The effectiveness of coercive interrogation: Scholarly and judicial responses

Rumney, Philip

doi:10.1007/s10611-006-9028-2

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the 'torture (sometimes) works' argument continues to gain purchase among some scholars (Bagaric and Clarke, 2005;Posner and Vermeule, 2005), such methods are criticized as being unreliable in producing timely life-saving information (Rumney, 2005(Rumney, , 2006Shane and Mazzetti, 2008; see also Harcourt, 2009). Nonetheless, the Bush administration insisted that 'enhanced' interrogations are not only effective and necessary to safeguard national security, but also lawful (see Greenberg and Dratel, 2005;Yoo, 2006); on the contrary, human rights lawyers insist that those who participate in the use of such techniques could face criminal sanctions (Brody, 2005;Pokempner, 2005;Roth, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Those commentators contend that when torture is utilized for informational purposes to uncover an imminent danger threatening human lives, its use is morally justifiable, even if such physical coercion does not work all the time. However, as Rumney (2005Rumney ( , 2006 points out, there are serious problems with the view that torture has the potential to produce timely, reliable, and life-saving information. Claims of effectiveness are based largely on anecdotal evidence which often cannot be independently verified, prompting further skepticism (see Harcourt, 2009).…”

Section: The Allure Of Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Likewise, this critique casts doubt on the notion that 'enhanced' interrogation (and torture) stems from a genuine scientific endeavor, and is therefore effective in producing valuable information in the war on terror. 1 Whereas claims persist that 'torture (sometimes) works' (Dershowitz, 2002;Bagaric and Clarke, 2005;Posner and Vermeule, 2005), critics question the effectiveness of coercive methods in producing timely, reliable, and life-saving information (Rumney, 2005(Rumney, , 2006; see Harcourt, 2009;Welch, 2009a). Nonetheless, this article reaches beyond the polarized debate over whether torture is actually effective or even moral.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

American ‘pain-ology’ in the war on terror: a critique of ‘scientific’ torture

Welch

2009

Theoretical Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questionable tactics in America’s war on terror continue to undergo scrutiny due to their threats to human rights, chief among them ‘enhanced’ interrogation and torture. Indeed, a growing chorus of criticism has been leveled at the political, legal, and ethical considerations of those policies and practices. Scholars, nonetheless, have neglected other important aspects of the controversy, for instance, the extent to which modern torture has been influenced by ‘scientific’ claims involving the effectiveness and appropriateness of certain procedures. Filling the void, this analysis explores the invention of modern torture as it draws on behavioral and psychological research in developing a new paradigm for pain. Delving into the assertions of ‘enhanced’ techniques, the critique focuses on a science studies perspective aimed at deciphering the allure of science in policing as well as in the war on terror. Such ‘scientification’, as discussed herein, reinforces the illusion that the state’s capacity to unveil the truth is infallible.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Allure Of Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation