Gender Frustration

Torture: Weighing both sides of the coin

One of the more popular and possibly more contoversial matters that have come up since the war on terrorism has gained in heights is the subject matter of torture. Ever since the war on terrorism started the US was forced to use torture to extract information from the opposing side. Torture has been used since the beginning of time as means of garnering information, but until recently, it has not been at the forefront of many debates. Once word got out, it started this debate between two factions, those who oppose torture and those who are for the idea of torture. The latter were people who thought it was necessary to keep the US safe. While the opposing side was against it for numerous reasons. From it being immoral, being against the rules of war, and violating international treaties. The goal here is to present both cases equally and maybe find a common solution.

One of the main arguments for torture is because we deemed it necessary to keep the US safe from terrorism. " Torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation, to save the life of an innocent person" ( Bagaric and Clarke, 233). While this isn't an offical practice regarding torture, it is a strong argument for it being necessary. After the attacks on September 11th, the US was in a panic. We knew little about the enemy, or why they had decided to attack us, except to cause pain and anger. The Al Queda is an enemy that will not accept peace, be reasoned with, or figure out why they attacked us in the first place; you are left with very little choice in that situation. As time wore on, torture was becoming our only option for success. It prevented future attacks, found where their hideouts were, and told us more about the enemy we were fighting against.

Now for the cases against torture. Ross Douthat describes what the US has been doing as "lite torture" (Douthat, The Atlantic). Which...