9-23. HUMINT information often has the capability to be more accurate and reliable than other disciplines. SIGINT information, for example, is not always able to return to the original source of the information to determine the reliability of the information, and interpretation of IMINT information may be uncertain. However, while HUMINT can be reviewed for reliability, determining the reliability of human sources is a continuous process accomplished by carefully assessing not only the sources of information but also assessing the information itself.
9-24. Detection of deception is not a simple process, and it normally takes years of experience before a HUMINT collector can readily identify deliberate deceit. Inconsistencies in the source’s actions or words do not necessarily indicate a lie, just as consistency is not necessarily a guarantee of the truth.
However, a pattern of inconsistencies or unexplainable inconsistencies normally indicate deceit.
TECHNIQUES FOR IDENTIFYING DECEIT
9-25. Techniques for identifying deceit include but are not limited to the following:
• Repeat and control questions (see paras 9-9 and 9-10).
• Internal inconsistencies. Frequently when a source is lying, the HUMINT collector will be able to identify inconsistencies in the timeline, the circumstances surrounding key events, or other areas within the questioning. For example, the source may spend a long time explaining something that took a short time to happen, or a short time telling of an event that took a relatively long time to happen. These internal inconsistencies often indicate deception.
• Body language does not match verbal message. An extreme example of this would be the source relating a harrowing experience while sitting back in a relaxed position. The HUMINT collector must be careful in using this clue since body language is culturally dependent. Failing to make eye contact in the US is considered a sign of deceit while in some Asian countries it is considered polite.
• Knowledge does not match duty position or access. Based on the source’s job, duty position, or access the HUMINT collector should have
_________________________________________________________________________________FM 2-22.3 developed a basic idea of the type and degree of information that an individual source should know. When the source’s answers show that he does not have the expected level of information (too much or too little or different information than expected), this may be an indicator of deceit. The HUMINT collector needs to determine the source of unexpected information.
• Information is serving. Reporting of information that is self-serving to an individual or his group should be suspect. For example, a member of one ethnic group reporting generic atrocities by an opposing ethnic group or a source reporting exactly the right information needed to receive a promised incentive should be suspect. That is not to say that the information is necessarily false, just that the HUMINT collector needs to be sure to verify the information.
• Lack of extraneous detail. Often false information will lack the detail of truthful information, especially when the lie is spontaneous. The HUMINT collector needs to ask follow-up questions to obtain the detail. When the source is unable to provide the details that they should know, it is an indicator of deceit. If the source does provide this additional information, it needs to be checked for internal inconsistencies and verified by repeat questions.
• Repeated answers with exact wording and details. Often if a source plans on lying about a topic, he will memorize what he is going to say.
If the source always relates an incident using exactly the same wording or answers repeat questions identically (word for word) to the original question, it may be an indicator of deceit. In an extreme case, if the source is interrupted in the middle of a statement on a given topic, he will have to start at the beginning in order to “get his story straight.”
• Source appearance does not match story. If the source’s physical appearance does not match his story, it may be an indication of deceit.
Examples of this include the source who says he is a farmer but lacks calluses on his hands or the supposed private who has a tailored uniform.
• Source’s language usage does not match story. If the type of language, including sentence structure and vocabulary, does not match the source’s story, this may be an indicator of deceit. Examples of this include a farmer using university level language or a civilian using military slang.
• Lack of technical vocabulary. Every occupation has its own jargon and technical vocabulary. If the source does not use the proper technical vocabulary to match his story, this may be an indictor of deceit. The HUMINT collector may require the support of an analyst or technical expert to identify this type of deceit.
• Physical cues. The source may display physical signs of nervousness such as sweating or nervous movement. These signs may be indicators of deceit. The fact that an individual is being questioned may in itself be cause for some individuals to display nervousness. The HUMINT collector must be able to distinguish between this type of activity and nervous activity related to a particular topic. Physical reaction to a
FM 2-22.3 _________________________________________________________________________________
particular topic may simply indicate a strong emotional response rather than lying, but it should key the HUMINT collector to look for other indicators of deceit.
• Failure to answer the question asked. When a source wishes to evade a topic, he will often provide an answer that is evasive and not in response to the question asked. For example, if the source is asked,
"Are you a member of the insurgent organization?” and he replies, “I support the opposition party in the legislature,” he has truthfully answered a question, but not the question that was asked. This is a subtle form of deceit since the source is seemingly cooperative but is in fact evading providing complete answers.
ACTIONS UPON IDENTIFYING INDICATORS OF DECEIT
9-26. The exact actions by the HUMINT collector when identifying possible deceit are dependent on the type of collection, the circumstances of the collection, the specific sign of deceit observed, the type of approach used, and cultural factors. The HUMINT collector may—
• Question the topic in more detail looking for additional indicators.
• Reinforce the approach.
• Move to another topic and revisit the original topic later with repeat questions. Ask control questions (confirmed by known data) and questions to which the source should know the answer to see if he answers honestly.
• Point out the inconsistency to the source and ask for an explanation.
• Seek assistance from a more experienced HUMINT collector, analyst, or a technical expert on the culture or the topic being questioned.
• Conduct continuous assessments of source (see FM 34-5 (S//NF)).
• Research established databases.
• Ask yourself if the information makes sense; if not, conduct more research.
• Consider how the information was obtained.
• Compare the information provided to the source’s placement and access.
• Compare answers with other sources with similar placement and access. Be aware that this method is merely a rough tool to check veracity and should not be used by the collector to confirm intelligence.
• Use the polygraph.
• Consider that a source motivated primarily by money will likely be tempted to fabricate information in order to get paid.
• Be aware that a source may read the local newspaper to report information that is already known or may also be providing information to another agency.
9-27. The one thing that the HUMINT collector cannot do is to ignore signs of deceit.
_________________________________________________________________________________FM 2-22.3