Interrogation and torture remain poorly aligned. Proficient interrogators eschew torture for the same reason that modern physicians no longer use leeches and advertise their expertise by wearing blood-stained scrubs into the surgical suite. These things just don't work. Perhaps there is some highfalutin philosophical summit from which to look down on bloodletting as a primitive form of medical treatment. But the effectiveness argument surely casts any sanctimonious argument aside as inconsequential in light of the current understanding of medicine. Similarly, good interrogators don't torture not so much out of affronts to their fine sentiments about slippery slopes and moral high ground as out of the ineffectiveness of approach. Torture does not work because the person tortured will say anything to make the torture stop, thereby casting into doubt the credibility of the intelligence so gleaned.
If one accepts this operational axiom about interrogation and torture, then why would water boarding work, regardless of whether it really is torture or not? Consider: the best interrogation techniques involve uncertainty and exploiting the prisoner's own fears and imagination while stopping short of realizing them. Perhaps what made water boarding effective is that the enemy had no idea of what it was or where it would stop, thereby reducing the value of his training on how to resist standard interrogation techniques.
My own experience under interrogation would tend to support this hypothesis, as I had no trouble resisting standard techniques but found extended periods of sitting blindfolded and handcuffed on a concrete slab surprisingly more enervating than being manhandled and questioned aggressively. In the age of You Tube and perpetual questioning of our own national motives and resolve during political contests, do we leave any doubts for our adversaries about to expect, even if water boarding were to resurface to unprecedented levels? Forewarned, they have no reason to magnify their own fears, hence no way of helping us psychologically by according more mystery and success to our tactics than the tactics alone merit. Consequently, the greater the debate and description of water boarding, the easier it will be to resist and the less value it will have as an interrogation tool.
-- Nick Catrantzos
Subscribe Now
AddThis
Nick Catrantzos + Tom Goff
- All Secure
- NICK CATRANTZOS is the lead author of the All Secure website and is the emeritus security director for a large public organization. He has also managed security aspects of corporate takeovers, response to international hostage situations, and finding and keeping secrets. He has been board certified in security management, licensed as a private investigator, and certified as an incident commander. He worked as a case officer for a discreet branch of public service. He protected stealth technology at Lockheed and, later, as a consulting security director for both Kroll and Control Risks, he assisted executives with workplace violence cases and with protecting VIPs and critical assets globally in volatile areas. Nick's partner, TOM GOFF, was a captain in the Military Police Corps, U.S. Army Reserve and has a law degree from the University of California at Davis. He is a former reporter for Fortune Magazine, was senior editor at New York Magazine and Esquire, and has provided crisis and communications counsel to senior executives at Fortune 500 companies, including Lockheed, ARCO, Microsoft, Nissan, and Sony Pictures.