By Madeleine Lesser

On June 22, 2008, "Report: Torture failed on Sept. 11 Planner," highlighted the growing acceptance that torture does not work. CIA agent, Deuce Martinez, notably established a relationship with Khalid Shaikh Mohammad (suspected 9/11 conspirator) that produced actionable intelligence. After years of experts pleading that "cruel and unusual" methods of interrogation do not result in valuable information, it is not surprising that establishing rapport, and a level of personal understanding, were effective.

Even in 2005, this not-so-new phenomenon of the invalidity of torture was addressed by Washington Post Columnist, Anne Applebaum, in her piece, "The Torture Myth." During the Vietnam War, Applebaum notes, that while faced with a ticking-time bomb scenario, Air Force Colonel John Rothrock utilized some "not nice" methods, but those methods could not be characterized as torture. Methods of cruel and inhumane treatment of suspects does not mean that "not nice" methods are not used or cannot be considered legitimate (given boundaries) since the methods still maintain the prisoner's human rights (such "not nice" practices include forcing a prisoner to watch his wounded comrade die). Psychological manipulation produces useful intelligence, whereas humiliation, physical and mental abuse, isolation, etc. (methods used currently by the U.S. military in Iraq and Guantanamo) all result in the detainee telling the interrogator what he wants to hear, however false it may be, to get the pain to stop.

Research shows that a prisoner will more likely produce actionable intelligence if he is "befriended" rather than "interrogated." Even if we were to forget the immorality and illegality of torture, the fact remains that, practically, it does not do us any good. We have to ask ourselves: Why does our U.S. Military continue to utilize torture when they know it does not work and at the same time puts our soldiers and citizens in greater danger? Do they deny reality? Are they plagued by combat and see these measures as a defense mechanism?

The reality, to get to the bottom of it, seems to be a lack of training. Soldiers have documented that they were not provided with adequate education, information, and intelligence upon their arrival to army prisons to act as interrogators (i.e. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo). Many soldiers who were trained in combat are placed in prisons and merely given orders to extract confessions and information from the detainees - sometimes by whatever means necessary. Without proper guidance, it is not inconceivable that these soldiers resort to the tactics that they do. In no way do I mean to excuse their methods, but the lack of training can certainly be an explanation. The men and women faced with the turmoil of war cannot help but feel frustrated, angered, and threatened by the enemies they face; and without the proper tools and outlets to channel those emotions, a resort to violence has resulted.

A real and concrete way to make immediate changes in the way interrogations are carried out is to provide soldiers with the appropriate training.  FBI and CIA personnel are instructed on valid, legal methods of how to turn out relevent intelligence, and thus have not been prosecuted for torture. Since the U.S. Military mainly carries out the interrogations, it would make sense to devout resources to guarantee soldier's proper training. Of course, training is not the sole determinant of whether torture results, but it is one step closer to ensuring that it doesn't.