I thought I might add my two cents in, even though I usually stay out of these debates (mostly because I think that if Ineed to come in and explain something then I must have done a shit job in the story.)

Yes, Harry could have used a truth potion- if he had any, but I suppose he could have gone and found some.

He might have tried Legillimency (though if I recall, I could have sworn I had him fry out somebody's brain in TDK or TDR specifically so he wouldn't become a uber!mind master). That said, who said he never used it? All I showed you guys was that Harry was resorting to some forms of physical torture and he was up there for a few hours.

I will disagree with you on the Imperius bit though. What, zap him and order him to tell the truth? I don't think it works like that. Then again, I faintly recall something from DH but I skimmed book 7 so....yeah. Anyway, that's a major type of cliche and I try to stay away from them.

He could have done some of those things (and maybe he did) but he could also have did it his way. He could have physically tortured somebody and got the truth out of them that way. Remember, Meciel can do that trick by monitoring the bio-electricty or whatever, she can determine if you're telling the truth or telling a lie.

Basically, she's Veritserum all by herself.

So those ways could have worked, but this way is just as effective. Physical pain, weaken the body, keep asking questions and you get your answers. We're not talking about inserting spikes up his arse, just extreme physical discomforture.

What I'm trying to get is, Harry's way was just as effective as any of the others. Maybe a bit longer, but it still worked. Plus, he's a bastard and a part of him gets off on that sort of stuff. He'd do it his preferred way rather than any others as long as the results are the same.

Not moral, definately in character.


On the Dumbledore issue, well, as I'm trying to show and will keep showing, he's comfortable in giving the orders (to a certain extent) but he hates getting his hands dirty. Past memories and all that crap. That's the good thing about having somebody like Harry around, willing to do all the dirty work regardless of what Dumbledore thinks.

He could have used Snape. He could also have used Harry. He did. Plus, in reality, then what? Should they have let the Death Eater go? Lock him in Azkaban when Voldemort was breaking his followers out left, right and center? The grim reality is that as soon as the interrogation was done, the Death Eater had to die. Otherwise, all the information they had just learned could have been refuted the moment the man was able to tell Voldemort what he had leaked (and then he would have probably died as well, a tad more painfully too).

Undermining himself? Politically, I suppose, but apart from Tonks and Harry, nobody else knows. Morally, perhaps, but like you said, he's hardening himself up to those sorts of truths. Any other way, not likely. Why wouldn't he condone it, if you think on those sorts of measures? If one of the other methods MIGHT have failed and goten Order members killed on the bad intel, then isn't it worth doing it Harry's way?

There's nothing moral about it. It's cold, hard logic that made him choose Harry. This sort of stuff happens all the time in real life- not that I'm making some kind of statement about it. Mostly, the scene was just to show that Harry's doing the things the Order should but won't. You can be damn sure Voldemort and his lot employ similar methods.

Anyway, tell me if I didn't address something.

And don't say 'The Order shouldn't sink to that level.'

They have.

 

Thou has commanded. So shall it be.

 

Sorry for the somewhat long reply, but as you can tell, I feel somewhat strongly about all this...

As you are the author, did or did not Harry use Legilimency?

Conceded for the sake of argument. IMO, it makes sense that it's within the parameters of the spell, but I'll make the concession.

You seem to be under the impression that somehow torture is more likely to make someone tell the truth than otherwise. It's not. Real life bears this out. This is something that has been known for centuries. Indeed, the Roman historian Ulpian put (part of) the issue as that "The strong resist torture and the weak will say anything to end their pain." For a more detailed look, check out Alfred McCoy's A Question of Torture, Darius Rejali's Torture and Democracy, and there probably a bunch of resources online as well. Also, by the way, Harry did more than "extreme physical discomforture [sic]." He tortured the person to the extent that there were blood spatters on the windows and on his own clothes. In any case, extreme physical discomfiture (i.e. hooding, isolation, stress position, temperature manipulation, etc) is torture. Both psychological experiments and actual examination of people who have gone through those things bear that out painfully so.

For Harry, sure. I don't think it is in character for Dumbledore.

I can understand that perspective. I just don't think that having Dumbledore order torture was the particular way to execute that. It just makes no sense.

