Blake Busby

English 102
Adam Padgett
2/8/16
How should torture be treated for war purposes within the United States and what methods
should be legalized to use?
The horrific events such as the Boston Marathon or 9/11 that were tragic events in the
United States, imagine if they could have been prevented? I am interested in the topic because of
how many Americans lives have been lost due to terrorism in different places. Along with that,
its interesting in shows and movies to see how they use torture to help stop things going on and it
makes you think about the methods used there versus a real life situation. This topic of torture
doesnt really affect me or my values. I understand how some would agree that it is morally
wrong but I think it is necessary to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. You sit here
and watch movies and documentaries that are based on true story's, that end up saving lives or
taking down a well known terrorist. After doing some research online, I am well informed about
the history trends that torture has played. Also, along with reading about the history of torture, I
also found articles with opposing viewpoints than mine that will help guide me by counter
arguing their opinions.
Arrigo, Jean Maria. "The Good Psychologist, Good Torture, and Good Reputation
Response to ODonohue, Snipes, Dalto, Soto, Maragakis, and Im (2014) The Ethics of
Enhanced Interrogations and Torture." Taylor Francis Online. N.p., 2015. Web. 7 Feb.
2016.

This article above is a very informative article on the EIT or the "Enhanced Interrogations or
Torture." It talks about things such as the necessity's of torture along with things like who should
be allowed to torture. It uses recorded dates in history to support the details that it presents. The
article orders each tenant of the overall arguments and examines each one separately. The major
interest on this article are Who should be allowed to torture? and What should be allowed during
torture? This article was very credible as one of the writers was a police officer along with an ex
army intelligence agent another was a phycologist and a member of the national security and
another military historian joined in. This makes the article very reliable. It is mainly an
informative piece but it has some bias towards it being acceptable for certain things.

'Torture is never acceptable'." USA Today n.d.: Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Feb. 2016.

Commented [AP1]: Your inquiry should certainly have a

lot of material to work with. But what does war purposes
mean?

Commented [AP2]: You have a run on sentence here.

The first clause isnt a full sentence either. Reconsider you
phrasing here.
Commented [AP3]: Proof read a little closer.
Commented [AP4]: Are you using television shows as
evidence to support your case?
Commented [AP5]: Use specific language.
Commented [AP6]: Be careful with the second person.
Youre pointing a finger at your audience when your use it.
Commented [AP7]: Proof read please.
Commented [AP8]: Does doing research online give
you more credibility? Im not so sure.
Commented [AP9]: It doesnt sound like your are asking
questions that you dont already have an answer to. It
sounds like you already know the answer. You should
approach inquiry with a spirit of discovery.

The article above is a very argumentative article on the acceptability of torture. It is revolved
around the issue when President Bush threatened to use a veto to block the torture ban. It starts
with someone writing about how America needs to "take a stand" and not become a nation that
sanctions torture and it ends with a counter writer talking about how he will stand behind
president Bush's decision and how if it were to pass it would only benefit the terrorist. This is a
big and very useful article as it involved the United States white house along with President Bush.
It regards a situation that did occur and information about it can be found all over.
McMahan, Jeff. "Torture, Morality, And Law." Case Western Reserve Journal Of International
Law 37.2/3 (2006): 241-248. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Feb. 2016.

The article above is a very argumentative article on how torture can save many innocent lives.
He uses some hypothetical situations such as a "murders copycat" and how they can prevent
people by following a murder by certain torture methods. The "murders copycat" is a situation
when one person is committing a certain kind of murder and when he gets locked away, he has
someone on the outside continue his "work." He uses various examples and situations and talks
about each one and the moral justification of that case. This author is very biased on how torture
should definitely be used under certain circumstances.

The research question I have is arguable because a lot of people think it is morally wrong to
torture someone while others disagree and think we have to do what is needed in order to save
innocent lives. Throughout my research I have found that some people think it is wrong to
traumatize a human by using torture methods and others look at It as a way to save peoples lives
from ending. These sources that disagree with my viewpoint help me gain a new perspective on
the issue. Although it doesnt change my opinion, it still gives me points to make strong on why I
disagree with their thoughts. I might need to revise my research question by making it a more
specific time period or possibly making it a more specific method of torture that is used. I
personally feel like torture should be set to legal though it should have certain restrictions.
Peoples lives are taken due to terrorist attacks and other events and these could have possibly
been prevented if torture was in play.

Commented [AP10]: What do you mean by very

argumentative.

Blake,
Your inquiry certainly should be rich enough in terms of available research. I agree with your suggestion
that you might have to formulate a more specific inquiry later on. I would even suggest write a more
simple question like: Is torture effective a gaining valuable intelligence? Also, I would like for you to
proof read more carefully in the future. Lots of typos and poor sentence structure. I commented on
specifics in the beginning of this paper, but it is your job to sort through the rest. Also, you should be
proposing this topic to me, not making an argument yet. I wonder if you should even research this topic
since you are approaching it with your mind already made up about it. The point of inquiry is to discover
something new, not simply research conclusions youve already drawn. This is generally how bias occurs
in research. You would be researching to support, not researching to discover. Things a proposal should
address: What are possible challenges might you have with this topic down the road? What about
rhetorical hurdles? Dig deeper. I need a little more here.