Anatomy of Torture

by Ron E. Hassner

Does torture "work?" Can controversial techniques such as waterboarding extract crucial and reliable intelligence? Since 9/11, this question has been angrily debated in the halls of power and the court of public opinion. In Anatomy of Torture, Ron E. Hassner mines the archives of the Spanish Inquisition to propose an answer that will frustrate and infuriate both sides of the divide. The Inquisition's scribes recorded every torment, every scream, and every confession in the torture chamber. Their transcripts reveal that Inquisitors used torture deliberately and meticulously, unlike the rash, improvised methods used by the United States after 9/11. In their relentless pursuit of underground Jewish communities in Spain and Mexico, the Inquisition tortured in cold blood. But they treated any information extracted with torture was used to test information provided through other means, not to uncover startling new evidence.

Hassner's findings in Anatomy of Torture have important implications for ongoing torture debates. Rather than insist that torture is ineffective, torture critics should focus their attention on the morality of torture. If torture is evil, its efficacy is irrelevant. At the same time, torture defenders cannot advocate for torture as a counterterrorist "quick fix": torture has never located, nor will ever locate, the hypothetical "ticking bomb" that is frequently invoked to justify brutality in the name of security.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Sociology, Philosophy

200 pages, Hardcover

Published April 15, 2022

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

First and foremost, a large thank you to NetGalley, Ron E. Hassner, and Cornell University Press for providing me with a copy of this publication, which allows me to provide you with an unbiased review.

Always one to keep my brain sharp with some academic reading, I turned to this analysis by Ron E. Hassner. While talk of torture and ‘enhanced interrogation’ were buzz words a few decades ago, the topic can still bring out many opinions on both sides of the argument. Does it work? How effective is it? When (if ever) should it be used to garner needed information? Hassner tackles these and many other questions, while also exploring the ethics of torture and its analysis in this concise book that is full of information and opportunities for the reader to learn.

From the outset, Hassner explains that not much is known about modern torture, mostly because it is not documented publicly. Surely, the Americans used it quite significantly after September 11, 2001, but they used euphemisms and kept specifics locked away in classified documents, making any analysis all but impossible. Hassner also explores that different sources offer greatly varied answers when it comes to certain people who were detained, including types, frequency, and intensity of torture. Therefore, any analysis of modern torture is impossible and leaves the door wide open for speculative answers, which is not Hassner’s intention.

Instead, the book examines some of the torture that history has provided with a great deal of documentation. Hassner focuses his attention on the Spanish Inquisition, which used torture quite extensively and over a long period of time. There are also a great number of resources readily available to the curious academic that discuss torture of all kinds and its effectiveness. Hassner uses this for the foundation of his tome and explores how it brought about results, but not in the same way US sources cite torture is used.

The attentive reader will see that Hassner divides torture not only by the time period within the Inquisition, but also types of torture used. It was primarily used to extract information, not pigeonhole individuals who were of a different religious belief. Use of secondary information was key to corroborate views before torture might have been considered, rather than relying on pain to lead towards truth telling. In fact, Hassner explicitly mentions throughout that extreme pain was likely not an effective type of torture, as it would have the recipient say whatever was needed to stop the agony, rather than revealing needed truths.

After a few case studies and analysis, Hassner turns to the ethics of torture and reporting it in a modern, academic fashion. While there have been groups who have used torture for long periods, many sought to scare populations, rather than extract key pieces of information from specific people. This is key to better understanding the process and how torture can only be as effective as its application. Use it too broadly and it becomes moot, though some regimes seem not to mind the stick over the carrot approach.

Ron E. Hassner provides the reader with a strong and well-paced book on torture, exemplifying its effective use, as well las its key downfalls. He uses strong examples, both modern and historical, to support his arguments, but chooses to remain as neutral as possible on the subject, so that the reader can come up with some of their own conclusions. The chapters were full of information, both prose and tabular, allowing for effective and comprehensive understanding of everything on the subject matter. While some of it did get a little deeper than I would have expected (or, at times,could synthesise), I thoroughly enjoyed learning and took much away from this short tome. While I may not be rushing out to read a great deal else on the subject, it has piqued my interest to see what others say on the topic and how they contrast with the work Hassner presented here.

