2006-05-02 - 3:17 p.m.
I was doing research for my novel today and typed in “torture as an interrogation tactic” and found a plethora of sites discussing this.
Of the 363 hits, most of it had to do with Bush’s appointment of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General and virtually all of it was opinion (only 2 were academic studies and only 1 was pertinent). I found one site that said “…the CIA does not believe that torture of prisoners is fruitful” because “tortured prisoners will simply tell their captors what they want to hear.” One other site cited John McCain as an “expert witness” to this because of his time as a prisoner of war in Hanoi. However, there were no direct links to any CIA policy pages stating such nor to John McCain stating such (though I’ve heard him on TV and radio say similar things).
What surprised me were the number of blogs that use the opinions of others as the “factual research” behind their beliefs. Not one was based on any fact that I could find, just links to other blogs that these bloggers either thought were “cool” or agreed with their own opinions.
I once took a psychology course and remembered a passage in the book on surprise and torture (though not worded that way. I think it had to do with "the applied psychology of physical vs verbal interrogation tactics). It basically said that, if a person has time to steel themselves against the interrogator then the interrogation will be ineffective. It is when physical interrogation tactics are applied by complete and utter surprise and in a timely fashion that it is most effective, but only for a short period of time. Otherwise, prolonged interrogation/torture is only good if you have a number of suspects that have had no training or indoctrination. By piecing together the bits you get from these multiple sources (under the supervision of a trained specialist) you can complete a jigsaw puzzle and infer your answer.
Perhaps someone that is currently taking - or has taken - criminology classes (and the psychology thereof) can shed some light on such a passage?
What I'm probably most interested in would be the studies of Josef Mengele as a character in my book is a protege of Herr Doktor. While he was a complete monster, his 1940's research into induced pain is probably the most thorough. Now, I hear the snickers out there. Stop it. I'm much more in favor of using drugs for interrogations. Most of you would enjoy the pain all too much!
So now I am on a mission to see if I can find that or a similar passage once more for a critical passage in my book.