You are misconstruing my comments to a degree. In my original post, I pointed out that even if noncoercive techniques failed, both Veritaserum and Legilimency remained open as coercive interrogative measures. KrzaQ responded by saying that Harry wasn't that experience in Legilimency and Dumbledore wouldn't want to do that. I pointed out that Snape very well could have performed the Legilimency, as well as of course providing the Veritaserum.

Azkaban is not the only place in the world. Execution is hardly the only option.

London is a pretty big place. England is a pretty big place. France is just across the channel. The world is a lot smaller with Apparition, Portkeys, and Floo travel. Acquiring a safe house to keep captured Death Eaters under Fidelius isn't particularly difficult for Dumbledore to do. Also, it would be very useful for Dumbledore to do so, as he would have more opportunity to interrogate them at length, keep them as hostages and bargaining chips, etc.

Things that are supposed to remain secret have a predictable tendency of becoming well-known.

This argument is a non sequitur. You note that the other methods might not work. The fact that they might not work is not an indication that torture will in the case they will not. It is also not an indication that torture is more likely to give valuable, reliable intelligence than other methods. This all supposes that torture is a reliable way to gather intelligence. It isn't. For your argument to work, you would have to show that torture is more likely to provide reliable intelligence than other methods. You haven't. There is every indication it doesn't. Dumbledore would know this. Dumbledore would know that there is a more politically expedient and reliable way to obtain information - and it doesn't involve torture at all. Even in canon, it's not as if Dumbledore goes ahead and tells Snape to Cruciate away at Crouch Jr. - instead, he immediately employs Veritaserum and probably Legilimency mixed in as well.

Not really. That's the thing - it doesn't happen all the time in real life. In fact, it very rarely happens that torture produces reliable, actionable intelligence. Hard decisions are made in war, sure - but torture isn't one of them. Some people, even people high up in the government and particular segments of intelligence agencies seem to think so, but it really is not, as professional interrogators note.

But, the problem is that the Order is right here. They shouldn't use torture. It doesn't produce intelligence. It undermines political support. It provides a recruiting tool for the Death Eaters. Dumbledore all of a sudden giving Harry a green light on torture makes no sense.

I found this comment fascinating. As J.K. Rowling has done before, she has compared Voldemort and the Death Eaters to Hitler and the Nazis - in parallels between ideology, fanaticism, methods, etc. Interestingly, the German Gestapo, Luftwaffe, etc had a number of highly experienced interrogators. Even more interesting was that these interrogators did not use torture. Instead, they used tried-and-true noncoercive techniques such as rapport builiding. One of the most famous German interrogators was Hanns-Joachim Gottlob Scharff and his methods are still studied by professional interrogators today. They don't involve torture. Heck, he disparaged torture as a fool's technique, one only used by someone who had no clue what they were doing. Modern interrogators, such as Jack Cloonan and Malcolm Nance, entirely agree. So, keeping these parallels in mind, there is no reason to suppose that Voldemort would employ torture to obtain information. Would he use torture for fun? Undoubtedly. For information? You'll need a better case than that. Voldemort isn't only malevolent, he's also highly intelligent. If he really needs information, even if he doesn't have the patience for noncoercive interrogation, he'd likely use Legilimency and Veritaserum. The torture would come after he's done milking the guy for information.

The Order shouldn't sink to that level. There, I said it. Anyway, the fact of the matter of whether they did or not is irrelevant to whether they should have. Morally speaking, they should not. Rationally speaking, they should not. Torture isn't a way to get good intelligence. So, thankfully enough, there is no need for the Order to "sink ot that level."

 

Rayndeon do you honestly beleive that the major intelligence agency around the world do not torture? Waterboarding is a perfect example of this. Sure some wont crack, but the vast majority arent that dedicated or stubborn. At some point I would say 90% of people will do anything to stop the pain.

 

But I can redirect you to a fic I'm sure you'll like.

 

Yes, I do think that major intelligence agencies torture. There was nothing in my post that said that they do not. In fact, at one point I say, "Some people, even people high up in the government and particular segments of intelligence agencies seem to think [that torture produces reliable information], but it really is not, as professional interrogators note.