Kudos, Mr. Hassner, for a wonderful chance to better understand theins and out of torture, as well as how history has taught us its uses and downfalls.

Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

[Zana · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Anatomy of Torture' is a detailed and very well researched non-fiction book about torture.

It's an engaging and disturbing book that raises a lot of important issues.
The author compares Spanish Inquisition’s torture practices to the ones used in modern times.
He dives into the history of torture, how it's used, the ethics of enhanced interrogation used in the 'War on Terror' and its effectiveness.
He looks at both sides of the argument in a very neutral and balanced way.

Since not a lot is known about modern torture, mostly because it's not publicly documented and a lot of it is hidden away in classified documents, the author focuses more on the history of torture than modern day use.

I would recommend 'Anatomy of Torture' to anyone interested in learning more on the subject.

Thank you NetGalley and Cornell University Press for providing me with a digital ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.

[Arthur Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

While interesting especially when dealing with specific cases of families during the inquisition I found the book in general to be quite repetitive and found myself hearing the same points over and over and over again. Some interesting insights in the efficacy of torture however.

[Jake · Rating 2 out of 5]

In Anatomy of Torture, political scientist, Ron Hassner, takes aim at the utilitarian critics of torture, who base their opposition on purely consequentialist grounds. Hassner presents a number of these critics and finds their arguments lacking persuasive power. The evidence he gives is not based in contemporary studies of torture, for there are so few available. Rather, out of necessity, Hassner is forced to look to the past for answers. Anatomy of Torture is, therefore, a bit of an oddity in the field of political science, as it refracts current affairs through a decidedly historical lens.

According to consequentialist reasoning, if torture can yield demonstrably true and reliable information, which can then be used to promote the greatest good for the greatest number, then it can be supported. However, utilitarian critics have doubted the capacity of torture to generate such information, leading them to conclude that torture is wrong and morally indefensible. Hassner identifies the essence of utilitarian arguments as this: the moral justifiability of an action can be extracted from whether it “works” or not. There’s some truth in that characterization, though I think it’s largely a misrepresentation of the utilitarian spirit. In fact, the classic utilitarian thesis would actually defend the use of torture, if the brutalization of a few can benefit the welfare of the many. But I digress.

At any rate, Hassner takes that understanding of consequentialism into the archives with him to see if the argument holds any water. He finds a definitive answer while combing through the vast collections from the Spanish Inquisition. The conclusion is disturbing – the empirical and archival evidence suggests that, under certain conditions, “corroborative torture” actually “works”. Therefore, against the backdrop of the Spanish Inquisition, the consequentialist argument is unpersuasive. In Hassner’s view, torture critics would be more convincing if they based their claims on deontological foundations instead of unfounded utilitarian ones. In a word, Hassner wants to see fewer Millseans and more Kantians. This is an interesting point, and one that is worth serious reflection.

By the end of the book, it is clear what Hassner wants critics to think. What is less clear, however, is where exactly Hassner stands on the moral question. Anatomy of Torture is a daring little case study, but on the moral question, it’s a total cop-out. Hassner’s idealization of amorality as an academic virtue is reckless and irresponsible. Indeed, his level of commitment to silence on this moral issue is almost Machiavellian in execution. “I will not declare my personal stance on torture,” he says in the conclusion. “It has no bearing on my findings.” In response to that statement, I must ask the following question – why not? Why do so many researchers assume that their findings are merely descriptive, and that the prescriptive human element should somehow stay on the sidelines? What is wrong with Albert Einstein placing an asterisk next to his scientific findings, which he knew could be used to make atomic weapons?

