COMUNICACIONES Y TRANSPORTES
MUNICIPIO DE APIZACO
21.8.1 Boyd OODA Loop
Interactions between commanders and the Boyd loop
Military strategist John Boyd created a model of deci- sion and action, originally forair-to-air fighter combat, but which has proven useful in many areas of conflict. His model has four phases, which, while not usually stated in terms of the intelligence cycle, do relate to that cycle:
21.9. REFERENCES 119
Interactions between the intelligence cycle and the Boyd loop
1. Observe: become aware of a threat or opportunity.
2. Orient: put the observation into the con- text of other information.
3. Decide: make the best possible action plan that can be carried out in a timely manner.
4. Act: carry out the plan.
After the action, the actor observes again, to see the ef- fects of the action. If the cycle works properly, the actor has initiative, and can orient, decide, and act even faster in the second and subsequent iterations of the Boyd loop. Eventually, if the Boyd process works as intended, the actor will “get inside the opponent’s loop”. When the ac- tor’s Boyd cycle dominates the opponent’s, the actor is acting repeatedly, based on reasoned choices, while the opponent is still trying to determine what is happening. While Boyd treated his cycle as self-contained, it could be extended to meet the intelligence cycle. Observation could be an output of the collection phase, while orienta- tion is an output of analysis.
Eventually, actions taken, and their results, affect the se- nior commanders. The guidelines for the preferred deci- sions and actions come from the commanders, rather than from the intelligence side.
21.9 References
[1] Sun Tzu(6th Century BCE). "The Art of War". multiple publications and translations. Check date values in: |date= (help)
[2] Richelson, Jeffrey T. (2001). The Wizards of Langley:
Inside the CIA’s Directorate of Science and Technology.
Westview Press.ISBN 0-8133-6699-2.
[3] Johnston, Rob (2005). “Analytic Culture in the US In- telligence Community: An Ethnographic Study”. Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 2007-10-29.
[4] US Department of Defense(12 July 2007). “Joint Pub- lication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Mil- itary and Associated Terms”(PDF). Retrieved 2007-10- 01.
[5] “Joint Publication 2-0, Joint Intelligence”(PDF). Defense
Technical Information Center (DTIC). Department of De-
fense. 22 June 2007. pp. GL–11. Retrieved February 22, 2013.
[6] US Intelligence Board (2007).“Planning and Direction”. Archived from the originalon 2007-09-22. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
[7] Hulnick, Arthur S. (6 December 2006). “What’s wrong with the Intelligence Cycle (abstract)". In- telligence & National Security 21 (6): 959–979.
doi:10.1080/02684520601046291.
[8] Council on Foreign Relations. “Making Intelligence Smarter: The Future of US Intelligence”. Retrieved 2007-10-21.
[9] Treverton, Gregory F. (July 2003). “Reshaping Intelli- gence to Share with “Ourselves"". Canadian Security In-
telligence Service. Treverton 2003. Retrieved 2007-10-
23.
[10] Wentz, Larry. “Lessons From Bosnia: The IFOR Expe- rience, IV. Intelligence Operations”. Retrieved 2007-10- 26.
[11] Desimone, Roberto; David Charles. “Towards an On- tology for Intelligence Analysis and Collection Manage- ment”(PDF). Desimone 2003. Retrieved 2007-10-26. [12] Sudoplatov, Pavel; Anatoli Sudoplatov, Jerrold L.
Schecter, Leona P. Schecter (1994). Special Tasks: The
Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness—A Soviet Spymaster.
Little, Brown and Company.ISBN 0-316-77352-2. [13] Congressional Research Service (December 6, 2006).
“Special Operations Forces (SOF) and CIA Paramilitary Operations: Issues for Congress”(PDF).
[14] Kahn, David(1996). The Codebreakers - The Story of
Secret Writing. Scribners.ISBN 0-684-83130-9. [15] Staff Study, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress (1996). “IC21: The Intelligence Community in the 21st Century”. Retrieved 2007-10-26.
Chapter 22
Interrogation
For other meanings of this and similar words (words starting “Interrog...”) see Interrogation (disambiguation).
A police interrogation room inSwitzerland.
Interrogation (also called questioning) isinterviewing as commonly employed by law enforcement officers, military personnel, andintelligence agencieswith the goal of eliciting useful information. Interrogation may involve a diverse array of techniques, ranging from developing a rapport with the subject, to outrighttorture.
22.1 Techniques
See also:Enhanced interrogation techniques
There are multiple techniques employed in interroga- tion including deception, torture, increasing suggestibil- ity, and the use of mind-altering drugs.
Interrogations in Jail, byAlessandro Magnasco, c. 1710
22.1.1 Suggestibility
A person’ssuggestibility is how willing they are to ac- cept and act on suggestions by others. Interrogators seek to increase a subject’s suggestibility. Methods used to increase suggestibility may include moderatesleep de- privation, exposure to constant white noise, and using GABAergic drugs such as sodium amytal or sodium thiopental. It should be noted that attempting to increase a subject’s suggestibility through these methods may vi- olate local and national laws concerning the treatment of detainees, and in some areas may be considered torture. Sleep deprivation, exposure to white noise, and the use of drugs may greatly inhibit a detainee’s ability to provide truthful and accurate information.
