Re Iraqi prisoners- Is torture overrated as a means for obtaining useful information?

Out of this disgusting pustule still spewing forth re the horrific treatment of the Iraqi prisoners, one thought does occur to me. I’ve always thought that we (the US) were seriously hampered by being the “good guys”, and, if allowed, just a few sessions of “getting medieval” with the bad guys would soon sort things out re getting the necessary information we required.

But now, with all these horrible pics coming out, I’ve really got to question this presumption. How truly effective is torture or near torture if all it gets us the apparent pittance of useful information we’ve obtained so far in Iraq?

Is torture overrated as a means for obtaining useful information?

It depends on how you define torture. The US uses light physical torture and (probably) psychological torture but they don’t use heavy physical or psychological torture.

There has been at least one previous debate on this subject, and I recall some saying torture is a very unreliable method. Perhaps if you search GD and/or GQ you might find that thread.

Of course, it’s a stupid way of getting information. People being tortured will often say what they think their torturers want to hear, just to make the torture stop. It could certainly not be considered reliable information.

I suspect actually that it depends on the torture. I’m sure that there are many forms where the subject quickly reaches the point where he will say whatever it is he thinks the torturers want to hear. Anything to make it stop.

However, I suspect that there are actually some effective psychological methods of weakening resistance to interrogation. Sleep deprivation is probably one. Methods that weaken mental resistance through confusion or simply being tired, so that the subject lets things slip, but that are not so directly acutely painful or unpleasant as to elicit false confessions, etc.

I am pretty sure that is why the US soldiers were doing what they were doing to the Iraqis, to sap their dignity and will to resist. After someone makes you fake oral sex on a fellow soldier it becomes alot harder to resist interrogation from the people who coerced you into doing that.

You guys are lumping all tortures into the stereotypical ‘severe physical pain until you confess/give into’ torture. There are other forms of torture designed to sap dignity, sap the will to resist, and things like that.

Well it’s certainly generally wrong. And it’s by no means an information panacea. But I think what’s stupid is assuming people are telling the truth under torture - you get the impression someone torturing has the mindset of “oh, ok, I’ve got a confession, that’s done.” But, for instance, if they’ve just captured two people, and torture both, whatever say that the details they agree is probably right. And there’ll be other fairly easyily confirmable things, if you have the sense and guts to look for them. I can’t believe I’m discussing this.

Bill Cowan spent three and a half years fighting the war in Vietnam. He was a young Marine captain assigned to the Rung Sat Special Zone, a putrid swamp that begins just south of Saigon. Miles and miles of thick, slurping mud that swallowed soldiers to their waists, it is populated by galaxies of mosquitoes and other biting insects, snakes, crocodiles, and stands of rotting mangrove. It is intersected by the saltwater rivers of the Mekong Delta, and features occasional stretches of flat, open farmland. The Marines knew that several battalions of Vietcong were in the Rung Sat. The enemy would lie low, building strength, and then launch surprise attacks on South Vietnamese or U.S. troops. The soldiers in Cowan’s unit played cat-and-mouse with an enemy that melted away at their approach.

So when he captured a Vietcong soldier who could warn of ambushes and lead them to hidden troops but who refused to speak, wires were attached to the man’s scrotum with alligator clips and electricity was cranked out of a 110-volt generator.

“It worked like a charm,” Cowan told me. “The minute the crank started to turn, he was ready to talk. We never had to do more than make it clear we could deliver a jolt. It was the fear more than the pain that made them talk.”

Fear works. It is more effective than any drug, tactic, or torture device. According to unnamed scientific studies cited by the Kubark Manual (it is frightening to think what these experiments might have been), most people cope with pain better than they think they will. As people become more familiar with pain, they become conditioned to it. Those who have suffered more physical pain than others—from being beaten frequently as a child, for example, or suffering a painful illness—may adapt to it and come to fear it less. So once interrogators resort to actual torture, they are apt to lose ground.

“The threat of coercion usually weakens or destroys resistance more effectively than coercion itself,” the manual says.
The threat to inflict pain, for example, can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain … Sustained long enough, a strong fear of anything vague or unknown induces regression, whereas the materialization of the fear, the infliction of some form of punishment, is likely to come as a relief. The subject finds that he can hold out, and his resistances are strengthened.
Furthermore, if a prisoner is subjected to pain after other methods have failed, it is a signal that the interrogation process may be nearing an end. “He may then decide that if he can just hold out against this final assault, he will win the struggle and his freedom,” the manual concludes. Even if severe pain does elicit information, it can be false, which is particularly troublesome to interrogators seeking intelligence rather than a confession. Much useful information is time-sensitive, and running down false leads or arresting innocents wastes time.

By similar logic, the manual discourages threatening a prisoner with death. As a tactic “it is often found to be worse than useless,” the manual says, because the sense of despair it induces can make the prisoner withdraw into depression—or, in some cases, see an honorable way out of his predicament.