The Laughing Wolf

Interrogation versus Torture

The post of Monday has led to many chains of thought, but it has also brought to the front another area of interest and potential media bias. That has to do with the difference between interrogation and torture. Part of this also comes from an entry at On The Third Hand, which references a very good, and potentially disturbing, article.

There are many who don’t distinguish between interrogation and torture, but there is a difference. Anyone who has studied or read up on the subject (or seen the end results of torture) can, usually, easily tell between the two, but there is an area of gray there as well.

Simply put, torture is subjecting a person to intense physical or mental pain. It is the rack, hot irons, broken bones, severe shocks, or brutalized family and friends. The problem with torture is that it is not effective. That level of pain cannot be maintained, and most usually results in the victim telling what they feel the inquisitor wants to hear. At a certain point, the victim will say anything, even something that condemns them, just to make the pain stop.

Torture is used by thugs, amateurs, and the desperate. History shows time and time again that torture is not effective, efficient, or anything else. History also shows that those who use it are most usually, but not always, scum.

Interrogation, on the other hand, rarely uses true pain. Indeed, some of the most effective interrogations have used pleasure to get the needed information. Doubt me? Then check out the case of the German interrogator who got loads of good info during WWII simply by treating our people well, well enough that he was sponsored for citizenship by those same soldiers after the war.

The problem with interrogation is that it takes time. You have to have or build up information, so that you can trap or trick the subject. Physical tiredness, sleep depravation, schedule disruption, caffeine and other drugs, and a number of other things can be used as a part of this, to speed it along, and that is where the gray areas can emerge.

There are gray areas, and there are lines not to be crossed. Yet, a good series of interrogations can reveal much even when the subject is non-cooperative. Even better, from an intelligence standpoint, is that the person is whole. In most cases where you have caught an agent or operative, you want to use them. If you break them, which is what happens physically and mentally with torture, you have to repair them and that is most often difficult or impossible.

Interrogation does not, for the most part, snap a person that way. Done right, the subject may not even realize what all they have divulged. This avoids many psychological complications, and can allow the subject to become either a willing or unknowing asset. It also aids in turning them, which is something rarely if ever accomplished with torture. Torture leaves its marks, literally and physically, and those can be detected. Interrogation leaves much more subtle marks, if any, and is harder to detect.

In short, interrogation is not torture though there can be a fine line in some cases. It is not a pleasant topic, but it is one deserving of a great deal of thought: especially in a free society.

-30-