[PAGE 1]
A/B,1,815 Office Menmorandumn UNITED STATES GOvERNMENT

To: Chief, Security Research Staff, I?S

DATE: 1l February 1953

FROM : Chief, Technical Dranch, SRS, I&S

Division Nemorandum dated 21 Novenber 1952 (Sodium Pentothal).

1600

l. This Office has studied the subject memorandum and comments are set out immediately following. As you are well aware, the AkTI-CHOIE technique consists not only in studying methods of obtaining information from individuals or from gaining control of their wills but studying at the same time every conceivable technique that can be brought to bear to prevent others from extracting information from our poople or gaining control of the will of our people. In studying these problems, this Office is quite well acquainted with the effects of Rensedrine,Picrotoxin, Caffeine, etc., etc. In the subject memorandum, theDivision Logistics in Paragraph 2, sub-Paragraphs a,b, and c have in a general sense correctly listed some of the main limitations on counteracting drugs which could be used against the effects of Sodium Amytal or Pentothal. Some comments can be made in this connection.

A. In reference to Paragraph 2, sub-Pararraph a, the problem has been very accurately stated in that there is no way of knowing howv much of the counteracting agent would have to be taken to successfully counter the effect of amytal or pentothal--the supject's physical condition, whether he was hungry or not, suffering from fatigue or nervous exhaustion, etc. would all affect this. In addition, different tolerances to these counteracting drugs are noted in each individual. It may be said that in certain persons a given specific dose of Strychnine might not produce more than a mild stirilating action while in others a given dose might produce a convulsion, coma or possible death.

B. In connection with Paragraph 2, sub-Paragraph b, it should be stated that the thorough searchiny of a person is a standard procedire in most intorrogation centors and although drugs could be concealed in many placos on the porson (such as tho rectum), nevertheless, competent searching would reveal even this.

[PAGE 2]
C. In connection with Faragraph 2, sub-Faragraph c, it should also be stated that a physician or quite probably a trained interrogator would immediately suspect the effect of counteracting drugs (or that something was umsual) since in the first place the Souium Pentothal or Amytol would not be producing the proper reactions and in the second place, Fenzedrine and other stimulants usually produce specific effects such as nervousness, trembling, rapid heartbeat, quick breathing, etc., in the person taking. them. Any compctent interrogator or interrogation team would recognize "umusual" activity on the part of the one being interrogated and would seek thc meaning of this and, if nothing else, would delay the interrogation for a day, or week if necessary, to make certain the individual to be handled was reacting properly to Pentothal or Amytal or any other of the hypnotic-type drugs.

2. In addition to corments set out in sub-Paragraphs A,, and C above, there are other items that would add to the difficulty in this probler. For instance, the subject would have no kaowlodge cf the type of dmir he was to be given. The subjcct night, therefore, take a counteracting drug wnich would possibly have no effect on the drug given or perhaps multiply the effect and create severe poisoning or bodily disturbances. In this connection, there are mmerous roports that indicate that the Soviet Union and their satellites have used Benzedrine as an agent in producing cortain oesired effects prior to and during interrogntion. If the subject did not know he vas to be given Fenzedrine and took one of the stimulants or took: Penzodrinc itself, the effect of the two uoses conceivally would causc hirily noticeable resilts and prohahly nausea. If he was given Picrotoxin and he had previously taken Picrotoxin, the results would he dangerous as Picrotoxin is quite toxic. A double dosage·of Strychnine might well prove fatal aná at the least ccnvulsive.

3. With refcrence to Paragraph 3 of the subject memorandum, this branch foels that the, pararach is somewhat erroneous in that there is censiderable amcunt of professional opinion that rcflccts that in certain cases, if the drugs are administered properly snd if the interrogator is persistent and cievor enough, information, regardless of how sensitive it is. nay be extracted from indivicuals under the influence of various drugs or combinations.

h. It should te noted that the ARTICliOlE Staff recognizos that sore individuals are cxtrenely difficult to chtain inlormation from,

.2.

[PAGE 3]
but nov chemicals, new and more advanced techniques will possibly in the future produce far more valuable and positive results than are obtained today under the old "truth serum" approach. It should always. be renembored that often it is only necessary to obtain one small bit of information that is verifiable to break a case wide open.

5. This office would, of course, be delighted if any chemical or combination of chemicals or tochniques could be discovered to prevent the extraction of information from our peoplc, but at the present time wc are not avare of any technique, device or chenicel (other than a lethal dose) that will totally prevent an individual from giving pertinent information while under ths influence of chemicals or if subjected to sustained and clever interrogation accompanied by pressures, physical or otherwise.

6. It is suggested that thememorandum of 21 November 1952 be turned over to the liedical Division with the infornal cormcnts of this Office. It is believed that they would give further advanced technical reasons why neutralizing agents such as those nentioned in the basic memorandum would be ineffoctive.