22.1.2 Deception
Deceptioncan form an important part of effective inter- rogation. In the United States, there is no law or reg- ulation that forbids the interrogator from lying about the strength of their case, from making misleading statements or from implying that the interviewee has already been implicated in the crime by someone else. See case law on trickery and deception (Frazier v. Cupp).[1]
As noted above, traditionally the issue of deception is considered from the perspective of the interrogator en- gaging in deception towards the individual being inter- rogated. Recently, work completed regarding effective interview methods used to gather information from indi- viduals who score in the medium to high range on mea-
22.1. TECHNIQUES 121
sures of psychopathology and are engaged in deception directed towards the interrogator have appeared in the literature.[2] [3]The importance of allowing the psycho- pathic interviewee to tell one lie after another and not confront until all of the lies have been presented is essen- tial when the goal is to use the interview to expose the improbable statements made during the interview in fu- ture court proceedings.
22.1.3
Good cop/bad cop
Main article:Good cop/bad cop
Good cop/bad cop is an interrogation technique in which
Omar Khadrpulling his hair in frustration during an interroga- tion by Canadian officials, February 2003
the officers take different sides. The 'bad cop' takes a neg- ative stance on the subject. This allows for the 'good cop' to sympathize with and defend the subject. The idea is to get the subject to trust the 'good cop' and provide him with the information they are looking for.
22.1.4
Pride-and-ego down
Main article:Pride-and-ego down
Pride-and-ego down is aU.S. Armyterm that refers to techniques used by captors ininterrogatingprisoners to encourage cooperation, usually consisting of “attacking the source’s sense of personal worth” and in an “attempt to redeem hispride, the source will usually involuntarily provide pertinent information in attempting to vindicate himself.”
22.1.5 Reid technique
Main article:Reid technique
TheReid techniqueis a trademarked interrogation tech- nique widely used by law enforcement agencies in North America. The technique (which requires interrogators to
watch the body language of suspects to detect deceit) has been criticized for being difficult to apply across cultures and elicitingfalse confessionsfrom innocent people.[4]
22.1.6 Mind-altering drugs
22.1.7 Torture
Main articles:TortureandThird degree (interrogation) The history of the state use of torture in interroga-
Half-hangingof suspectedUnited Irishmenby government troops in 1798
tions extends over more than 2,000 years in Europe— though it was recognized early on as the Roman impe- rial jurist Ulpian in the third century A.D. cautioned, that information extracted under duress was deceptive and untrustworthy.[5] There is “no means of obtaining the truth” from those who have the strength to resist says Ulpian, while others unable to withstand the pain “will tell any lie rather than suffer it.”[6]
The use of torture as an investigative technique waned with the rise of Christianity since it was considered “anti- thetical to Christ’s teachings,” and in 866 Pope Nicholas I banned the practice.[6]But after the 13th century many European states such as Germany, Italy, and Spain be- gan to return to physical abuse for religiousinquisition, and for secular investigations.[6]By the 18th century the spreading influence of the Enlightenment led European
122 CHAPTER 22. INTERROGATION
nations to abandon officially state-sanctioned interroga- tion by torture. By 1874 Victor Hugocould plausibly claim that “torture has ceased to exist.”[7]Yet in the 20th century authoritarian states such as Mussolini’s Fascist Italy, Hitler’s Third Reich, and Lenin’s and Stalin’s Soviet Union once again resumed the practice, and on a massive scale.[7]
The most recent and most prominent instance of the use of torture in interrogation is that of the AmericanCIA. After the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, the CIA became both student and teacher of torture, propagating torture techniques worldwide to support anti- Communist regimes during theCold War.[8] The CIA adopted methods used by the Gestapo, KGB and North Koreans from their involvement in theKorean Warsuch aswaterboarding, sleep deprivation, and the use of elec- tric shock, and researched new ideas: so-called 'no-touch' torture involving sensory deprivation, self-inflicted pain, and psychological stress.[9] The CIA taught its refined techniques of torture through police and military train- ing to American-supported regimes in the Middle East, in Southeast Asia during the bloodyPhoenix program, and throughout Latin America duringOperation Condor.[10] Torture also became widespread in some Asian nations and South Pacific nations, in Malasia, the Philippines and elsewhere, both for interrogation and to terrorize oppo- nents of the regime. “In its pursuit of torturers across the globe for the past forty years,” writer Alfred Mc- Coy notes, “Amnesty International has been, in a certain sense, following the trail of CIA programs.”[11]
After the revelation of CIA sponsored torture in the 1970s and the subsequent outcry, the CIA largely stopped its own interrogations under torture and throughout the 1980s and 1990s “outsourced” such interrogation through renditions of prisoners to third world allies, often called torture-by-proxy.[12]But in the furor over theSeptember 11 attacks, American authorities cast aside scruples,[13] legally authorizing some forms of interrogation by torture under euphemisms such as "enhanced interrogation"[14] or “interrogation in depth”[15] to collect intelligence on Al Qaeda, starting in 2002.[16] Ultimately the CIA, the US military, and their contract employees tortured un- told thousands atAbu Ghraib,Bagram, and secret black site prisons scattered around the globe, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA tortureand the bipartisan U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee report[17][18]Whether these interrogations under torture produced useful information ishotly disputed.[19] The administration of President Obama in 2009 prohib- ited so-called enhanced interrogation, and as of March 2012 there is no longer a nation which openly ad- mits to deliberate abuse of prisoners for purposes of interrogation.[20][21]