Effectiveness of torture for interrogation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Torture has been used throughout history for the purpose of obtaining information in interrogation, although there is limited information available to scientists on its effectiveness.[1] Torture, while widely illegal and a violation of international law, has been frequently cited as generating false or misleading information and tending to impair subsequent information collection.[citation needed] However, a 2020 review by Ron Hassner found that although it has limits, "Torture may at times be effective in extracting useful intelligence".[2] The question of effectiveness of torture for interrogation is separate from discussion of whether it is effective for other uses, such as deterrence.[3][4]

Investigation of effectiveness[]

Governments that have used torture for interrogation on a large scale have not disclosed systematic information on how their torture programs were carried out, hampering efforts to investigate their effectiveness by those who lack access to classified information.[5] Young and Kearns state that "Experiments on whether or not torture is effective are extremely challenging to implement in a safe yet realistic way."[6] Ethical research studies require the informed consent of participants, making it impossible to experiment with nonconsensual torture.[7] In his book Why Torture Doesn’t Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation, neuroscientist Shane O'Mara argues that coercive interrogation and torture damage the areas of the brain that recall information.[8]

The checkability of confessions remains an important issue for the effectiveness of torture, since both the interrogator and the subject know that a checkable confession is more likely to be true.[9] Many torture survivors report revealing false or incomplete information since their goal was to satisfy the torturer and end the suffering, not to reveal information.[10]

In 2007, evaluating the available scientific evidence on the effectiveness of torture, Darius Rejali concludes: "In short, organized torture yields poor information, sweeps up many innocents, degrades organizational capabilities, and destroys interrogators. Limited time during battle or emergency intensifies all these problems."[11] Rejali acknowledges that it is possible that torture may yield useful information in some cases, but in general "torture is the clumsiest method available to organizations".[11] According to a 2017 article in Journal of Strategic Studies, "scientific evidence, expert testimony, and the historical record show that coercive interrogation is not effective in eliciting reliable information from prisoners".[12] A 2017 review in Psychological Perspectives on Interrogation asserts that "Psychological theory and research shows that harsh interrogation methods are ineffective."[13] A 2020 review by Ron Hassner found that "Torture may at times be effective in extracting useful intelligence", although it has limits similar to other sources of intelligence.[2]

Another issue with evaluating the effectiveness of torture is that even if current techniques of torture are not effective for interrogation, it is possible that more effective techniques will be developed in the future, such as an effective truth serum.[14]

Historical examples[]

Judicial use[]

Torture was routinely used for interrogation in ancient Greek and Roman law and in medieval Roman law (but not in ancient Hebrew or medieval English law). It was argued that torture could be relied on at least in cases where the result could be checked (for example, if the accused confessed to burying the murder weapon under a certain tree, the judge should send someone to dig it up.)[15] But confessions under torture were believed in a wide range of uncheckable cases, such as heresy and witchcraft.[citation needed]

One early writer on the ineffectiveness of torture was Friedrich Spee (1591-1635), a German Jesuit priest, professor, and poet who was most noted as an opponent of trials for witchcraft. He was the first person in his time to present strong written and spoken arguments against torture, especially with regards to its unreliability in obtaining "truth" from someone undergoing painful questioning.[16][15]: 57–8 

Military use[]

World War II[]

After the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, the Japanese military tortured a captured American P-51 fighter pilot, Marcus McDilda, to discover how many atomic bombs the Allies had and what the future targets were. McDilda, who knew nothing about the atomic bomb or the Manhattan Project, "confessed" under torture that the US had 100 atomic bombs and that Tokyo and Kyoto were the next targets. McDilda's false confession may have swayed the Japanese leaders' decision to surrender.[17]

Interrogation was only the source of a subset of the Gestapo's intelligence; it heavily relied on voluntary and use of informers.[18] The Gestapo tortured leaders of several national resistance movements but most did not break.[19]

1992 US Army Field Manual[]

FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation, the United States Army field manual, explains that torture "is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."[20]

War on Terror and 2003 invasion of Iraq[]