None of this in any way indicates the effectiveness of torture. It is highly ineffective. Check out Jack Cloonan, Malcolm Nance, Hanns-Joachim Gottlob Scharff - all respected and experience interrogators, none of whom use torture. For some books on the subject, check out

I agree. They will also say anything to end the pain. Which is exactly why torture isn't a good method for interrogation! Let's take your example of waterboarding. The U.S. waterboarded Abu Zubaydah. Rather than obtaining actual intelligence, he ended up confessing to a massive conspiracy that he couldn't and didn't do. Another example was Abdul Hakim Murad in the Manila attack. He was tortured for about two months or so and even after all that time, nearly everything he said were false confessions and fabrications he made up to try to end the pain. Nearly all the information pertinent to the case was retrieved from his laptop, which was recovered the same day he was arrested. Even worse, with the multitude of false information coming to the interrogator, they'd have to waste time and resources to track every supposed confession, resulting in fruitless goose chases.

The point is that torture simply doesn't work. Of course, all this is just about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of torture as a method for interrogation. There are other problems involved with the use of torture that are equally serious as well.

I, um, gave apologies in advance? Yeah, I can really go on and on when I get interested in something...

 

As the author, I'll say no. He didn't.

...This isn't real life. This is a story where the main character can tell if you're lying for certain just by touching your skin. Break a finger, ask a question. If the guy refuses, Crucio or use some illusionary skills (been meaning to develop Harry's illusion skils more in the story) to shake him up again. Ask again. Sure, the strong can stay silent. That said, Crucio has been referred to in canon to be the most horribly excruciating pain ever, where a single second of it is blah blah blah. Even Harry, who's a stubborn moody prick, screamed his lungs out. It'd be a good incentive.

And if the Death Eater still isn't talking then it's time to be creative. Illusion magic, something Meciel and Harry are quite good at, could be used here. 'Fake' a rescue in the guys mind, take him back to Voldemort, who demands to know what he said and play on that scenario. Better yet, find out this guys family through Legillimency and stage a hostage type of scenario. Tell me or your wife dies. I will know if you lie.

Oh, I think I've just contradicted myself when I said Harry didn't use Legillimency. Ah well, these are just possible scenarios anyway. Should remember them for later.

Or etc, etc. In real life, when torturing somebody physical pain and that is some of the best we can do. With magic involved, things become a little more complicated.

Snape could have, but he wasn't around at the time. Neither was Dumbledore, now that I read back. The Headmaster just says Harry to get the information how he wants to. Harry wanted to do it his way. Other ways may have been more efficient but Harry's a prick, who probably enjoyed the method more than the results.

See, that's a problem. Lets say that the Order catches 5 Death Eaters and stick them in the safe-house. That means you're first going to need a safe-house, which will involve money, and time to make it relatively escape-proof. Then you're going to need guards, preferebly two. The Order's not a big organisation so that's two people already tied up at any one time. You're going to want an expierenced wizard who has no ties to any particular job, so that rules out the Aurors. Mad-Eye might be a good candidate, but then who else? And, even if you get them, that ties up a powerful ex-Auror for who knows how long?

And, even if you did it, while the chance to interrogate them again might be useful, using them as hostages and bargaining chips against Voldemort would be useless. He's not the kind of person who cares about his followers and if there was ever anything big enough for the Order to give up thier prisoners (like a captured Order member or Ministry figure) then he probably wouldn't do it anyway.

Yeah, got me there. In hindsight, having Tonks stumble in on it was probably a bad idea. In a perfect world of shady dealings, only Harry and Dumbledore should have known.

See above for why magical torture and that is different than real-life. A lot of your arguement is based that torture rarely produces no reliable intelligence, which is probably summed up best in my first paragraph.

Why should a vigilante group care about political support? I suppose it could affect recruitment, but I kinda get the impression that the Order is an exclusive group anyway. I also don't see how it help Death Eater recruitment.

"Join Voldemort and he can Crucio you when you do something right, and you can get the goold ol' Crucio when you get captured anyway....or don't join Voldemort and there will be no Crucio"

Voldemort's a tad nastier than most Nazi's.


Edit: Saw your posts below. Harry can tell if somebody is lying just by touching them. False information to end the pain won't work because he'll be able to tell straight away. Rather, false information will only increase the pain, hence the person has to say something to end the pain and it can't be a lie. You don't have much left apart from the truth.

 

Rayndeon's passionate blathering aside, an important point has been raised.

When will we see more Tonks?

