Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

guide suspects’ behavior. They also propose a classification system for
statements made during interrogation.
The Torture Debate
Arrigo, J. M. (2004). “A Utilitarian Argument against Torture Interrogation
of Terrorists.” Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (3), 543-572. An
earlier version of this paper presented at the Joint Services Conference
on Professional Ethics is available online at: http://www.usafa.af.mil/
jscope/JSCOPE03/Arrigo03.html. Accessed 5/8/2006.
Drawing from criminology, organizational theory, social psychology,
the historical record, and interviews with military professionals, the
author explores the potential of an official U.S. program of torture
interrogation of suspected terrorists from a practical viewpoint. Three
models of how torture interrogation leads to truth are examined. In
the animal instinct model, suspects give up information to escape pain
or death, with the prototype here being the “ticking bomb” scenario.
The cognitive failure model maintains that, due to physiological and
psychological stress, suspects are unable to maintain deception and
comply with the interrogator. This model is associated with the torture
of fanatics, martyrs, and heroes. To obtain reliable information, the data
processing model analyzes a large amount of data from indiscriminate
torture interrogation of many detainees. The dragnet interrogation of
terrorist suspects and their associates employs this model. The article
highlights special institutional requirements of and major hindrances
to each model and outlines the societal and political costs of torture
interrogation.
Casebeer, W. D. (2003). “Torture Interrogation of Terrorists: A Theory of
Exceptions” (With Notes, Cautions, and Warnings). Paper presented at
the Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics, Springfield, VA,
30-31 January. http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE03/Casebeer03.
html. Accessed 5/8/2006.
When is it morally permissible to engage in torture interrogation
The author attempts to answer this question using the three major
tools of moral analysis: utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue theory.
Walzer’s “Supreme Emergency” doctrine is applied to the justification
of torture interrogation. The author concludes that while torture might
be permissible in certain theoretical circumstances, these circumstances
will never arise in practice.
327