Main article: enhanced interrogation techniques

False information about a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda was extracted from Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi through torture[21][22] and was cited by the George W. Bush Administration in the months preceding its 2003 invasion of Iraq.[23][24] That information was frequently repeated by members of the Bush Administration, although reports from both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) strongly questioned its credibility, suggesting that al-Libi was "intentionally misleading" interrogators.[25] The CIA Inspector General's does not support the position that torture is effective for interrogation.[26]

Since the revelations in 2004 and 2008 that the President George W. Bush administration authorized the use of torture in interrogations, and that United States personnel have used such practices in interrogations related to the 9/11 attacks and al-Qaeda, both at black sites and at Guantánamo Bay detention camp, discussions on the topic have been heated. In commenting on the use and effectiveness of various torture methods, with a focus on waterboarding, former U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, wrote in 2009 that "high value information came from interrogations in which these methods were used".[27] However, a Senate Committee that investigated claims of useful information being extracted from suspects that underwent enhanced interrogation concluded that critical and valuable information was not obtained using these methods.[28] The 6,700-page Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture also concluded that the CIA had repeatedly and deliberately impeded oversight and misrepresented the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation technique to policymakers and to the public through coordinated leaking of false information.[29]: 4 [30]

Ethics[]

Further information: Ethical arguments regarding torture

Some critics of torture have made consequentialist arguments against it on the grounds that it does not work. However, Ron Hassner argues that evidence about the effectiveness of torture "will never suffice to answer the most important question of all: 'Does the quality of intelligence extracted by means of torture justify the moral cost of torture?'" Hassner criticizes torture on deontological grounds.[31] According to one study, people who believe torture is inherently immoral are more likely to believe it is ineffective.[32]

Public opinion[]

Many people believe that torture works, or that it can even provide a silver bullet in counterterrorism efforts.[33][34] The TV show 24 depicted torture as effective, increasing support for torture among Americans.[35] Research indicates that some Americans will support torture if they believe it is effective, but also a non-negligible number will support torture even if they do not perceive it as an effective source of intelligence.[35]

References[]

  1. ^ Hassner 2020, pp. 2–3.
  2. ^ Jump up to: a b Hassner 2020, pp. 7, 26.
  3. ^ Young & Kearns 2020, pp. 12–13.
  4. ^ Hassner 2020, p. 4.
  5. ^ Hassner 2020, pp. 2, 25.
  6. ^ Young & Kearns 2020, p. 161.
  7. ^ Fritz Allhoff, ed. (2008). Physicians at war: the dual-loyalties challenge. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9781402069123 – via Google Books.
  8. ^ Jacobson 2017, p. 102.
  9. ^ Franklin, James (2009). "Evidence gained from torture: wishful thinking, checkability and extreme circumstances," (PDF). Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law. 17 (2): 281–290. Retrieved 29 June 2021.
  10. ^ Costanza, Mark A.; Gerrity, Ellen (December 2009). "The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate" (PDF). Social Issues and Policy Review. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 April 2013. Retrieved 5 March 2013.
  11. ^ Jump up to: a b Rejali 2009, p. 478.
  12. ^ Jacobson 2017, pp. 101–102.
  13. ^ Vrij et al. 2017, p. 927.
  14. ^ Hassner 2020, p. 26.
  15. ^ Jump up to: a b Franklin, James (2001). The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 26-27. ISBN 0-8018-6569-7.
  16. ^ Friedrich Spee von Langenfeld: Cautio Criminalis, or a Book on Witch Trials (1631), translated by Marcus Hellyer. University of Virginia Press, 2003. ISBN 0-8139-2182-1. The translator's introduction (pp. vii–xxxvi) contains many details on Spee's life.
  17. ^ Jerome T. Hagen (1996). War in the Pacific, Chapter 25 "The Lie of Marcus McDilda". Hawaii Pacific University. ISBN 978-0-9653927-0-9.
  18. ^ Rejali 2009, pp. 493–494.
  19. ^ Rejali 2009, p. 496.
  20. ^ United States Department of the Army (28 September 1992). FM 34-52: Intelligence Interrogation (PDF). pp. 1–8.
  21. ^ Schecter, Cliff (2008). . PoliPointPress. p. 124. ISBN 978-0-9794822-9-8.
  22. ^ "Rand Beers". The Washington Monthly. January 2008. Archived from the original on 23 June 2011. Retrieved 2 September 2010. was interrogated by both the United States and Egypt, and—as was publicly reported—tortured by Egyptian authorities
  23. ^ Isikoff, Michael; Mark Hosenball (11 June 2008). "Spies, Lies and the White House". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 13 June 2008. Retrieved 23 April 2009.
  24. ^ Isikoff, Michael; Mark Hosenball (12 May 2009). "Death in Libya". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 16 March 2010. Retrieved 13 May 2009.
  25. ^ Bush's War Archived 11 December 2018 at the Wayback Machine. Directed by Michael Kirk. Frontline. 25 March 2008
  26. ^ Blakeley 2011, p. 244.
  27. ^ "Interrogations' Effectiveness May Prove Elusive". The New York Times. 22 April 2009. Archived from the original on 23 November 2018. Retrieved 5 March 2013.
  28. ^ Burke, Jason (26 January 2017). "Does torture work – and is it worth the cost?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 30 December 2018.
  29. ^ "Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program, Foreword by Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein, Findings and Conclusions, Executive Summary" (PDF). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 December 2014. Retrieved 15 June 2015. Declassification Revisions December 3, 2014
  30. ^ Mazzetti, Mark (9 December 2014). "Senate Torture Report Condemns C.I.A. Interrogation Program". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 9 December 2014. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
  31. ^ Hassner 2020, pp. 24–25.
  32. ^ Leidner et al. 2018, p. 3.
  33. ^ Hassner 2020, p. 7.
  34. ^ Janoff-Bulman 2007, p. 429.
  35. ^ Jump up to: a b Young & Kearns 2020, p. 156.