 

^This

Rayndeon all you rambling aside its exactly what Shezza said, torture isn't effective because they will say anything to end the pain truth or lies but if you can instantly and immediately tell with 100% accuracy whether or not someone is lying to you then you've removed that part from the equation and torture is suddenly very effective. When they can't lie, because if they do then the pain will only get worse then it certainly gives an incentive to tell the truth and yeah you can go on about how the strong will resist it but what it comes down is that there is a limit to how much pain a human can endure now matter how tough they are, period end of discussion. Everyone will break at some point its just a question of when. Now that I think about it even going beyond just Harry I would venture so far as to say torture in the wizarding world is effective in general just because of legilimency.

"Where are they hiding?"
"I don't know"
Legilimency, "Your lying try again, Crucio!"
"312 Apple Street"
Legilimency, "Your still lying, Crucio!"
"421 Heavenly Blue Lane"
Legilimency "Your telling the truth, Thanks, you can die now."

 

Hey Guys. I work fast, don't I, because the first scene of Chapter 13 is up. It's 3.2k words in two hours, and Jon still didn't write me an Amanda omake . I might not get the second part done for a while, since I'm heading interstate tomorrow. A spell-check would be fantastic, since you can really tell how much better the chapter is after it's been proof-read.

Thoughts, queries, comments, and the like are all welcome.

 

It's cruel to break such a scene in half.
I thought assasination would take place when Lucius would be leaving prison, during boat ride for example.
I do hope next part is out really soon.

Oh, and I didn't like the font.

 

Awesome. It's a nice scene, but a cruel place to leave off on. I like that you found more uses for the disintegrating wand trick shown earlier in the story. It seems as if Harry has a fondness of disguising himself as a woman for some reason, but I wouldn't have thought the woman was him, so I guess it works. Looking forward to the next part.

 

You are quite honestly the best Dresden writer we have, and I like the scene, but I have to ask, how exactly did the wand get in, that kinda confused me.

 

Great scene, Shezza, however one complaint.

Non-standard font: Do not want.

Other than that, very nice.

 

In reply to Shezza

Continuing our discussion, Shezza. Sorry, but this one is even longer.

Harry has the ability to monitor blood pressure, heartbeat, the production of particular hormones, and electrical signals in the peripheral and central nervous system. He does not have the ability to instantly tell when someone is lying - he has the ability to monitor those things and interpret them in a manner to figure out whether or not someone is lying. But, frankly, if that's the case, then you've just given Harry another rational reason not to torture. Because when he is actually going to be torturing someone, all of those things (stress, blood pressure, electrical signals in the brain, even the particular portions of the brain dealing with imagination, etc) are going to be vastly overstimulated. He will no longer be able to tell if someone is telling the truth or not. You've just given Harry a solid reason not to torture - his abilities will be worthless if he actually ends up torturing someone. So, if he does torture, all the problems that result with being unable to tell if the person is lying or not ensue.

But, frankly, it doesn't matter even if Harry had an instant ability to tell if someone was lying or not, kind of like Lily in your abandoned Harry/Lily story. There are plenty of people who have been tortured where their tormentor knew they were fabricating stories to end their pain and simply upped the torture, but they still did not tell the truth, as they tend to psychologically regress. For instance, Abdul Hakim Murad was tortured for about two months before he finally confessed to his role in the Manila bombings The torturers knew that Murad as behind the bombings and they tortured him more when he fabricated stories, but despite this, it took two months before he finally broke down and confessed, while also confessing to a whole host of other things. So, unless Harry is willing to spend weeks on this, facing all of the problems above, torture isn't the route to go. If he needed priority reliable intelligence right now, then he would have to use something like Legilimency or Veritaserum. Not torture.

The amount of pain is often irrelevant, once it passes a particular point of "extreme physical pain." In any case, all of the above problems continue to apply: people who are tortured will say anything to end their pain, Harry will be unable to tell who is lying or not, this occurs on an order of weeks to years before getting even tidbits of real intelligence, etc.

Hold on - if Harry can use Legilimency effectively (at this point, he's more like a blunt object than a finely honed razor with his skill), then what point exactly is there in even engaging in torture? If he can do those things or use Legilimency, what exactly is the point of threats or torture?

