Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Torture Still Doesn't Work

By Robert Fisk, The Independent UK. Posted February 4, 2008.


For centuries, torture has been used to make people say anything the torturer wants.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Robert Fisk

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"Torture works," an American special forces major -- now, needless to say, a colonel -- boasted to a colleague of mine a couple of years ago. It seems that the CIA and its hired thugs in Afghanistan and Iraq still believe this. There is no evidence that rendition and beatings and waterboarding and the insertion of metal pipes into men's anuses -- and, of course, the occasional torturing to death of detainees -- has ended. Why else would the CIA admit in January that it had destroyed videotapes of prisoners being almost drowned -- the "waterboarding" technique -- before they could be seen by US investigators?

Yet only a few days ago, I came across a medieval print in which a prisoner has been strapped to a wooden chair, a leather hosepipe pushed down his throat and a primitive pump fitted at the top of the hose where an ill-clad torturer is hard at work squirting water down the hose. The prisoner's eyes bulge with terror as he feels himself drowning, all the while watched by Spanish inquisitors who betray not the slightest feelings of sympathy with the prisoner. Who said "waterboarding" was new? The Americans are just apeing their predecessors in the inquisition.

Another medieval print I found in a Canadian newspaper in November shows a prisoner under interrogation in what I suspect is medieval Germany. In this case, he has been strapped backwards to the outer edge of a wheel. Two hooded men are administering his agony. One is using a bellows to encourage a fire burning at the bottom of the wheel while the other is turning the wheel forwards so that the prisoner's feet are moving into the flames. The eyes of this poor man -- naked save for a cloth over his lower torso -- are tight shut in pain. Two priests stand beside him, one cowled, the other wearing a robe over his surplice, a paper and pen in hand to take down the prisoner's words.

Anthony Grafton, who has been working on a book about magic in Renaissance Europe, says that in the 16th and 17th centuries, torture was systematically used against anyone suspected of witchcraft, his or her statements taken down by sworn notaries -- the equivalent, I suppose, of the CIA's interrogation officers -- and witnessed by officials who made no pretense that this was anything other than torture; no talk of "enhanced interrogation" from the lads who turned the wheel to the fire.

As Grafton recounts, "The pioneering medievalist Henry Charles Lea … wrote at length about the ways in which inquisitors had used torture to make prisoners confess heretical views and actions. An enlightened man writing in what he saw as an enlightened age, he looked back in horror at these barbarous practices and condemned them with a clarity that anyone reading public statements must now envy."

There were professionals in the Middle Ages who were trained to use pain as a method of inquiry as well as an ultimate punishment before death. Men who were to be "hanged, drawn and quartered" in medieval London, for example, would be shown the "instruments" before their final suffering began with the withdrawal of their intestines in front of vast crowds of onlookers. Most of those tortured for information in medieval times were anyway executed after they had provided the necessary information to their interrogators. These inquisitions -- with details of the torture that accompanied them -- were published and disseminated widely so that the public should understand the threat that the prisoners had represented and the power of those who inflicted such pain upon them. No destroying of videotapes here. Illustrated pamphlets and songs, according to Grafton, were added to the repertory of publicity.

Ronnie Po-chia Hsia and Italian scholars Diego Quaglioni and Anna Esposito have studied the 15th-century Trent inquisition whose victims were usually Jews. In 1475, three Jewish households were accused of murdering a Christian boy called Simon to carry out the supposed Passover "ritual" of using his blood to make "matzo" bread. This "blood libel" -- it was, of course, a total falsity -- is still, alas, believed in many parts of the Middle East although it is frightening to discover that the idea was well established in 15th century Europe.

As usual, the podestà -- a city official -- was the interrogator, who regarded external evidence as providing mere clues of guilt. Europe was then still governed by Roman law which required confessions in order to convict. As Grafton describes horrifyingly, once the prisoner's answers no longer satisfied the podestà, the torturer tied the man's or woman's arms behind their back and the prisoner would then be lifted by a pulley, agonizingly, towards the ceiling. "Then, on orders of the podestà, the torturer would make the accused 'jump' or 'dance' -- pulling him or her up, then releasing the rope, dislocating limbs and inflicting stunning pain."

When a member of one of the Trent Jewish families, Samuel, asked the podestà where he had heard that Jews needed Christian blood, the interrogator replied -- and all this while, it should be remembered, Samuel was dangling in the air on the pulley -- that he had heard it from other Jews. Samuel said that he was being tortured unjustly. "The truth, the truth!" the podestà shouted, and Samuel was made to "jump" up to eight feet, telling his interrogator: "God the Helper and truth help me." After 40 minutes, he was returned to prison.

Once broken, the Jewish prisoners, of course, confessed. After another torture session, Samuel named a fellow Jew. Further sessions of torture finally broke him and he invented the Jewish ritual murder plot and named others guilty of this non-existent crime. Two tortured women managed to exonerate children but eventually, in Grafton's words, "they implicated loved ones, friends and members of other Jewish communities". Thus did torture force innocent civilians to confess to fantastical crimes. Oxford historian Lyndal Roper found that the tortured eventually accepted the view that they were guilty.

Grafton's conclusion is unanswerable. Torture does not obtain truth. It will make most ordinary people say anything the torturer wants. Why, who knows if the men under the CIA's "waterboarding" did not confess that they could fly to meet the devil. And who knows if the CIA did not end up believing him.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: torture, waterboarding

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A Suggestion
Posted by: Crazy H on Feb 4, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of our "elected" "leaders" and those in the running have come along recently stating that waterboarding is not torture (or tortuously avoiding saying so.)

I'd like to propose that George Soros and some of the other big-money progressives hold a contest.

