opinionWar

A Former U.S. Army Interrogator on Why Torture Doesnt Work

The partisan carnival surrounding the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation of CIA detention and interrogation is frustrating. That advocates for the use of torture appear to have convinced much of the public that torture is sometimes necessary and justified is even more troubling. The arguments we hear are as old as the Republic: The Constitution is not a suicide pact; ensuring the safety of the American public sometimes requires nasty business; the men and women who participated in CIA’s detention program are patriots who did their very best under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. None of those arguments are necessarily wrong, but they are not relevant to the issue.

Like many of the report’s loudest detractors, I believe the United States is a source of and a force for good in the world. That so many people who claim to share my faith in this country have decided to defend the activities described in the report is demoralizing. The report is not without flaws, but the truths it exposes are so valuable that they overshadow any of its shortcomings.

I do not go as far as some others do in their denial of tortures effectiveness. There may very well be occasions when torture is an effective way of gaining discrete information. I will concede that. But any information gained through torture comes at the cost of so much valuable information that it does more harm than good. The problem is the reliability of any information gained. Studies and experience show that those subjected to torture are motivated primarily by a desire to stop the pain. They search for something they hope the interrogator wants to hear, something that confirms the interrogator’s expectations. That response, though compelling, is rarely the truth. Brutal interrogation methods put blinders on the interrogator. The opportunity to discover that perhaps the person does not know the information you are seeking is nearly lost when you commit yourself to using brutality.

Any information gained through torture comes at the cost of so much valuable information that it does more harm than good Our government should not be in the business of state sanctioned brutality against those who are defenseless, no matter what they have done, who they have worked for, or what they may know.

I was fortunate to arrive in Iraq after the Abu Ghraib scandal, when the rules were different. But I know from my own experience and from conversations Ive had with other interrogators and with detainees who were tortured that we all, even the most moral of people, have the capacity for brutality, and it is a far easier path to take than we think.

All the arguments proclaiming torture’s effectiveness ignore a terribly inconvenient counterargument: A smart interrogator can be much more effective without torture. I know that is true from my own success, as should anyone familiar with the interrogations that led to the killing of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the most widely publicized interrogation success story of the current wars. Furthermore, within the scope of a long-term interrogation plan, torture raises an obvious concern: Why would a good interrogator show his hand? If you torture someone, he knows exactly what you are after, exactly what you think is important. If you conceal your primary interest in a line of questioning about numerous things, he is left guessing what information you really need.

I feel sympathy for the people who used and authorized brutality in the detention programs. I was not in their position, and I do not know how I would have acted. I know the pressure, frustration, and temptation that leads interrogators and decision-makers to think torture is necessary. I would hate to hea