Recently
I read Malcolm Gladwell's new Book "Talking to Strangers". His
discussion of the effectiveness of torture reminded me to think about a story I
started and abandoned years ago. His comments gave me a new angle on the issue,
so I had another look at the idea.
Opposition
to Torture
I
am opposed to the use of torture on moral grounds. I feel it is just wrong. However,
I believe that there is another reason to oppose the use of torture. That is
that torture is ineffective and maybe even counter productive.
Advocates
of the use of torture often posit a situation where you have a suspect who
knows where and when a terrorist attack will happen. They ask, wouldn't you use
torture if it meant saving lives. This is presented as a dilemma. But, if
torture is not effective, then there is no dilemma.
Why Torture Doesn’t Work
Torture
is only one way to get information from suspected terrorists. People in law enforcement
have developed other approaches, such as developing a rapport with the suspect.
I am convinced that these other approaches are more effective if you want to gain
the information you want.
When
people are tortured, they eventually will say just about anything to stop the
torture. This was true both of people who had valuable information and those
who had no information. Although knowledgeable people would eventually reveal
useful information, those who did not have useful information would makeup
information that they thought the interrogators would want to hear. Interrogators
would not know if their suspects would have useful information.
Terrorist
groups are typically organized into small cells. Only members of a cell know
what the cell has planned in enough detail to be useful in deterring attacks.
That means that only few suspects would have useful information. Interrogators
would get useful information from those few. However, the vast majority of
information they would get would be from people who know nothing, and it would
be useless or misleading.
To
make maters worse, the suspects who made up information would try to fit what
they thought the interrogators wanted to hear. As a result, most of the
resources would be wasted on wild goose chases, while valuable leads are
ignored.
Outline of the Story
My
story would center on a conflict between two interrogators over whether to use
torture on a terrorist suspect they believe was involved in a planned terrorist
attack.
The
story would start with the interrogator who rejects torture. He would develop
some rapport with the suspect and gain some information that the other interrogator
would consider irrelevant.
Impatient
to make progress, the second interrogator would take over and begin to torture
the suspect. He would "break" the suspect using torture and get
information on the planned attack. Armed with this information he would
instigate a large operation to foil the plot.
Left
behind, the first negotiator meets with the suspect. In the course of casual conversation,
the interrogator would realize that the suspect did not have information on the
planned attack. He just made up something to stop the torture.
However,
the first negotiator would pick up on some hints and clues, that the suspect
himself isn't aware are relevant or important. Using those clues, the interrogator
determines where and when the attack would be. No one will accept his
interpretation, and since all the resources are focused on the false attack, he
ends up going alone to stop the attack. Of course, being the hero, he foils the
attack and saves lives.
The Effect of Torture on Memory
Gladwell
talks about an aspect of the effectiveness of torture that I was unaware of. He
cites studies that show that torture affects people's memory. A tortured
suspect could very well be unable to recall the information that interrogators
really want. They, like the people who really do not have useful information,
would be forced to make things up to stop the torture.
Gladwell
mentions the confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the leaders of Al-Qaeda.
After a long period of torture, KSM did "break" and made a long and
detailed confession. The problem was that much of the confession was made up. For
example, he confesses to targeting an attack at a building that was built after
he was captured. That couldn't possibly be true.
Changes to My Story idea
My
initial thought was that the issue of memory impairment would require a big
change to my story idea. After further consideration, I decided that the
changes could be minor, and would make the story more effective.
Since
the torture would affect the suspect's memory, the interrogator would need to
gain the important information before the torture. This would also make it
clear that the information he uses is not the result of the suspect's torture. This
would also add some irony to the story, since they already have the information
they need before they try torture.
Still Blocked
This
new wrinkle got me interested in the story again, but I still don't feel that I
can restart work on it. I think there is still potential with the idea, but I'm
just not yet the person to write it.
Over
the years, I've had to abandon many story ideas I developed. I do notice a pattern
with some of those. When I start work on a story with a "message"
that I want to communicate, like this story, I find it difficult to push past a
certain point.
I
think one reason I get stuck is that I get too focussed on the idea I want to
promote and neglect other elements of the story. I need to have interesting
characters and story lines. If I don't find my characters and story
interesting, other people won't find them interesting.
This post is a mirror from my main blog http://www.dynamiclethargyfilms.ca/blog
