Coming in a few years late, but I have some comments on this matter. Based on the public history, I don't see how anyone can accuse the previous administration of reaching any definitive conclusion on the effectiveness of EIT. For one, the authorized use of techniques occurred in a very limited sample, with the most severe technique authorized for only three detainees. Two, once you cut through the polemics and moralizing, the ISB report leaves us with only one lesson of value--there is ZERO scientific basis for ANY form of interrogation. Not just a half-century lapse in systematic study, but NONE whatsoever. The last credible body of new literature on the subject was principally historical, lacked much in the way of prescribed method, and offered absolutely no foundation in theory backed by empirical evidence. As I understand it, subsequent literature at best regurgitates this previous experience, prescribes anecdotal methods, ponders endlessly on the well trodden legal landscape, defends the Geneva ethic, and does nothing whatsoever to advance interrogation from art to science.
I find this disturbing for two reasons. One, the belief that coercion achieves desired results quickly--whether it amounts to torture or not and whatever form it may take--is common throughout the world, whether officially sanctioned or not. The lack of any scientific credulity to the claim provides adversaries with few qualms about breaking fingers with a refuge in ignorance, and provides real torturers with plenty of room to innovate. Two, if a genuine theory of interrogation yields coercive methods that actually do work reliably--even if only conditionally--then America needs to understand the hows and whys if for no other reason than to prepare effective countermeasures.
Bookmarks