as we all know, individuals totally never lie under a normal interrogation, right? Removing their ability to think straight through torture techniques would seem to logically have at least a marginal positive effect in enabling them to blurt out the truth.You don't get it, do you? In Interrogation they ask innocuous, and seemingly innocent questions, to get around at the truth. They get the person talking, and this is the person's undoing.
In torture, the person can focus on the single thing they do not want to tell the person.
Also, if you use torture, the enemy(i.e. terrorists) soon finds out and can employ methods like the SEALs use to make intelligence useless. In short, torture can be countered far easily than skilled interrogation. In fact, torture can cause a person to cease giving ANY information, let alone tidbits that might give clues and insight into real useful(and even timely) intelligence.
Interrogation is NOT the same as torture(even a close look at the definition tells you that it's about asking questions).
Check out the video on the link below, at around 10 minutes on. It's pretty interesting and demonstrates what you can do with interrogation, and what torture would absolutely prevent you from doing.
Effective Interrogation Techniques
Eliciting Information, Deradicalization and Counterinsurgency From Indonesia to Iraq
Alexander stressed that torture is not an “enhanced method of interrogation,” as it is frequently referred to. In fact, Alexander argued, torture is a largely ineffective enterprise, often failing to elicit information where law enforcement-style interrogation has succeeded. The torture of detainees is also highly detrimental to the long-term counterterrorism effort. After all, Alexander explained, torture has long been a major recruiting point for militants. Although coercive methods may prevent some immediate attacks, the backlash will include an increase in the number of militant fighters. As new recruits are the lifeblood of terrorist organizations, said Alexander, it is important that torture be avoided.
Alexander then outlined three ways to improve U.S. military interrogations. First, he stated, interrogation training must thoroughly educate interrogators on the customs and traditions of their future prisoners. These lessons should be taught by natives who can share the complex nuances of their culture. Second, greater resources must be allocated for interrogation. Often, interrogators attempting to provide incentives for their captive can only offer a meager pillow or a blanket. Finally, the US military must research alternative methods of cross-examination. Alexander reported that Indonesia currently uses a highly successful system that treats each suspect as an individual, rather than a group member. Prior to the interrogation, interrogators assess the prisoner’s dominant motives, level of radicalism, role in the network, and personal problems. Many militants leave Indonesian interrogations to become ex-militants and advocates against violence. This analytic and individualist approach, Alexander concluded, is something the United States military should quickly adopt.
Former Senior Military Interrogator
http://newamerica.net/events/2010/effec ... techniques