WE USUALLY think of harsh interrogation and torture as exclusive to dictatorships or hard-line regimes. Not so. Such practices are shockingly common in many democracies 鈥� we just don鈥檛 notice because under the spotlight of human rights monitors, torturers have refined their techniques so victims have no visible scars. For military and civilian interrogators in many places, 鈥渃lean鈥� techniques such as electro-torture, forced standing and water-boarding (which simulates drowning) have become the norm.
This revelation comes from Darius Rejali, who has spent the past 20 years researching modern torture around the world (see 鈥淚nterview: Darius Rejali鈥�). It is especially pertinent since the decision last week by the US government to try six of its Guantanamo Bay detainees in military courts. Prosecutors will be able to use evidence obtained by methods such as water-boarding. President Bush has also promised to veto a bill that would bar the CIA from using techniques such as sensory deprivation, water-boarding and temperature extremes, arguing they are needed to gain information that protects the public from terrorists.
Such an 鈥渆nd justifies the means鈥� argument might sound persuasive to some, but it is worthless unless such techniques actually work. , an advisory panel to the US intelligence services. The message it repeated over and over was that there is virtually no evidence to show the effectiveness of any of the interrogation techniques used by the US. The authors expressed 鈥渟urprise and concern over the lack of rigorous scientific examination鈥� and concluded that 鈥渢he effectiveness of existing interrogation techniques has been accepted without sufficient scrutiny鈥� we do not know what methods or processes of interrogation best protect the nation鈥檚 security鈥�.
Advertisement
鈥淭here is no evidence to show the effectiveness of any of the interrogation techniques used by the US鈥�
Rejali knows more about this than most. His conclusion after trawling through thousands of pages of records is that although it is in governments鈥� interests to say their techniques produce valuable information, there are few if any clear instances where this is the case. In cases where torture has been cited as successful, such as the Algerian war in the 1950s, France鈥檚 crucial information actually came from informants. If anything, using torture was counterproductive because it undermined the trust and cooperation of the public.
Despite the lack of direct studies, there are a few things research can tell us about torture. First, it gives the lie to the idea that techniques which don鈥檛 permanently scar victims are any less brutal or damaging. People subjected to 鈥渃lean鈥� torture, including psychological methods, report as much mental anguish as the victims of other techniques. In one study, nearly 300 survivors of torture from the former Yugoslavia were interviewed about their experiences. Asked to rate their distress at the time on a scale of 0 to 4, those subjected to techniques such as electro-torture, sham executions or suffocation gave scores as high as those who suffered beating, forced extraction of teeth or burning 鈥� all between 3.4 and 3.8. These people also showed equally high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder (Archives of General Psychiatry, vol 64, p 277).
Second, what research is available suggests that coercion and pressure may actually increase a person鈥檚 resistance and determination not to comply. We also know that people who are damaged or sleep-deprived are less able to recall information accurately, even if they want to.
Finally, there is no sense in which torture 鈥� of any kind 鈥� can ever be carried out in anything approaching a 鈥渟cientific鈥� or 鈥減rofessional鈥� manner, for example, by minimising the level of pain. As Rejali points out, pain perception is complex and varies widely between individuals. The technology of torture might be evolving but interrogators can never predict how much pain will break someone and inevitably take a crude, scattershot approach. We also know from decades of psychology research that inflicting suffering on others corrupts the perpetrator. Official sanction for even strictly controlled torture is the start of a slippery slope that historically has led to ubiquitous abuse.
鈥淐lean鈥� methods of interrogation might appear more sanitised and therefore more acceptable than those that leave physical scars. But don鈥檛 be fooled. They are just as brutal, crude 鈥� and pointless 鈥� as ever.
