IN THE opening scene of Gillo Pontecorvo鈥檚 classic film The Battle of Algiers, a traumatised semi-naked man sits surrounded by soldiers, with instruments of torture scattered about. The soldiers are triumphant, and it soon transpires why: their victim has given them crucial information about a leading terrorist. The implication is clear: torture worked.
But did it in the real events that inspired the film? Darius Rejali, professor of political science at Reed College at Portland, Oregon, says the victory the film depicts of French colonial authorities over Algerian nationalists was due largely to their use of collaborators. Like most academics who have studied the subject, Rejali is convinced that torture is not an effective tool for obtaining useful information. Extreme physical pain might make victims more compliant, but they are still likely to say anything just to make it stop.
Many interrogators agree. 鈥淭orture will often cause a source to say or do whatever he believes the interrogator wants him to. Truth or personal beliefs become irrelevant to the soldier faced with mutilation, pain, discomfort or death,鈥� says Patrick McDonald, author of the interrogation manual Make 鈥楨m Talk: Principles of military interrogation (Paladin, 1993).
Advertisement
Note this testimony from Shafiq Rasul, one of the Britons released from Guantanamo Bay this year after two-and-a-half years of harsh interrogation and physical abuse: 鈥淭hey wanted me to admit鈥 was in Al-Qaida. This was not true and I started to refuse to agree with the interrogator, but I was desperate to get out and eventually I just accepted things they put to me.鈥� Truth, it seems, is a fragile thing.