Not really. Modern intelligence agencies that employ torture rarely resort to physical means. Psychological torture is often far more damaging than physical torture as it attacks the existential platforms on which everyone depends on. Indeed, the CIA, inspired by the KGB of the time, noted that physical pain tended to make the tormentor a clear antagonist and increase resistance, but techniques such as sensory disorientation and stress positions provided torture in the form in which the only antagonist was the self. All this stuff was researched back in the 50s to the 70s, with the techniques pretty remaining the same from then on. For instance, the use of sensory deprivation as a mode of torture was discovered in a psychological experiment. Donald Hebb, a renowned neurophysiologist, conducted a famous experiment where had a group of students subject themselves to wearing earmuffs, a hood, and gloves. The earmuffs cut off auditory stimuli, the hood cut off visual stimuli, and the gloves cut off most of the tactile stimuli. Within 2 days, no one could go further. There were many instances of temporary insanity. Similiar results can be found for stress positions, isolation, etc. Physical pain is hardly the only way to torment someone.

Other ways would not only have been more efficient, but they would have actually gotten real data. Torture doesn't work, even if you know that the guy is lying (note furthermore that Harry doesn't). But, let's look at all this in perspective. Dumbledore, when he had interrogation of suspected Death Eaters, informants, and sympathizers in mind, had a number of options available to him besides torture that are just as effective (in fact, far more effective): noncoercive interrogation, Legilimency, and Veritaserum. The fact that he didn't make the preparations to use any of them is out of character, which is the point of this entire discussion.

I mean, think about Harry's "excuse" for a moment. He says that the reason he's using torture is because (a) he's unskilled with Legilimency and (b) Truth potions can be resisted and (c) he can tell when people are lying. Let's dissect this again. (A) He could have had Snape or Dumbledore conduct the interrogation. If they were not present or available for this, it is entirely out of character for Dumbledore, who is supposed to be one of the greatest wizarding minds of all time. (B) Truth potions can only be resisted by a fractionally tiny portion of Wizarding society, on an order even less than by those that can resist Legilimency. (C) Not if tortures someone. In fact, even if he doesn't torture someone, by his reasoning, his skills would also have to be labeled undesirable since people can also lie without setting off a polygraph or stimulating portions of the brain indicative of imagination in a way to indicate lying. (There was an episode of MythBuster's about this, where one of the crew basically beat a new type of lie detection test that used MRI and a series of questions to see stimulation in what part of the brain, like Harry). So, what's the lesson out of this? The fact that Legilimency, Veritaserum, and Harry's monitoring skills can be resisted is not an indication of problems with those methods. It's just the limitations of magic and an indication that more time and effort is required. Torture won't help here - it'll only waste more time, poison any future interrogation sessions, and won't produce reliable results, whereas Legilimency, Veritaserum, Harry's skills absent torture, and noncoercive questioning will.

I don't see the problem with this. First of all, the Order may have access to the Black finances (which are pretty large), since apparently Gringotts is somewhat autonomous of Wizarding law, since not even the Lestrange finances were frozen. But, even supposing that money is an issue, there are still any number of ways to acquire a safe house. Dumbledore apparently has no problem with assassination, so he could appropriate a Muggle house, or could Transfigure a small shed and enchant it with wizardspace and make it Unplottable and under Fidelius, or any number of other methods. Since the Order took the time to enchant an HQ, why not take the time to enchant a safe house or two in advance?

Even in canon, two-person guard duty was common for the Order. For both Harry and the Prophecy. I don't think it's much a stretch to say that since they are no longer guarding Harry, they would have much trouble with shifts in guarding a safe house. It's not as if they are tied up - they have access to Portkeys and Apparition, which make the world a lot smaller.

It would be very useful. You never get everything in one interrogation session and you rarely get anything in one interrogation session. Even with Veritaserum and Legilimency, there are only so many particular questions to deploy and memories you can see - you'd likely want to conduct further sessions. Also, their being alive allows for the constant use of Polyjuice Potion to trick and use other informants, Death Eater sympathizers, Death Eaters, etc.

Voldemort was pretty strapped for loyal followers the moment he was resurrected. Which is why he took the time to break them out. Nonetheless, I will concede this point for the sake of argument.

Because the political climate strongly influences the effectiveness of the Order. Suppose that the story that Dumbledore ordered torture gets out. You have a massive outcry in the Ministry. Dumbledore gets evicted from Hogwarts, leaving it vulnerable. You'd have a lot of intelligence projected towards finding out Dumbledore's bird group, including his influence on people in the Ministry, possibly losing resources like Shacklebolt, Tonks, etc. Having to deal with the Aurors and the Death Eaters would only add undue strain on the Order and greatly hamper their effectiveness. Any hope they have of influencing others to join the Order or not join Voldemort goes out of the window. People in the Order itself will dissent and leave. There are any number of negative consequences that would result from the political backlash. I suppose you might portray none of this happening, but I'm having to suspend more disbelief by the minute.

