If the drugs that might be used do not cause permanent damage in reasonable dosage, this makes no sense to me. If there is a way to get information from a captive that does not cause pain or permanent damage, it just doesn't make sense to me. If the parties (the various countries) agree to these terms, it makes logical sense to simply not take prisoners? If you take prisoners & cannot gain any value from doing so, but have to feed them & keep them from escaping, what's the point of taking any prisoners? That seems far less humane ... but I imagine that is done, too, since there would be no witnesses to report the event.What about all that oily gas residue that would be found in his prison duds? I would bet that drugs are pretty common in interrogations but that is just speculation. They would be easy to use and hard to detect/prove after about 72 hours…..
BTW- drugs like you are talking about are already banned by international law and considered torture.
In times of war, I would guess that most combatants who are captured have little or no information that is of significant strategic value. They are basically just cogs in a very large wheel, and there would be little reason to suspect that interrogation would be of much use.
With terrorists it could be useful to know the positions and identities of colleagues. And terrorists have already violated international law (I would think) by purposely targeting innocent non-combatants. (I think purposely is a key word to distinguish between that and unintended civilian casualties).
With Vietnam, it was pretty evident that the whole POW thing was a propaganda thing ... for the N Vietnamese population who were suffering with the war.
I'd guess that everyone has come up with some new drugs along the way, and all the "players" are aware of what's going on. I'd guess that it's pretty likely that anything of overall strategic value is not conveyed to individuals in the combat zones for this very reason.The KGB, Russians, and I am sure the CIA were very fond of this application