Editor’s note: This letter was submitted in response to Crystal Avila’s article “Tortured Nation: Morality, Security, And Torture,” published in the Irish Rover on Jan. 29, 2015.

I attended the event and found Ms. Avila’s article about a recent panel on torture at Notre Dame to be accurate and well-written.  However, there is much more to the subject of torture than was covered by the panelists.  As a former US Army interrogator (1986-97) I think it’s important that your readers have some additional information.

As far as the legality of torture is concerned, I can only discuss the matter from the position of the Geneva Conventions.  (I was the primary Geneva Conventions trainer for the 3rd Armor Division prior to deployment for Operation Desert Storm, the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, speaking before every unit of the division.)

If those terrorists in custody are considered to be prisoners of war in the War on Terror, they are entitled to full protection from torture under the Geneva Conventions.  If they are considered to be civilian criminals in custody, they are further protected by the Geneva Conventions.  In addition, The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, approved by the US Senate by a vote of 90-9, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (also known as the United Nations Convention against Torture) provide additional protections for individuals held in US custody.

The sole military member of the [Notre Dame] panel, Colonel Kelly Jordan, noted that every military recruit takes an oath to follow the orders of their commanders and leaders.  He also noted very specifically that those orders had to be legal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and there is an obligation to follow only orders that are legal and moral.  Illegal or immoral orders must be reported through the chain of command (or the Chaplaincy).

No one on the panel has had any direct involvement with torture, although Professor Paolo Carozza, while serving on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (of which he was President 2008-09), certainly had second- and third-hand exposure to the subject of torture.

While serving as a US Army Interrogator (1986-97) I also served as a resistance to interrogation trainer for elite NATO forces.  The SERE program (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) was mandatory for all military personnel most at risk of capture during war and all senior personnel with access to critical information.  During the resistance portion of the program, we exposed the trainees to the type of treatment they could expect to experience if captured by the enemy.  Much of the training was brutal and would most certainly be classified as torture by any reasonable person.  Prior to serving as a resistance to interrogation trainer, I was required to go through the NATO SERE program.  Twice.  I have experienced and used techniques (that if used outside the training) would be torture.  And from personal experience I can assure you that the response to torture is to tell the torturer what you think he or she wants to hear, not necessarily the truth.  Intelligence gained through torture is unreliable and can lead to wasted operational assets and missions without results, and even the deaths of innocent civilians.

In July 2006, the Statement on Interrogation Practices was presented to the Senate and House Committees on the Armed Forces.  It presented two statements that summed up the use of torture and harsh treatment of prisoners from the point of view of professional interrogators.  First, trained and skilled interrogators can accomplish the intelligence gathering mission using only those interrogation techniques found in Army Field Manual 34-52 (1992).  Second, prisoner/detainee abuse and torture are to be avoided at all costs, in part because they can degrade the intelligence collection effort by interfering with a skilled interrogator’s efforts to establish rapport with the subject.

The Statement was signed by 20 former interrogators with over 200 years of combined service, ranging from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan.  (There was 100 percent acceptance of the Statement by well over 150 interrogators.  Because the Statement was in direct contradiction to positions taken by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, no active duty interrogator’s name was attached to the document.)

A PDF version of the Statement including its cover letter can be downloaded here: http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/faculty-resources/download/statement-on-interrogation-practices-by-20-former-us-army-interrogators-for-us-congress-committee-on-the-armed-services-jul-2006/4848/pdf.

Professor Michael Desch brought up the theoretical situation of a “ticking time bomb.”  Such a situation would have to be a “perfect storm” of: knowing there is a bomb set to explode at a certain time; knowing that an individual has specific information about the type, location, and timing of such a bomb; having that individual in custody; and having an individual with the knowledge and skill to torture accurate information from that individual present.

The “ticking time bomb” scenario has long been dismissed by professional intelligence gatherers.  (Persons placing bombs not built by themselves and persons wearing suicide vests reportedly rarely know how to disarm them to prevent last-moment changes of heart.)

I would also like to note the very effective interrogation practices of former FBI agent Ali Soufan.  A Google search will lead to links to an article about his experience in The New Yorker as well as his excellent book, “The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda.”

The bottom line is this: Professionally-trained interrogators of the US military and the FBI agree that torture is ineffective in gaining actionable intelligence.