I don’t think value judgments should – or even can – be separated from the hard sciences, and that applies even more to the humanities and ‘soft sciences’. I don’t think that demanding a moral stance from a researcher in a high-stakes field of study is tantamount to a “purity test”, as Hassner calls it. It’s not a purity test, it’s just responsible scholarship. Political scientists like Hassner occupy a fictionalized space, in which research is devoid of any value judgments, when in fact, the research enterprise is filled with value judgments every step of the way. The very idea of political science suggests its own oxymoronic self-referentiality. There are some objects of study, which are so morally contentious and fraught, that cannot be studied purely scientifically – that is, detached, impartial, and abstracted from this-worldly concerns. It is my belief that the gravity of a subject can impose itself upon the observer in such a way that a moral stance is suddenly necessary. Some things are just too hot-blooded to approach coldly.

The danger is this – if we think we are absolutely objective and neutral, and we refuse to recognize the subjective and emotional dimensions of our research process, then we run the risk of not only absolving ourselves from the practical implications of our findings, but we can also fail to seize opportunities to offer expert advice on how to handle these findings responsibly and humanely. Particularly in the case of torture studies, or other fields of inquiry which are especially sensitive, we need to be extra diligent in offering recommendations on the use and abuse of empirical data. Hassner failed to offer any sense of moral restraint on his discoveries. Morally-speaking, Anatomy of Torture is the equivalent of striking a match and walking away.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

My thanks to NetGalley and the publisher Cornell University Press for an advanced copy of historical and political studies.

For all the debate about the ethics of Enhanced Interrogation and its use by American forces to fight the War on Terror, one of the largest questions raised is does it work. Both sides have their views on the subject, but most of the information that would be needed for a study are hidden under numerous layers of top secrets and other ways government uses to hide things it wishes would go away. So Ron E. Hassner, Professor of Political Science at University of California, Berkeley has gone to a group that kept meticulous records about their torture sessions, the Spanish Inquisition.

Anatomy of Torture is not a pro or con kind of a book. Professor Hassner states his examples, long transcriptions done by scribes of various torture sessions, every action, tool used, scream made, and every word said. The author then studies court transcripts, did the torture lead to convictions, did the information lead further, or was it ignored. What strikes the reader most is that records from hundreds of years ago were easier, even with translating and age than reading and accessing records from only twenty years ago. Also these sections are not easy to read in many places.

The writing is both scholarly and disturbing, both in the subject, and what is happening. I won't go into a summary. This is a very interesting book that raises quite a few questions about what humanity allows itself to do. How could a government say yes, torture is fine we need information, and run a program so haphazardly, where the Inquisition seems to have had more rules, better trained interrogators, and a stronger system to follow up on leads gained. This is a slim, well written book that raises a lot of important issues. Issues that I don't think this country is ever going to address.

[Richard Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Spanish Inquisition was famous for freely using torture in its extended campaign to root out heresy. The Inquisitors had no moral compunctions about using torture, and they kept meticulous records of what they did, many of which have been preserved. After all, their mission was to save souls, so bodily suffering was nothing in comparison. They did not use torture to punish or to extract confessions or promises of repentance. They didn't need to use torture as punishment since they could burn or brutally whip anyone who was guilty of heresy, and they knew that confessions of faith under torture were unreliable. Torture was purely a device for seeking information. They went about their job in a very business-like way, applying torture only when other methods failed and only for as long and as painfully as was necessary to get the information that they sought. They learned that torture was much better for getting corroboration of information already obtained from other sources than getting new information. They knew that leading questions were likely to yield false answers, so they were always careful to be neutral in what they asked for. "You know what you did. Tell us all." That must have been even scarier than more specific questions. And the Inquisitors were good at what they did. Mr. Hassner concludes that torture was sometimes effective in getting information not available in any other way, though it didn't always work, it took a long time and the information that it yielded was usually not of the highest quality. The most valuable information that the Inquisitors discovered came from witnesses who were not coerced though perhaps the express or implied threat of torture caused their targets to cooperate more freely than they would have done if torture had not been an option.

