Torture Does Not Work

Jennifer S. Bryson, a former US interpreter and interrogator, wrote an article in Public Discourse that attacks the US Government's use of torture during the interrogations of terrorism suspects.  She joins the ranks of other experienced interrogators, such as Glenn Carle and Ali Soufan, who argue that the torture of detainees not only violates the law, but gathers inaccurate information that actually hurts the intelligence community.  Bryson's article, which I highly recommend every one reads, goes further to explain why torture during interrogations dehumanizes both the interrogator and the detainee, and why that dehumanization hurts the process of gathering useful intelligence:

All too often, inexperienced pundits have presented us with a stark choice between security and humane treatment of detainees. This is a false set of options. The real contrast is between torture, on the one hand, and security through interrogation consistent with respect for the humanity of the detainee, on the other.

. . .

I completed training provided by the military for uniformed, i.e., active duty and reservist, interrogators. During this training, I was fortunate to receive instruction from interrogators whose conflict experience ranged from the Vietnam War up to and including post-9/11 interrogations. These experienced, skilled professionals consistently taught that interrogation which follows the guidelines of the Army Field Manual, namely rapport-based interrogation, is both what is

First, torture is cruel and thus wrong. As Christopher Tollefsen explains, “if torture is understood to mean an intentional damaging of bodily or personal integrity, then it is intrinsically wrong, and hence absolutely prohibited.” Tollefsen goes on to explain how certain U.S. “interrogation” techniques really amounted to torture when used in combination: right and what works. My experience at Guantanamo consistently confirmed this.

. . .

What our nation needs is a rejection of torture in order to support intelligence collection through interrogation. We must eliminate the phrase “enhanced interrogation techniques” from our discussion. Methods implied by this phrase do not “enhance” interrogation. Techniques of cruelty and torture are no enhancement nor are they part of the interrogation methods of the U.S. military.

From my experience as an interrogator, I consider rejection of torture both an affirmation of human dignity and an expression of support for excellence, integrity, and long-term sustainability in intelligence collection.

Whether and how we Americans conduct interrogations reflect who we are as a people. Humane treatment of detainees, and interrogation, are vital for our security and they are, when carried out with excellence and integrity, entirely consistent with each other. For Americans voting soon in presidential and congressional primaries and elections, now is the time to consider that what we need is national level leadership that supports interrogation and rejects torture.

I could not have said that any better myself.  Too often in the national discussion in regards to the torture of detainees, the question is framed in a way to put National Security against Human Rights.  And in this country, when an unfortunate amount of the population considers respect for Human Rights as weakness against "The Enemy," National Security, which is code for torture as well as a host of other illegal actions by the executive branch, wins the argument.   This frame is usually touted by National Security "Experts" and Conservative Pundits, and taken as gospel by viewers whose knowledge of interrogative techniques comes from watching too much 24.   

It is important for actual interrogation experts to counter the framing of the torture debate as National Security vs Human Rights, and offer a counter frame to the debate:  National Security and Human Rights vs Torture that is Illegal and Hurts Intelligence Gathering.