There's also an aspect about torture I haven't mentioned here: more often than not, the person you capture will be entirely innocent. Even if they are guilty of something, rarely will they be high up the ladder or have actionable intelligence. As even Dumbledore noted, the most valuable suspects are precisely the ones that are the most inaccessible. I suppose you might portray the Order getting perfect intelligence every time and that somehow torture works everytime, but the amount of disbelief I have to suspend at this point gets pretty overwhelming. I don't imagine that Dumbledore would ever condone torture, for all of these reasons: pragmatic (torture is unreliable and you will be more likely to torture the innocent, not the guilty), political (see above), and moral (whether you torture an innocent or not, this one is obvious).

I doubt that prospective recruits know about Voldemort's policy of torturing his followers prior to actually joining. For example, Regulus Black was eager to join but quickly backed out and had no idea what he was getting himself into. Voldemort (through his influential pureblood lackeys) could persuade particular segments of pureblood society to join him, including neutral elements or influence mere sympathizers to become fully inducted into his group.

 

I hate that Legilimency argument. Sure, use it all you want, but sooner or later, you're going to run across someone skilled in Occulmency. You won't know, because they'll be feeding you a false memory. It's not like people wear signs around their neck saying "Hey, I'm an Occulmentalist, so don't bother using Legilimency." You don't know who has that particular skill or not, and as such, any information gained from Legilimency should be taken with extreme caution.

I'm going to quote something for you from the story.

So, yes, I think Harry would be able to tell if the guy was lying or not.

 

I understand that. That's why I think, rationally speaking, Dumbledore would have to use a mixture of methods including noncoercive interrogation, Veritaserum, and Legilimency. None of these methods are perfect, but there is no such thing as a perfect way to interrogate someone anyway. This is also why it would be a good idea to have a safe house, so further interrogation sessions can ensue. Most of the time, Veritaserum and Legilimency will work. For more resistant subjects, time and patience is key.

I pointed out that not only was this irrelevant, but under torture Harry wouldn't be able to use that skill to any use. As I said,

Harry has the ability to monitor blood pressure, heartbeat, the production of particular hormones, and electrical signals in the peripheral and central nervous system. He does not have the ability to instantly tell when someone is lying - he has the ability to monitor those things and interpret them in a manner to figure out whether or not someone is lying. But, frankly, if that's the case, then you've just given Harry another rational reason not to torture. Because when he is actually going to be torturing someone, all of those things (stress, blood pressure, electrical signals in the brain, even the particular portions of the brain dealing with imagination, etc) are going to be vastly overstimulated. He will no longer be able to tell if someone is telling the truth or not. You've just given Harry a solid reason not to torture - his abilities will be worthless if he actually ends up torturing someone. So, if he does torture, all the problems that result with being unable to tell if the person is lying or not ensue.

...

I mean, think about Harry's "excuse" for a moment. He says that the reason he's using torture is because (a) he's unskilled with Legilimency and (b) Truth potions can be resisted and (c) he can tell when people are lying. Let's dissect this again.

...

(C) Not if he tortures someone. In fact, even if he doesn't torture someone, by his reasoning, his skills would also have to be labeled undesirable since people can also lie without setting off a polygraph or stimulating portions of the brain indicative of imagination in a way to indicate lying. (There was an episode of MythBuster's about this, where one of the crew basically beat a new type of lie detection test that used MRI and a series of questions to see stimulation in what part of the brain, like Harry)
​

 

Rayndeon if you dislike it so much why are you reading it?

 

He took a few hours to extract his info. that makes hard to believe that he cant calm the guy down for a few minutes to ask a few questions. Besides Meciel has a couple of thousand years of pratice Im sure she picked up a few reliable methods of information extraction.

 

Dude we have heard your point but what it comes down to is, get ready for this...its MAGIC!

You can go on about as many real world facts as you like but this is a fanfiction about magic and real world facts, figures and rules kind of cease to apply once magic is introduced. If the author says Harry can tell when someone is lying thanks to the two thousand year old fallen angel living in his head then I believe he can tell when someone is lying. Also yeah their vitals might go nuts while they are being tortured but then once again we come to magic. I see no reason why it couldn't be used to calm them down immediatley after they are tortured.

Finally as Ragon said if you have such a huge issue with it then why don't you just skip over it?