By comparison, American torturers of suspected terrorists in the modern era are rank amateurs, who use the wrong kind of torture in the wrong way often on the wrong targets and seeking the wrong kind of information. But Mr. Hassner is careful to point out that he isn't suggesting that they should study the Inquisition so as to become better torturers. He is clear in saying that there is a strong moral argument against using torture ever, even in ways that are controlled and effective, but he says that opponents of torture don't serve their own cause well by claiming that torture is always ineffective.

[Book Club of One · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ron Hassner's Anatomy of Torture opens with the troubling declaration that due to the dearth of available data it is hard to measure how effective torture is, especially in revealing timely operational intelligence. While this is a very modern problem, particularly as torture (or "enhanced interrogation techniques") have been used by the US and their allies in combating terrorism, Hassner looked back in history and was able to find a large enough data pool to explore the nature of torture through the Spanish Inquisition in the years 1484 to 1601.

Building on the work of other scholars and encouraging others to pursue this line of inquiry, Hassner presents three cities of the Spanish Empire; Ciudad Real, Toldeo and Mexico City. In each place he details the way the inquisitors pursued accusations and in some cases began to torture and then how they adapted their methods. His finds suggest that Inquisitors were more successful when they tortured, or threatened to torture, seeking "corroborative" information. As in, they had information from another source, but wanted to confirm it. The other method Hassner describes is "exploratory torture" where one is tortured to see what they reveal.

Hassner also takes time to dispel some of the misconceptions about the Spanish Inquisition, such as torture not being used to determine guilt and that those who kept their silence were often freed with lesser penalties than those who broke and then recanted.

While centered on a controversial topic, Hassner handles it with a great deal of thought and care. He devotes the last two sections to summarize the research presented and also address the great ethical complications of a nation using torture as well as suggested research pathways for other scholars.


I received a free digital version of this book via NetGalley thanks to the publisher.

[Brenda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anatomy of Torture is a comprehensive and thought-provoking book about what it means to torture, the how, why, when, where and who is/was involved. Interestingly, most of the evidence used is drawn from copious and extremely detailed manuscripts scribes painstakingly documented from the Spanish and Mexican Inquisition as we have very few details from more recent interrogations. Some of the manuscripts are pictured in this book. But does torture work?

Author Ron Hassner discusses interrogative torture as opposed to confessional. Though torture then and now (such as waterboarding which is older than most would think) is described, Hassner's focus is more on the causes, characters and effects. He explains the process of extracting information slowly, the importance of corroboration and testimonies, comparing male vs. female reactions, advantages of Inquisition methods over modern, "shadow of torture", myths of the Inquisition, eliminating Jews and Muslim from Spain, torture victims' understandable false claims and recantations and the "confession trap" using a plethora of examples from said manuscripts. Historical context is important to remember and Hassner details extracting information from those involved in modern terrorist events including Osama bin Laden's group, for example. But far, far less is known about this than the Inquisition of 500 years ago. Amazing.

If you are at all intrigued by the subject, do not hesitate to read this book. You will undoubtedly learn a lot as I did!

My sincere thank you to Cornell University Press and NetGalley for the privilege of reading this extraordinary book.

[Willy Marz Thiessam · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a solid work dealing with torture. There is no question it is an important book in the field. What strikes me most is that this deals with a body of records, the Spanish Inquisition, that is not rivaled for detail and breadth anywhere else. As such we take some caution, as the author recommends, in extrapolating what we can draw from it. That said, we would do well to take this book seriously and examine, with the author, his process of unravelling what torture is, and how and why it is used.

For myself I kept asking, as we went from example to example, what if this is merely a failure of human beings to deal with that which they can not control. Torture as a means of fooling those in authority that they are controlling and supressing as they wish seemed obvious. Even if torture succeeds generally, we have been left with a sense that this is an sad failure of man to confront his inability to accept that somethings in this world are beyond him.

This is what the author, Hassner, has done, he has provided a book so detailed and easy to follow you will be engaged. Your engagement will get you thinking about this subject. This is not a catalogue of horrors but a dialogue with the author. Hassner is to be commended and I would definitely recommend this book.

