Analysis of Interrogation Methods as a Means to Gathering Information

Interrogation is a method that the military normally uses to obtain information from suspicious individuals and groups. The purpose of this process is to enable individuals to recognize or abandon information that leads to rehabilitation or prevent future risks. There are several ways to collect information using queries. Since the attack on September 11, 2001, since the US military has been involved in various information gathering around the world, we have forced interrogators to provide leadership information to deal with various security threats.

The arguments for the US "Enhanced Interrogation Technology" argue that these methods are necessary to obtain information from non-cooperative terrorist organizations. In this article, we will present an academic perspective based on information on such statements. The theory and research of psychology shows that the severe interrogation method has no effect. First of all, they may increase the resistance of the subject rather than promote cooperation. Second, the threat and confrontation of rigorous testing often does not promote the purpose of retrieving information from memory, thus reducing the likelihood that the subject will provide a wide and detailed and accurate report. Third, the strict interrogation method makes it difficult to discover lies. There is evidence that the effectiveness of relationship-based information gathering methods can be used as a substitute for rigorous exams.

706515 PPSXXX 10.1177 / 1745691617706515 Vrij et al. Psychological perspective on interrogative research - Article 2017

The scholarly supporters of the compulsory court system legitimately sanctioned since September 11 seems to believe that it is an effective means of gathering information without detailed analysis. For example, Bagaric and Clarke (2005) argues that "the main advantage of torture is an excellent way to gather information" (581). In analyzing possible defects and benefits of compulsory testing, the evidence cited by Posner and Vimel (2005) suggests that they believe that "forced interrogation strongly suggests that they can save lives" (2). Likewise, Alan Dershowitz (2002) stated that torture is "feasible even when it is not always effective" and "in many cases the true information necessary to prevent civilian harm is I will self-certify. " ) By contrast, others think that it is invalid.