There are a lot of torture threads around, but those seem to be dealing with broader issues, and include a strong viewpoint that the effectiveness of torture is irrelevant to current consideration of US policy, so I’m hoping for a discussion of the effectiveness issue on it’s own, for those interested.
A lot of people have claimed that “experts” have determined that torture is not effective or at least less effective than other available methods, but I am skeptical of all those “experts”. The only person who would qualify as an expert in my view would be someone who has himself participated in numerous tortures as well as other methods, and can compare the results. I would doubt that a lot of people are coming forward brandishing with these credentials. (I’d be interested in being proved wrong on this.) Absent that, all you have is specialists in alternative interrogation techniques claiming that their own technique is better than a method about which they have no particular expertise or experience. Not much to go by.
[In addition, I would note that the comparison of torture versus other methods may depend on the nature of the prisoner. In particular, the relative effectiveness of kid gloves treatment versus torture might differ greatly when dealing with a relatively apolitical conscripted POW, versus a fanatical volunteer. So a lot of historical info might not be appropriate in the current situation.]
Here’s something that looks like a reputable source, and is generally opposed to torture, but from scanning through it, ISTM that they don’t go further than saying that there is no legitimate evidence - in the form of scientific studies and the like - that supports the effectiveness of torture, which is not surprising in any event.
The reasons for thinking that torture is effective are obvious, and need not be elaborated on. Someone motivated to refrain from doing X can be compelled to do so by means of torture. And professional interrogators who are not troubled by moral/ethical considerations tend to think that it’s effective and have tended to think so throughout history.
Those who claim that torture is ineffective raise many valid points. People can be made to confess to all sorts of false things under torture - essentially a person being tortured will tend to admit to anything that he thinks will stop the torture. This is undoubtedly true.
But IMHO, this just suggests that torture needs to be used judiciously in order to be effective. Nothing is effective if used incorrectly. #1 on the list of recommended items is to refrain from trying to force a prisoner to admit to any specific claim (or similarly, to admit something based on a premise that may not be true, e.g. “tell us what you know about Iraq’s WMD”).
In addition, one important item frequently left out of these discussions is corroborating information. If you are torturing someone in a complete vacuum, you are at a significant disadvantage. But if you have or can get other sources of information, you can corroborate some of what is being told. Also significant, is that if the prisoner knows that you know things and doesn’t know what you know and what you don’t, there is an incentive to be truthful or suffer consequences.
And it’s not as if it’s an either/or situation when it comes to interrogations, and torture can likely be used to increased effect in combination with other methods, e.g. a good cop/bad cop routine. Or truth serum (assuming these actually exist/work) and polygraphs (reservations about their reliability duly noted).
These are no doubt easier said than done. I am not claiming it is 100% effective and will always yield complete and reliable information every time. But the same is true of every intelligence gathering method. The question is only whether it will overall give a more complete and accurate picture than would be possible if it were not used.
It goes without saying that even if this is all true, it does not necessarily imply that the US should use this technique. In addition to obvious moral issues, there are also practical ones, such as the potential for abuse, PR considerations, legal & treaty considerations, reprisals by other countries, and others (e.g. the psychological impact on the torturers). Nonetheless, the issue of effectiveness is an important part of the discussion, and deserves unbiased consideration IMHO.
In sum, I’m interested in discussing what hard evidence there might be that shows torture to be effective or ineffective. If there isn’t any, then this will be a short-lived discussion and we can all go back to our opinions. My own opinion with 90%-95% certainty is that it can be effective.
FWIW, here’s a link to the Wikipedia article on torture, and here’s an article from today’s NYT discussing the uncertainty over whether the current program produced any results that would not have been accomplished otherwise.