[Ashley]

a specific analysis of the Spanish Inquisition’s torture practices that is used to evaluate modern regimes’ use of torture. i found there was a good mix of broad but numerous vs. detailed but limited accounts that painted a comprehensive picture of the Inquisition’s development. i personally would’ve liked more historical background, but since this is a work of political science scholarship it’s not really necessary. i’m not a torture scholar, so i actually learned a lot about the subject, especially in areas that countered my biases and assumptions. the ethical analysis of torture scholarship seemed extraneous to this work’s purpose, but i understand its inclusion. there were several moments while reading that i thought “i’m sure intelligence agencies somewhere are taking notes,” but Hassner stresses the importance of scholarship for scholarship’s sake, even if its conclusions could unintentionally (and that’s key) lead to bad consequences. an anatomy of torture feels somewhat misleading as a title, since the analysis of torture practices is mostly limited to one historical era. i feel like anatomy implies a broader focus but that’s just a small gripe.


eARC courtesy of NetGalley and Cornell University Press.

[CASPER HILEMAN · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Hassner has spent a career studying and teaching the history of conflict, particularly the impact of faith on conflict. This work studies in depth the practice of torture during the auto-da-fe practice as well as other methods of violent conversion practiced by the Catholic Church after the Reconquista of Spain. The interesting application of this study is the practice of enhanced interrogation techniques during the "War on Terror." Well worth the time and thought that it will provoke.

[Nicole · Rating 4 out of 5]

How has torture become so acceptable in society? What does it say about humanity? The author does a fantastic job of explaining to us how torture is used, and if it is successful in retrieving what they hope for. This book was very engaging and easy to follow. I would recommend to anyone interested in learning more on the subject.

[Katherine · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well-researched compendium of torture throughout the ages. Mr Hassner highlights why information obtained through torture should always be questioned and draws parallels in history. A bit dry and pedantic at times, it is definitely a good read for lovers of history and this niche of interest.

[Alex Sintschenko · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the few academic works on torture I could find. Simple thesis, interesting but get's tedious quickly with all the archival work and citations.

[Kristoffer · Rating 2 out of 5]

Only really goes into the spanish inquisition and doesn't really reach any conclusions, i felt the book says the same thing over and over again.

[Erick Sala · Rating 5 out of 5]

Though not so much a ‘how to’ manual as much as a historical look at how institutions have used coercion to moderate to moderately low effect, it was nonetheless an interesting read.

[Hiba Miari · Rating 4 out of 5]

An impressive body of work.

My takeaway from this research is that the question about the use of torture should not be answered by whether it is effective but by whether it is moral.

Due to the lack of data for modern and current torture, the author draws conclusions from investigating three different periods of three different courts set by the Spanish Inquisition in Ciudad Real, Toledo and New Spain (Mexico). The Spanish Inquisition provides the ideal reference for studying torture because it was not bound by financial, political, social, moral or time constraints. The result is that torture, in a corroborative form, sometimes yielded effective results that were not new. Torture was employed at the end stages of a lengthy trial. This comes to argue against proponents of torture in modern times where torture is often employed in ticking bomb situations.

There are two points that I took away from this book:

1. I agree with the author that the use of torture should be assessed based on morality and not efficacy. I almost cannot believe that this is even up to debate.
2. The author urges that research on torture should be conducted in absolute objectivity regardless of the researcher's point of view on torture and regardless of what the results will yield. I like this in theory, but we all know how history has always been fabricated. It is utopian to think that researchers and scientists don't have their own agenda and own biases. To that end, the author does not declare his stance on torture because he thinks the research should be viewed regardless of the author's point of view. The stance of the author degrades the quality of the work, in a way. I understand where this is coming from but also knowing the stance of the author can put the literature into context and perspective because as I said, almost every one has their own biases and are pushing for a specific agenda whether implicitly or explicitly. I think it would be chaotic for society if historians, politicians, researchers, scientists etc.. did not take a stance in situations where neutrality does more harm.

Regarding the writing style, I thought it was easy to follow, not complicated, and was not boring.