Torture Does Not Work

The Washington Post reports today that the CIA's torturing of their supposed high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, not only yielded no useful intelligence, but the faulty intelligence he blurted sent hundreds of CIA officers on wild-goose chases around the world.

Additionally, U.S. officials had known within weeks that Zubaida was simply a travel agent of al-Queda -- but still insisted referring to him publicly as "al-Queda's chief of operations," a "trusted associated" of Osama bin Laden, and "a major figure in the planning of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." None of which was true. Nice. Way to be straight with the American public, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their flunkies.

To those willing to consider the issue dispassionately, this torture-providing-false-information situation is not only unsurprising, but entirely predictable. There is plenty of evidence showing exactly this: 1) captives being tortured will say anything to stop the torment, and 2) correct -- not faulty -- information, and more of it, can be obtained using standard psychological techniques.

Consider the opinion of Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 to Iraq:

Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.

There is not a shred of evidence backing the hypothesis that torture yields valuable information. In addition, many interrogators have gone on record stating unequivocally that torture does not extract useful information. Sure, the Bush Administration proclaims to anyone in earshot that it obtained intelligence that foiled horrific plots against the country -- but, when pressed for evidence, shields itself behind the "national security" curtain.

In addition to torture simply not working, the United States, by condoning it, abdicates its status as the "city on a hill" -- a proud role shouldered by the country starting in 1630. Part of our country's cultural strength lies in presenting itself as a brighter beacon of hope, opportunity, liberty, and justice than any other country.

By proclaiming itself willing to use the same barbaric tactics as the most backward people on the planet, the United States drags itself to their level, rather than rising above such inhumane behavior. Our cultural strength, as a result, withers.

Also, any chance of our captured soldiers being treated humanely has evaporated. Knowing that their captured soldiers will be treated to "harsh interrogation tactics," the enemy will doubtless resort to torture on our servicemen, for revenge if nothing else.

I think it is time to re-evaluate the country's character if it shares the most reprehensible actions of the Inquisition. It is impossible to command the high moral ground if one is wallowing in slime.