I got into a discussion with a guy at work that assured me that no matter how much he was tortured he would never break. I contended that pretty much anyone will eventually give up what the torturer wants. I’m sure I probably would at some point. I’m talking full on medieval style, no holds barred torture not “enhanced interrogation techniques”.
I seem to recall reading that in the military they teach you to resist but also tell you that you’ll probably give it up at some point. Is that true?
I recently had an Electromyography (EMG) on my arm. After 10 minutes I said to my doctor that I would tell him anything he wanted to know if he would just stop. He didn’t and I was diagnosed with Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. Wonderful.
I think so, yes, barring a rare medical condition such as congenital analgesia which causes a person to feel no pain, or some supernatural effect.
He’s just talking tough. Anyone can talk tough about a situation when they’re not actually in the situation.
Many “enhanced interrogation techniques” are “medieval torture”, just under another name. We didn’t invent torture by drowning, for example.
And yes, anyone* will break, typically in minutes for techniques like drowning. That won’t stop them from continuing to torture you though.
*Barring perhaps someone who’s too outright insane to do so; a catatonic perhaps
I had a back injury that completely incapacitated me and had me screaming in pain just trying to adjust my position in bed. I think someone encountering me in that state could have gotten me to renounce everything I hold dear by twisting my leg slightly.
If by break, you mean just give in to what the torturer wants, then obviously. Stalin’s NKVD proved that you could get men to confess to anything.
If by break, you mean give any useful information, well the two are often mutually exclusive - what the torturer wants to hear might not be what you actually know. And if the torturer already knows what he wants to extract from you, what’s the point?
On interrogation resistance, the SAS has some of the toughest training in the world.
But what’s the point if the torture could be done indefinitely?
I’m no expert in…anything, but one imagines the purpose is to condition them against the common forms of interrogation with a view to escaping captivity a la Bravo Two Zero if the opportunity presents itself; to select against those who would crack ‘early’ if you like due to sleep deprivation, hunger or whatever. Those guys know what they’re doing, anyway, so I trust in their judgement.
The question of breaking is relative. Is it giving away all information you have? Some but not all of the classified information? Signing statements renouncing your government? Many US POWs in Vietnam were tortured but never signed statements denouncing the US as their interrogators wanted. ISTR that there targets of the Spanish Inquisition that died during torture instead of admitting they were heretics (that was pretty much a how do you want to die decision).
Some information they have is time sensitive. They longer you hold out the less damage sharing the information does.
Controlled breaking. You might be able to give up some information when you can’t take any more without giving away everything. Maybe you get away with it… maybe it just takes them longer to catch on.
If you can hide that you are SAS under early duress(we’re pathfinders from so and so Para…really!) you might not get bumped up the real interrogation pros or at least delay that move. The amateurs might not break you or take longer get there.
Spence: Methods to withstand interrogation…we were taught: “Hold out indefinitely.”
Sam: Nobody can hold out indefinitely.
Spence: [contemptuous] Is that so?
Sam: Yeah. Everybody has a limit. I spent some time in interrogation, once.
Larry: They make it hard on you?
Sam: They don’t make it easy. Yeah, it was unpleasant. I held out as long as I could. But all the stuff they tried … you just can’t hold out forever. Impossible.
Larry: How’d they finally get to you?
Sam: They gave me a grasshopper.
Larry: What’s a grasshopper?
Sam: Let’s see, it’s two parts gin, two parts brandy, one part creme de menthe…
[INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]–Ronin[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]
Stranger
Seem to be a decent number of examples of Medieval victims of torture holding out till the end. Granted given medical knowledge of the time, such torture probably was never really indefinite, since eventually you’d die from the torture.
I am of the opinion, though not an expert, that one soon babbles whatever he thinks the interrogator wishes to hear whether it has a grain of truth or not.
To delay the communication of the information. If the tortured man takes 1-2 days to give up the info, it may be less useful or even irrelevant by that point. It would also give commanders who know that one of their personnel has been captured time to readjust now that there is a risk that the enemy knows the plan.
The Australian SAS link seems to be subscriber only.
I’ve read more recent examples, but can’t quote them. I’d say that most people will break under torture.
On an only tangentially related note, I’d read some (more than one) examples of sportsmen continuing to train with broken ankles or other stuff. My ankle hurt. I asked my doctor: “Have I got a broken ankle?” He gave me a look. He said: “They have very high thresholds of pain. You do not have a high threshold of pain.”
Odd, it is for me too. Works fine direct from Google, the first link. Hmm, doesn’t work from Google either, some oddity going on there. The relevant passages include; *
“By now I wasn’t sure how long I had been at the interrogation centre. I kept losing track of time and had to force myself to concentrate until reality re-emerged. I had to tell myself it was a test, that at some stage it would end and it was up to me to see it through. But then I was singled out with a handful of other blokes and marched outside into the cold winter daylight. We were all still hooded, so couldn’t see anything. They stood us up against a wall and without warning turned a fire hose on us. The water was powerful and freezing. It slammed me back against the wall; it thudded into my body and I had to turn aside to protect myself. God knows how long they kept it up for, but when they were done they commanded me to get on my hands and knees and crawl along the ground.”*
Almost everyone will break under torture, whether breaking means telling the truth or just saying what the torturer wants to hear. The “almost” is in there because one in a very, very, very rare while there’s someone who has the ability to let their will overpower the pain.
The only example I can come up with off the top of my head is Machiavelli*; he was taken prisoner by the Medicis after they regained power as he held a high up position in the Florentine Republic. For around a month he underwent a form of torture whose name I can’t recall right now (the strappold, maybe?) where he was suspended above a pit by a rope tying his wrists behind his back, destroying his shoulders bit by bit. Allegedly he didn’t speak a word in the whole month, and they eventually gave up and released him.
Anyway, digression aside, my point is “everyone” is a dangerous word - there’s a heck of a lot of people out there, and a handful wouldn’t break. I doubt your coworker is one of them, though. 
*Also known as “man that guy got shafted by history . . .”
Strappado.
According to The History Of Torture, and Panatti’s Extraordinary Endings Of Practically Everything And Everybody, not everybody will break under torture. There have been some amazing cases of hold outs.
RE Enhanced Interrogation Vs Medieval Techniques
EI is a LOT more effective. Physical pain can only get you so far. Screwing with people’s minds gets much better results. Deprive the victim of sleep. Keep them from tracking the passage of time. Try to confuse them as to what’s going on and even who they are. There are five lights.
FWIW, Solzhenitsyn, in The Gulag Archipelago, had the opinion that anyone who did not break, or was not driven insane by the experience, was an example of poor torture technique, not subject endurance. He did however mention the case of Alexander Dolgun, who was kept awake for a reported 30 days (he fooled the guards, and was able to grab micronaps standing up during the ordeal. This, in addition to being repeatedly beaten. I do not know whether he eventually confessed or not, but he was able to relay his account.
The Al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was reportedly waterboarded over 130 times. He broke, I imagine. What is the goal of the torture? Information, infantilization/brainwashing, revenge? Different goals call for different approaches. From what I’ve read, and have not experienced/been cleared for, the goal of programs like SERE is to teach the students to buy time and degrade the effectiveness of any sensitive information they possess. And not unwittingly fall into propaganda traps.