Torture isn't the solution post-Brussels, says this former CIA interrogator
While Donald Trump has argued that more use of torture on terrorism suspects could have prevented Tuesday's tragedy in Brussels, a former CIA interrogator, Phil Houston, begs to differ.
He argues that there is reason to be optimistic about successful information gathering from Salah Abdeslam, who was recently captured and is believed to have ties to November's terrorist attack in Paris and perhaps the explosion in Brussels — particularly if Belgian intelligence agents stick to proven non-coercive techniques:
We have found that invaluable, life-saving information can be obtained, even under the most difficult circumstances, by employing a non-coercive methodology that addresses the motivations an individual has for withholding information. [...]Although the complexities and nuances associated with this approach prevent a meaningful encapsulation here, we can say that the Belgian interrogators, to be effective, will almost certainly work to convince Abdeslam that life for him going forward will somehow be better if he provides the information the interrogators are seeking. [LawNewz]
For more perspective on the effectiveness of torture, see The Week's Ryan Cooper on "Why torture doesn't work: A definitive guide."
Article continues belowThe Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
