What is your principal objection to Torture?

[Savannahmann]

84. Indeed? Perhaps you should speak with Alan West.

You may remember the former Congressman from Florida. Before being elected to Congress, he was forced to resign from the military in a deal to avoid a Courts Martial for torturing a prisoner.

http://wonkette.com/552058/allen-west-tortured-iraqi-cop-avoided-court-martial-kept-pension-hey-its-not-like-he-was-gay

The interrogators convinced that the Iraqi police officer was lying, reported frustration at not getting him to talk. So Colonel West stormed in and placed his pistol next to the ear of the suspect, and pulled the trigger to "scare him into talking". That this leads to permanent damage to hearing is well known, but damn it there were lives on the line here. End result, the Iraqi Police officer started tot talk. He provided lots of information. Unfortunately, none of it was true. You see, he was actually innocent.

Let's be honest shall we, if only for a moment. Most people possess information that would be considered tactical. That is to say that the information they have is useful today, but pretty much useless tomorrow. They don't have any strategic information. So by the time you torture them enough that they break, and start getting information, even if it is true which in the case of Alan West, it wasn't, it's old and obsolete information that provides you with nothing useful.

Let's look at history, and the success or failure of interrogations. The technique most often successful is not torture, nor even drugs to induce a hypnotic state. It is befriending the subject. Child Molesters, Rapists, even Serial Killers are often coaxed to speak by understanding and reasonable interrogations. It is difficult for the interrogator, to understand and sympathize with the subject, especially the child predators, but it is very often successful. How many strong arm interrogations have been later found to lead to a conviction of an innocent individual? Here's a report on interrogation techniques. What is disappointing, is despite the advances in psychiatry and psychology, we still return to the 19th century as soon as we want information. Best solution always seems like a chance to beat the information out of the subject.

Let's look at the case of Andrei Chikatilo. He was arrested on 21 November, and subjected to interrogations by the Russians. This was within months of the Soviet Union collapse, when the Miranda warning was scream all you want, we don't mind. Yet for eight days, at the hands of the Russian Police and security people, what was KGB until a few months before, Andrei Chikatilo resisted the interrogations. Then they had a Psychiatrist who had assisted in profiling the serial killer interview the suspect. Chikatilo broke down as the Doctor told him what he believed motivated the man. To prove he was the guilty one, Chikatilo took the investigators to the site where additional previously undiscovered victims were located.

In this case, as in most of them. Brutality did not work. Threats did not work. Intimidation did not work. What worked was one person sitting down and understanding the suspect. Excellent movie on this case, Citizen X. I've read a couple books on the case as well, brilliant work by a handful of fairly open minded investigators. People who were confident enough in themselves to admit when the routine was not working.

Torture will get you information, eventually. But it will almost certainly be useless or false. History shows that. Finding excuses or what if scenarios where it would work should be left to the realm of fiction, instead of being discussed as a real policy suggestion.