Interrogation Technique Improvements
Interrogation Technique Improvements

According to PhD Robert Coulam, there are four types of information, if studied, might evidence additional guidance on the development of more informed or skillful methods for interrogation techniques. The four types of information are history, comparative practices, social sciences, and casual empiricism and experience.1 Learning from history is the first way to learn how to plan interrogations. Comparative practices in the foreign intelligence communities is another way to improve interrogation techniques. Studying the soft sciences like criminology, psychology, and sociology might give incite into a subject’s psyche to make a better course of interrogation action plan. And learning from experience is the fourth informational method for delivering better interrogation results. This brief essay’s purpose is to list and describe the four types of information needed to improve interrogation techniques.

History, comparative practices, and experience are information gathering methods Coulam described needed to improve interrogations. To not learn from history, will cause history to repeat itself in often negative outcomes. Experience is gained from multiple sources of historical context i.e. learning from others’ bad example. Also, learning from others’ good example is a way to improve interrogation techniques. Many of the interrogation techniques the US intelligence community applies in the field were borrowed from historical and comparative examples from Nazi Germany as well as the communist Soviet Union and Thailand. The CIA employs many of the same medieval tactics as the enemies for interrogative purposes as depicted in the KUBARK manual because the history and experience evidenced the coercive techniques worked.2 Historical, comparisons, and experience are three informational tools to develop and improve educing information.

The last interrogation technique and probably most important to improve interrogation practices are the soft sciences. The soft sciences needed for mastery are psychology, sociology, and criminology. Psychology involves the study of the subject’s mind. Sociology involves the study of the subject’s cultural identities and mythological affiliations. Criminology is the focus and cross section of sociology and psychology as pertaining to abnormal behavior and attitudes. When an interrogator and or interviewer understands the social sciences of a subject then rapport building will be easier to attain. Mastery of the social sciences is a must for all interrogative techniques improvement!

To summarize, according to PhD Robert Coulam, there were four types of information, if studied, might evidence additional guidance on the development of more informed or skillful methods. The four types of information were history, comparative practices, social sciences, and casual empiricism and experience. Learned history was the first way to learn how to plan interrogations. Comparative practices in the foreign intelligence communities was another way to improve interrogation techniques. Studying the soft sciences like criminology, psychology, and sociology might give incite into a subject’s psyche to make a better course of interrogation action plan. And learning from experience was the fourth informational method for delivering better interrogation results. This brief essay’s purpose listed and described the four types of information needed to improve interrogation techniques.

If you enjoyed the story then please share and clap.

Bibliography notes

1

Coulam, Robert. “Approaches to Interrogation in the Struggle against Terrorism: Considerations of Cost and Benefit.” HRlibrary.umn.edu. June 2006, Accessed 1 Sept 2019,

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/OathBetrayed/Intelligenc0e%20Science%20Board%202006.pdf

2

Kleinman, Steven. “KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Review: Observations of an Interrogator — Lessons Learned and Avenues for Further Research.” In Educing Information. Interrogation: Science and Art, edited by Robert Fein, Paul Lehner and Bryan Vossekuil, 95–140. Washington, D.C: National Defense Intelligence College Press, 2006.
['Big']
['History', 'Interrogation', 'Improvement', 'Police', 'Criminal Justice']