Interrogational torture

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] Although the CIA has argued that torture for information is a science, O'Mara argues that it is in fact pseudoscience.[9]

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.[10] 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.[11]

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."[12] 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".[12] 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".[13] A 2017 review in Psychological Perspectives on Interrogation asserts that "Psychological theory and research shows that harsh interrogation methods are ineffective."[14]

Research on the history of torture suggests that torture has, at times, proven quite effective in extracting reliable information from reluctant detainees.[15] For example, in Toledo, Spain, the Spanish Inquisition interrogated 1046 people between 1575 and 1610. It tortured 123 of these people. Of those who were not tortured, 42% provided the court with evidence that the court considered useful. Of those who were tortured, 29% collaborated, a notable rate since only the most steadfast individuals, who refused to collaborate without torture, were ultimately sent to the torture chamber.[16] The evidence revealed in the torture chambers of the Inquisition matched evidence provided by detainees that were not tortured: They named the same persons, places, religious practices, and events. During the Philippine War (1899-1902), Filipino detainees were subjected to “water torture”. According to one Senate Committee testimony, about two-thirds of those tortured collaborated and revealed the locations of weapons caches.[17] More recently in Iraq, Saddam Hussein ordered the torture of suspected regime opponents. Of the 31 detainees who later told scholars that they had indeed acted to undermine the regime, twelve (39%) also admitted that they had provided accurate information about their activities under torture.[18] Nonetheless, Hassner argues that it is impossible to improvise quick and brutal torture and expect successful results: "Our society would have to acquiesce to a massive bureaucratized torture campaign, at times of peace or war, that targeted thousands, from all walks of life, regardless of culpability, to extract modest intelligence that was, at best, corroborative".[19]

Many people believe that torture works, or that it can even provide a silver bullet in counterterrorism efforts.[37][38] The TV show 24 depicted torture as effective, increasing support for torture among Americans.[39] 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.[39] The 2012 film Zero Dark Thirty, depicting the manhunt for Osama bin Laden, was criticized by some journalists for portraying torture as effective and key in gaining intelligence that led to the discovery of bin Laden's compound.[40][41]

Public opinion on the use of torture for interrogation varies widely, with the lowest support recorded in West European countries and the highest support found in Turkey and South Korea (where most respondents supported the use of torture for interrogation) as well as in Kenya, Nigeria, and India among 31 countries surveyed between 2006 and 2008.[42] A 2016 ICRC survey of 16 nations found that support for torture to obtain military information was highest in Israel, Nigeria, the U.S.A, and Iraq, and lowest in Yemen, Colombia, Switzerland, and China.[43][44] A study by Jeremy D. Mayer, Naoru Koizumi, and Ammar Anees Malik found that opposition to the usage of torture in interrogation was correlated with stronger political rights but not economic development or the threat of terrorism.[45] According to one study, people who believe torture is inherently immoral are more likely to believe it is ineffective.[46]

• Rubber-hose cryptanalysis
• Forced confession

• 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.
• Schiemann, John W. (2016). Does Torture Work?. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-026236-5.