INFORMATION is power. Ask a police officer or military commander and they will tell you that access to high-quality intelligence can make the difference between success and failure. It is perhaps their most valuable asset.
A prime source of such information is interrogation – not only to discover details of specific plans, but also to glean vital background information on crime, military dispositions or terrorism. The intelligence agencies set great store by interrogation – just look at the efforts of the US authorities in the continuing “war on terror”, which is being fought as much in the interrogation cells of Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and Kandahar as in the streets of Iraq or the mountains of Afghanistan.
Interrogation is inherently controversial. The techniques used by its practitioners, from trickery and mind games to sleep deprivation, intimidation and humiliation, have been honed over the years, often by drawing on findings from experimental psychology. One often forgotten consequence of these methods is their impact on the people being interrogated. They can trigger long-term depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, which without treatment can persist for decades (see “We have ways…” and “The prisoner”).
Advertisement
What’s more, there is controversy over the value of interrogation. On the one hand, studies have shown that only a small proportion of crimes are ever solved directly by information garnered this way. On the other, some interrogators can point to specific instances where they have prevented crimes or atrocities. The former chief interrogator of the Israeli security service, whom we interview on page 46, is in no doubt about the value of his work. He quotes several cases in which he persuaded captured Palestinian militants to reveal crucial details about planned suicide bomb attacks.
At best, interrogation demands that a person be detained, usually against their will, and often put under considerable emotional stress. At worst, people can be isolated for weeks, months or even years, and subjected to threats and abuse. The point at which harsh interrogation becomes torture is often far from clear. Sometimes, interrogators overstep the mark, leading to gross miscarriages of justice (see “Confession”).
Despite all this, interrogation continues to be an important weapon in the armoury of even the most liberal societies, and perhaps always will be. So where do we draw the line? Just how much harm can we risk inflicting on individuals to protect the majority?
Judge for yourself…
