. We do not know what
systems, methods, or processes of interrogation best protect
the nation's security."

"For example, we lack systematic information to guide us as to
who should perform interrogations. We do not know what
benefits would result if we changed the way we recruit, train,
and manage our interrogators." (p. 8).

Dr. Paulette Otis, a contributor to the study (though not an
ISB member), summarized her view of its practical conclusions
as follows: "(1) pain does not elicit intelligence known to
prevent greater harm; (2) the use of pain is counterproductive
both in a tactical and strategic sense; (3) chemical and
biological methods are unreliable; (4) research tends to
indicate that 'educing' information without the use of harsh
interrogation is more valuable."

And, of course, "'more' research is necessary," said Dr. Otis,
who is Outreach Coordinator at the Center for Irregular
Warfare and Operational Culture in Quantico.

The unclassified ISB study was sponsored by the Defense
Intelligence Agency and the Counterintelligence Field
Activity, among other U.S. intelligence entities.

See "Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art:
Foundations for the Future," Intelligence Science Board, Phase
1 Report, December 2006 (374 pages, 2.5 MB):

PDF download link