Negotiation theory, first articulated in the 1960s, consists, some 40 years later, of

a significant inventory of well-tested propositions. The focus has been on how

individuals can develop sufficient trust in one another to exchange information

about their preferences, then seek an accommodation of their differences. As the

authors who write on this subject in the anthology concede, they are not entirely

sure how good the fit is between negotiation behavior and interrogations; how-

ever, their work suggests heuristic parallels and their call for more research

about the similarities makes sense.

Perhaps the most appealing and relevant aspect of negotiation theory is the princi-

ple that one should try to learn as much as possible about an opponent’s strengths,

weaknesses, fears, needs, and aspirations. This is exactly what good interrogators

try to do as well. It is an approach that can lead to the development of a human

connection between two sides. In contrast to the adoption of harsh measures

involving the use of force, interrogations that rely on building rapport with a sub-

ject—so vital to successful negotiations—would seem an attractive method. It has

the added advantage of comporting well with America’s long-standing devotion to

human rights and fair play. As with virtually all aspects of interrogation as a disci-

pline of study, this rapport hypothesis has not been systematically and thoroughly

tested. The tenets of negotiation theory may provide a valuable framework for

additional scientific testing of interrogation practices.

Just as one appreciates the solid work that has gone into this initial exploration

into interrogation, so does one look forward to further findings in the anticipated

Phase II. The Intelligence Science Board should be careful, though, not to cast its

net too narrowly, focusing only on the empirical science of how most profitably to

question subjects. While this topic is important, the board needs to pay attention

as well (as it does only fleetingly here) to the key ethical and foreign policy impli-

cations of interrogation techniques.

Perhaps nothing has hurt America’s standing in the world so much recently as

the media stories related to Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, secret detention centers

abroad, and extraordinary renditions. All are related to interrogation as a means

of intelligence collection. Any research team that looks seriously into the topic of

interrogation should pay closer attention to this broader picture. Interrogation

methods are not just about what works best to gather information; they are also

about what can stand the light of day from a moral point of view in the eyes of

American citizens and people around the world. For the next iteration, the Intel-

ligence Science Board may wish to have an ethicist on board, and perhaps an

expert or two who can look at the wider foreign policy implications that flow from

the choices America makes about how to question detainees.

It would be helpful, as well, to have someone prepare a more refined index in the

next volume, rather than simply offer a list of terms with dozens of page num-

bers that follow each item.

One can only wish the board well in carrying forward this vital research, helping

the United States find better ways to protect itself through interrogations with-