The fundamental hypothesis that underlies the use of harsh techniques during interrogations is the following: under sufficiently painful conditions, anyone can be “broken.” But this may not be true. Allow me a personal example. My grandmother died a painful death due to pancreatic cancer, but late in her illness she refused pain medication, partly in the belief that her suffering had been set for her by God. Her religious belief helped her turn unbearable pain into a rite of passage. In a related phenomenon, women commonly give birth without pain medication, somehow tolerating pain that must rival any produced through harsh interrogation techniques. Given such anecdotes, one might wonder why a devoutly religious potential suicide bomber would break under torture. After all, there are many ways to interpret pain. It can be experienced as a religious sacrifice, a trial, or as an heroic rite of passage. And these interpretations may even reflect reality. In Iran during the 1960s and 70s, it was endurance of torture, rather than direct service to the cause, that marked those who eventually rose as political leaders (Afshari 2004).
The historical record confirms that those who believe in their cause often do not ‘crack’ under torture. In an examination of 625 instances of torture in France between 1500–1750, between 67%–95% of victims never confessed, “on the rack, under repeated drowning, crushing of joints, and the like.” The German Gestapo had “nothing like precise knowledge of the resistance movement” despite that “all forms of torture were used without hesitation.” During the Vietnam War, only about 5% of the 400 airmen captured eventually issued anti-American propaganda statements (Arrigo 2004). Psychologists have multiple theories to explain the stamina of the human psyche under torture, but it is worth noting that it would be especially bigoted to expect American airmen to be able to withstand torture while our enemy captives cannot.
(Matthew K. Wynia, "Consequentialism and Harsh Interrogations," The American Journal of Bioethics 5 [January-February 2005]: 4-6, at 5 [footnotes omitted])
Note from KBJ: The final sentence is bizarre. I have never heard anyone say, or even imply, that Americans have a greater capacity than nonAmericans to withstand torture. The author should either cite someone for this proposition or stop finding bigotry where it doesn't exist.
Note 2 from KBJ: The author is correct that people respond differently to pain. Some people crack; others do not. But this has no bearing on the justifiability of torture, for there are innocent lives at stake. We don't know whether the suspect will crack until we torture. Imagine not trying to save a drowning person because one is not sure whether the attempt will succeed. I have a question for the author. Suppose your daughter has been kidnapped and buried alive. You have the suspect in custody, but he won't tell you where your daughter is. Do you torture him? He might be one of those people, like your grandmother, who won't crack. Then again, he might be one of those people who will crack.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 