“Ask yourself this question: If one of your loved ones was being held by some psychopath, who threatened rape, torture or murder and police had one of his/her accomplices. Time is running out to save your loved one a gruesome death. To what level would you authorize the police to extract information from the accomplice that might save your loved one?”
Excellent hypothetical. Frankly, I don’t know the answer to that. My first reaction would be to use whatever method’s necessary in order to extract information.
It’s seems rather cut-and-dry, but I don’t know if it’s that simple. What if the authorities have the wrong person, and this individual doesn’t know anything? The possibility’s disturbing.
I digress, your logic far exceeds my professional experience.
That's the beauty of it! Waterboard them enough, and they'll confess to anything! Real efficient.
In interrogation, you don't bother asking questions you can't verify.
"You're the wrong person? You weren't in the warehouse at 2pm? Where WERE you, then? Who was with you? Who can vouch for your being there? Where do they live? How long have you known them?"
You keep asking questions, and keep going back to prior questions. Under stress, it's hard to remember the lies you told, and keep them straight. If you're lying, your answers won't stay consistent. When your answers show discrepancies, if a car was red the first time you answered but now it's blue, they know you're making up a story.