Do harsh interrogation techniques work?

With the release of new revelations about the Bush Administration's policy on interrogations and a pending investigation by Attorney General Eric Holder, several points have not been refuted by news reports. First, whether you agree or disagree with the Administration's policies, there appears to be no evidence, other than some anecdotal reports, that harsh interrogations produced good intelligence information.

For example, former Vice President Dick Cheney insists that harsh interrogations led to actionable intelligence. Cheney's contention is countered by experienced interrogators, some of the most prominent of whom have been two Air Force interrogators, Steve Kleinman and Matthew Alexander(a pseudonym), and former FBI special agent Ali Soufan. Recently Soufan wrote in the New York Times that supporters of harsh techniques have yet "to show that the techniques stopped even a single imminent threat of terrorism." Soufan has been a frequent critic of the Bush policy both in print and as a witness before Congress. (It should be remembered however that rapport-building techniques themselves have not been validated scientifically in the intelligence context even if the narrative and historical record overwhelmingly supports their effectiveness.)

The vice president has yet to clearly describe how harsh interrogations produced good intelligence or prevented an act of terror. Supporters have pointed to the interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohamed as an example of extreme techniques producing good intelligence. As has been reported widely, Mohamed was water-boarded dozens of times and reportedly gave up good information. (Some have disputed the efficacy of water-boarding Mohamed including Mohamed himself. He now claims he told his interrogators what they "wanted to hear," not the truth.)

The bottom line? We don't know if torture or harsh techniques work and chances are we will never have a definitive answer. There may be cases where harsh techniques actually "work" and succeed in extracting valuable information but this does not mean that rapport building techniques are deficient in comparison.

The reverse engineering of the SERE program and the subsequent use of its techniques on detainees provides no scientific evidence of its effectiveness in producing intelligence and supporters of SERE abhor its use on prisoners.

If rapport-building techniques and harsh methods work equally well it is axiomatic that the United States not endorse methods proscribed by U.S. law or the Geneva Conventions. To do otherwise diminishes the moral standing of the U.S. and puts our troops in harm's way. This is not an endorsement of rapport-building; it is an acknowledgement that we do not have scientific evidence that validates one approach over another.

A second point seems undeniable. The Bush Administration did not ask seasoned interrogators what they believed were the most effective methods for gathering actionable intelligence. The irony in this fact is that the Administration sought the advice of so many individuals without consulting front-line, experienced interrogators. I have spoken with dozens of interrogators from the Air Force, Army and Marines and most of these experienced interrogators eschew the harsh tactics advanced by President Bush and his administration. They insist that rapport-building methods work best.