Invite a small list, including Dumbya, Cheney, Limbaugh, Mukasky, anyone currently running for federal office or any federal official who has publicly compared waterboarding to swimming.

The contest: We get to apply 72 hours of sleep deprivation interspersed with waterboarding.

During that time, we will continually promise to let the contestant go if they'll just admit that waterboarding is torture. Simple. If we can't get them to 'confess' - they get a billion dollars towards their campaign or any other use they see fit.

Who's up for the challenge?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No less sincerely... Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» RE: A Suggestion Posted by: Xynyx
Who would have thought it..
Posted by: cordas on Feb 5, 2008 1:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That the application of pain will make people say things - anything to make it stop?

I would suggest that anyone who thinks enhanced interrogation (torture) works to find the truth should 1st be subjected to it themselves and asked to confess to something they patently didn't do. Let them experience it and see if it gets the truth from them, or if they cave in and say anything to make it stop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

torture produces false confessions but it does "work" in a more insideous way
Posted by: Suzon on Feb 5, 2008 3:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These inquisitions -- with details of the torture that accompanied them -- were published and disseminated widely so that the public should understand the threat that the prisoners had represented and the power of those who inflicted such pain upon them.

Fisk almost misses the real way that torture works. Whatever the stated intention of torture, the main function is to bind the population into the mindset of the torturers. Phillip Zimbardo of the classic Stanford Prison Experiment states that most people will identify with the wife-beater and not the wife because it is human nature to side with the strong.

Torture has been one of the mainstays of the Bush administration because of its useful psychological impact on the public. It doesn't matter if false confessions are obtained as long as the rest of us know that we are in the hands of powerful and ruthless people.

Hanging, drawing and quartering while alive was not abolished until 1807 in England.

We need to feel the fear and then move beyond it. To impeachment, of course.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The French obtained actionable intellegence
Posted by: surfreality on Feb 5, 2008 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
during their war to keep Algeria French. This is a matter of public record. But to obtain that information, they tortured and brutalized many many suspects, most of whom were innocent. As a result they lost the war because they had alienated almost the entire Algerian population. Even when torture produces some results it is counter-productive. No sane person can put their trust in people who would stoop to such tactics. I'm always wondering with Bush/ Cheney and their ilk: "Who's next?, reporters? Democrats? me?"
Torture is a fear based policy. Only cowards employ it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Special Forces guys are hardly credible advocates
Posted by: DaBear on Feb 5, 2008 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Torture works," an American special forces major -- now, needless to say, a colonel -- boasted to a colleague of mine a couple of years ago.

I've witnessed similar boasts by Recon Rangers, SEALs and other spec-4 guys. Always, you can argue them into the ground with logic and they'll even agree with you in the end that torture only works in that it makes the target say what the torturer wants them to say. Then the spec-4 guy will ape his party line, "torture works" as if the argument never happened.

It's called training: you are tortured and brainwashed into believing what your trainer tells you is true. SEALs and others are proud to say that if the DoD says the sky is fuschia and under one's feet, then it is so. Training on this line is the lynchpin of the Pentagon's guarantee that spec-4's will deliver on their mission, no matter what.

Spec-4's are never credible advocates for torture. I've known a lot of ex-spec-4's that spend a lifetime in therapy dealing with the trauma of their experiences and the no. 1 trauma I've witnessed spec-4's struggle to recover from is the awakening to the cruel truth that they themselves were tortured, and thus believed the lies their torturer-trainers planted in their minds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pros and cons of torture for any given scenario.
Posted by: aouie01 on Feb 5, 2008 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many people tend to list just the pros or the cons when they have a preference (bias or not) in any issue. Failure to acknowledge valid pros and cons can break down communication between people with differing views.

In most scenarios the net result of employing torture as a common practice is often seen as a negative by most intelligent and relatively compassionate people.

A scenario where most of us may be tempted to engage in torture would be as follows.

You see someone, say A, abducting a loved one, say B, and A is caught the next day, but you do not know where B is. A admits to abducting B and holds a grudge against B, and is not willing to make any deals to reveal the whereabouts of B. Extensive counseling, negotiating and offering to publicly whip or humiliate B in exchange for the information is not satisfying to A either.

Possible pros of torturing A: A decides that A's grudge against B appears less important than stopping A's torture, and hence reveals B's whereabouts (and B is fine and was prevented from starving to death, and A is rehabilitated and becomes all good after months of counseling, and lived happily till death).
If you are not compassionate enough for A's suffering to trump any joy in torturing A then your enjoyment should be considered a pro point (though I wish you didn't).
Try to list more as an exercise.

Possible cons of torturing A: No relevant information is obtained (and A was actually an identical twin of the actual abductor, say C, who blackmailed A into stating that A was the abductor).
We engage in harming A and hence more harm has occurred in the world.
Try to list more as an exercise.

Even if everyone agrees on all the listed pros and cons, they may still disagree on the net result as to which is better (differing values assigned to each of the underlying issues).

Many feel that even if we feel that we should torture A in the above scenario, we shouldn't have society sanction such torture.

I like to think that an idealized good society is nothing more than a collective of people trying to make the best possible decisions for the collective, bearing individual's preferences in mind, and that any torture authorized by such a society would be as a last resort, and that the people are encouraged to feel more sad at the sight of torture, than a sense of joy (whether it be through deviance or a sense of revenge or something less objectionable).

If you are claiming that no idealized society exists in the world (with a large population) and that historically the tortures authorized by societies as a whole were largely more detrimental for the collective good of humanity and for the good of any average person on either side of any major conflict, then I would say that that is a good way to present your case.
Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement