As strange as it may seem, there has been no really serious, logical examination of the effectiveness of various interrogation techniques. Yet, we have an ongoing need to interrogate people. It would be nice if there were some logical basis for particular interrogation techniques, a basis for concluding that Method A worked - we got good information that we can rely on - better than Method B.
The Intelligence Science Board has begun to address this issue. They published a book last December that looked at the scientific basis of various interrogation techniques. One conclusion is that today we are really not prepared to conduct effective investigations. In World War II we had interrogators who spoke the language of the prisoners and had considerable life experience and knowledge of the culture. Today, we rely largely on interpreters. Interrogators forty years ago focused on the psychology of the prisoners, rather than on trying to get answers via coercion.
One can draw a conclusion that you can get more information with sugar than with waterboarding.
No comments:
Post a Comment