Sources[]

  • Alison, Laurence; Alison, Emily (2017). "Revenge versus rapport: Interrogation, terrorism, and torture". American Psychologist. 72 (3): 266–277. doi:10.1037/amp0000064.
  • Blakeley, Ruth (2011). "Dirty Hands, Clean Conscience? The CIA Inspector General's Investigation of "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" in the War on Terror and the Torture Debate". Journal of Human Rights. 10 (4): 544–561. doi:10.1080/14754835.2011.619406.
  • Hassner, Ron E. (2020). "What Do We Know about Interrogational Torture?". International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence. 33 (1): 4–42. doi:10.1080/08850607.2019.1660951.
  • Jacobson, Adam D. (2017). "Could the United States Reinstitute an Official Torture Policy?". Journal of Strategic Security. 10 (2): 97–118. ISSN 1944-0464.
  • Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie (2007). "Erroneous assumptions: Popular belief in the effectiveness of torture interrogation". Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology. 13 (4): 429–435. doi:10.1080/10781910701665766.
  • Leidner, Bernhard; Kardos, Peter; Castano, Emanuele (2018). "The Effects of Moral and Pragmatic Arguments Against Torture on Demands for Judicial Reform: Arguments Against Torture". Political Psychology. 39 (1): 143–162. doi:10.1111/pops.12386.
  • Miles, Steven H. (2009). Oath Betrayed: America’s Torture Doctors. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25968-3.
  • Rejali, Darius (2009). Torture and Democracy. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-3087-9.
  • Vrij, Aldert; Meissner, Christian A.; Fisher, Ronald P.; Kassin, Saul M.; Morgan, Charles A.; Kleinman, Steven M. (2017). "Psychological Perspectives on Interrogation". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 12 (6): 927–955. doi:10.1177/1745691617706515.
  • Young, Joseph K.; Kearns, Erin M. (2020). Tortured Logic: Why Some Americans Support the Use of Torture in Counterterrorism. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-54809-0.

Further reading[]

  • Siems, Larry (2012). The Torture Report: What the Documents say about America's Post 9/11 Torture Program. OR Books. ISBN 978-1-935928-55-3.
  • Ridley, Yvonne (13 September 2016). Torture: Does It Work? Interrogation issues and effectiveness in the Global War on Terror. ISBN 978-1782668305.
  • Barela, Steven J.; Fallon, Mark; Gaggioli, Gloria; Ohlin, Jens David (2020). Interrogation and Torture: Integrating Efficacy with Law and Morality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-009752-3.
Retrieved from ""