Rationale and Efficacy of Torture During Interrogation
This paper reviews the literature on interrogational torture to assess whether coercive interrogation methods produce reliable, actionable intelligence. Beginning with an overview of high-profile incidents — including Abu Ghraib, CIA black sites, and the KUBARK manual — the paper traces the development of U.S. torture policy across more than fifty years. It then evaluates the efficacy of torture against four criteria: the information must be true, current, actionable, and unobtainable through equally effective alternative means. The paper also surveys controlling domestic and international law, including the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention against Torture. The conclusion finds that torture rarely satisfies all four effectiveness criteria and that even when it does, the moral and legal costs cannot justify its continued use as an intelligence-gathering technique.
- Introduction: Defines the concealed-information problem and paper scope
- Background and Overview: CIA torture history, Abu Ghraib, government investigations
- Efficacy of Torture in Interrogation: Four-criterion framework for evaluating torture effectiveness
- Legal Frameworks Governing Torture: Geneva Conventions, UN Torture Convention, domestic law
- Conclusion: Torture fails effectiveness criteria; moral costs too high
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds abstract claims in concrete historical evidence — CIA budget figures, named government reports (Fay, Schlesinger), and direct quotations from officials such as Dick Cheney anchor each argument in verifiable detail.
- Applies a clear four-part evaluative framework (true, current, actionable, no equally effective alternative) that structures the efficacy analysis and gives the reader a reproducible standard for assessing torture claims.
- Balances competing perspectives — presenting the government's own justifications before systematically dismantling them — which strengthens the paper's credibility and demonstrates engagement with counterarguments.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies criteria-based evaluation: rather than simply asserting that torture is ineffective, it establishes explicit conditions that any intelligence method must satisfy to be considered effective, then tests torture against each condition in turn. This technique transforms a normative debate into a structured analytical exercise and is widely applicable in policy, ethics, and social-science writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a framing epigraph and an introduction that defines the core problem — the absence of a reliable method for extracting concealed information. A lengthy background section surveys CIA torture history, the Abu Ghraib scandal, government investigations, and the KUBARK manual. The efficacy section introduces and applies the four-criterion framework. A legal section reviews domestic law, the Geneva Conventions, and the UN Torture Convention. The conclusion synthesises findings and reaches a moral and pragmatic verdict against torture.
Introduction
"Although information from interrogational torture is unreliable, it is likely to be used frequently and harshly." — John W. Schiemann, 2012
The epigraph above reflects the growing consensus concerning the lack of efficacy of torture in providing interrogators with reliable concealed information. Concealed information is the foundation of the majority of security issues. In most cases, it is a situation wherein one individual knows something that someone else does not know. Consequently, the majority of security issues could be resolved if there were a dependable method of determining when an individual was concealing information and of extracting that information effectively. To date, however, no such dependable method has been developed. For instance, polygraph research has been unable to achieve an accuracy level that would make results acceptable in American courtrooms, even though the federal government continues to use polygraph screening. These limitations have contributed to the reintroduction of various types of physical and mental torture during interrogations of terrorist suspects, despite the practice being outlawed in the United States for centuries.
From a strictly pragmatic perspective, it is important to determine whether torture is producing the desired outcomes, given the violative nature of the practice. To this end, this paper reviews the relevant literature to describe what practices constitute torture during interrogations and whether those practices are efficacious in producing reliable intelligence. A summary of the research and important findings is presented in the conclusion.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.