Does Torture Work?

Anne Applebaum, writing in the Washington Post on January 12, presents a very rational discussion of the effectiveness of torture. She wrote:

Just for a moment, let's pretend that there is no moral, legal or constitutional problem with torture. Let's also imagine a clear-cut case: a terrorist who knows where bombs are about to explode in Iraq. To stop him, it seems that a wide range of Americans would be prepared to endorse "cruel and unusual" methods. In advance of confirmation hearings for Attorney General-designate Alberto Gonzales last week, the Wall Street Journal argued that such scenarios must be debated, since "what's at stake in this controversy is nothing less than the ability of U.S. forces to interrogate enemies who want to murder innocent civilians." Alan Dershowitz, the liberal legal scholar, has argued in the past that interrogators in such a case should get a "torture warrant" from a judge. Both of these arguments rest on an assumption: that torture -- defined as physical pressure during interrogation -- can be used to extract useful information.

Applebaum looks at the reasons some believe torture works and cites examples used to support that view. She then presents the opinions and experiences of military officers who know better than most that outright torture isn't a very effective means of gaining information from prisoners. She concludes,

Perhaps it's reassuring to tell ourselves tales about the new forms of "toughness" we need, or to talk about the special rules we will create to defeat this special enemy. Unfortunately, that toughness is self-deceptive and self-destructive. Ultimately it will be self-defeating as well.

In general, I agree with her analysis. But we have to be careful how we define "torture." Convoluted definitions involving how many vital organs may be damaged or how close a prisoner may be brought to death, if that can be measured, are pointless. Current military regulations and policies define specific measures that may be taken, and that's about as much as can be done. Leaders in the field have to make decisions in specific circumstances, using regulations and policies as guidelines. Theirs is the awesome responsibility for upholding American standards, which are uniquely moral among most of the world's military forces, while at the same time gathering the information necessary to save lives and accomplish their mission. Carping from the sidelines by people who've never had that kind of responsibility isn't helpful.

Being very hard on a prisoner suspected of possessing critical information is sometimes necessary to encourage him to divulge what he knows. In my opinion, clear-cut cases of gaining information that saves many lives justifies harsh treatment indeed. On the other hand, skilled interrogators will also recognize circumstances when a prisoner who might not break under severe measures will sing like a bird if someone is nice to him. Or, in some cases, what works is "good cop-bad cop." Those who have mastered the art of interrogation will know which approach is more likely to work.

Military leaders, like the interrogators they command, understand that excessively tough treatment of a prisoner, if taken too far, can and often does result in false or misleading information. They understand the necessity of observing the limitations of U.S. policy and law and the provisions of international agreements. They also understand that it isn't in our interest to act in ways that can be used by our enemies as a justification for mistreating captured Americans. The difficult part is balancing these valid concerns against the sometimes immediate critical need to find out what a prisoner knows.

Of course, there are some kinds of actions that are never justifiable. This includes gratuitous mistreatment of prisoners, whether for sport or simply out of cruelty. It appears that this was a major component of what happened at Abu Ghraib and perhaps elsewhere. It should be understood for what it was, and those guilty of violations, including superiors who knew about it but didn't stop it, should be punished. But let's not make the mistake of assuming that this is routine rather than extraordinary, and in particular let's not underestimate the incredible difficulties faced by those who must make hard decisions in the field.