Of Note: The T-Word: "Enhanced" Interrogation in the Fight against International Terrorism

The United States has been free from attack since September 11, 2001, thanks in large part to the tireless efforts of its intelligence community. In this time of siege, acquiring timely and useful intelligence is critical, and under specific circumstances, U.S. personnel are authorized to use severe interrogation methods to extract information from suspected terrorists. These "enhanced" techniques were cribbed from Soviet practices, and include protracted sleep and food deprivation, prolonged exposure to cold, and controlled drowning.¹ While the Soviets did not consider these techniques to be torture, the Geneva Conventions do, under the unconditional prohibition of "cruel . . . humiliating and degrading treatment," even in times of war.²

Since 2002, the White House has worked diligently to withhold "enhanced" interrogation methods from public debate, justifying these techniques on the basis of their effectiveness in safeguarding the lives and interests of U.S. citizens. Despite the 2006 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to suspected terrorists,³ the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) continues to permit the use of harsh interrogation techniques, which may have the same psychological, if not physical impact, as torture.⁴ The controversial practice of "rendition"—shorthand for exporting unsavory sorts overseas for incarceration and even rougher handling—also continues, despite its disputed legality.⁵

United States foreign policy has made it a target of determined individuals whose brutal actions speak of their commitment to harming U.S. interests. The magnitude of this threat, and the difficulties encountered in curbing it, make an easy case for the rational argument for torture: "killing and torturing to prevent greater killing and torturing may sometimes be allowed by public reason."⁶ And when faced with a serious, existential threat, most people will not shrink from advocating the cracking of a few heads to save their own skins.

Supporters deem torture justifiable considering the potentially dire consequences of not torturing. But the fundamental justification for "enhanced" interrogation—that these methods are effective in protecting U.S. interests—is specious. This justification hinges on the notion that not only does torture work, it is superior to other methods of extracting necessary information.

Severe interrogation does get people to talk, but it also yields a lot of bad information. In the words of CIA veteran Bob Baer, "you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough."⁷ This commonsense assessment is backed by a significant body of research indicating that harsh interrogation techniques increase the incidence of false confessions.⁸ And bad information can have dire consequences for U.S. policy—the erroneous intelligence linking Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein may have been extracted using severe methods.⁹

In addition, there is no technical merit to the notion that harsh interrogation is effective, let alone superior to other methods. None of the "enhanced" interrogation techniques have been evaluated for their efficacy in extracting information.¹⁰ And like any other sort of interrogation method, these techniques take time and do not yield instant results. Rough handling has also led to the unexpected deaths of detainees in CIA and military custody; this is both morally repugnant and operationally inept, representing the loss of potentially useful intelligence.¹¹ In contrast, research on persuasion and interpersonal influence promises a more effective approach.¹²

By continuing to limit public debate of harsh interrogation techniques, the White House has presumed the infallibility of its decision to permit their practice and shirked the responsibilities of democratic governance. No doubt, U.S. citizens have differing perspectives on this situation, and some will continue to agree with the Bush administration's line that "enhanced" interrogation is necessary to safeguard US interests. But the White House cannot curb human fallibility, and by tacitly institutionalizing brutal interrogation practices of highly questionable necessity, it has made one thing quite certain: a government permitted to torture will torture when it is not justified.