The United States has had an ongoing war against terrorism for many years. America has been the target of many organized attacks from different terror groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and ISIS (Green). Terrorism in definition is to impose extreme, hateful acts on individuals, religious groups, countries, or races to promote their own political and religious beliefs. Terrorists often use torture as a tool of persuasion. The torture that terrorists use is very horrific- an example being execution by beheading. But other methods of torture can be use to fight terror. Torture may be able to somehow prevent terrorism. 

Most people agree that torture is fundamentally immoral (Holzinger). Torture is also illegal due to the passing of many laws, including international ones from the Geneva Convention (Zalman). The Geneva Conventions created laws that were agreed upon dealing with the rights prisoners of war, civilians, and military personnel. The conventions dates all the way back to 1864. One hundred and ninety-four countries have ratified the Geneva Convention, including the Unites States. Among these rules, article III deals with torture. Under the article, any act of torture and unusual and cruel punishment is strictly prohibited. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that article III not only applied to prisoners of war, but also to anyone being held by the CIA (Beehner). Torture deprives human rights, and it is definitely illegal, but sometimes the outcome of torturing a captured terrorists suspect could potentially save innocent American lives. 

The United States has conducted torture on terror suspects before, especially under the Bush administration; however, these methods were not very successful (314 Hijjar). The methods included the suspect being forced to sit or stand in stressed positions, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and many others (Greene). While these methods are not as extreme as the ones used by the terrorists themselves, they were still inhumane and illegal, given the fact that they did not provide valuable information (314 Hijjar). Given that the Bush administration did not prove guilt of the suspects takes away all justification of their actions. Torturing administered during Bush's presidency had no credibility. The methods of torture were also not very successful (313 Hijjar). This is a great situation of when not to use torture. Torture cannot be a weapon used for fear or revenge. Concrete facts must be presented. Terror attacks do present a huge amount of anger in everyone, but anger does not offer a valid justification for torture. Taking actions out of anger, such as the Bush administration did is wrong. This is why a set of guidelines can greatly help in justifying torture (Dershowitz). 

The only possible way that torture can be justified, as a weapon of choice by the United States government to fight terrorism is if very strict guidelines and requirements are met and recognized. Firstly, the suspected terrorist cannot at all be a "suspect." The individual must be without a doubt involved in hateful acts against the United States. Secondly, there must be an imminent threat of attack by the affiliated group of the individual. There also has to be sufficient evidence that there is valuable information known by the individual that can provide a high chance of preventing the imminent threat. This means that the individual has to know the information, and there has to be a high likelihood that he or she will confess that information. Lastly, all of methods of interrogation have to have been exhausted and failed: every possible technique must be attempted. If, and only if, all of these requirements and guidelines are met, then torture be even considered as an option. Whether or not to actually use torture will rely on the judgment of the men and women in charge of the interrogation and on the specific circumstances of the situation. 

The argument regarding torture affects many people on different levels (Dettmer). Torture is blind to human rights. Terrorism is also blind to human rights. Torture can be looked at with the perspective of the damage it causes to the ones being tortured, or it can be looked at with the perspective to the people it could save. The United States military as well as American citizens are among those affected. The most obvious group of individuals affected is the ones that would be tortured. The United States is fighting a very long and painful war against terror (Dettmer). This presents many opportunities for individuals to be tortured; whether the terrorists torture us or we torture them. If an outline of requirements like the one being argued is used, it could potentially save innocent lives. If we continue to hold back these specialized interrogation techniques, the terrorists could likely strive. 

There are many opposing viewpoints to any use of torture. One of the most popular oppositions is the analysis of the "ticking time-bomb scenario." In an article, Marina Lazreg, a professor of sociology at Hunter University, claims that " ... [the ticking time-bomb scenario] provides an illusory protection from acts of terror and opens the door to infinite definitions of what constitutes an emergency situation ... (118 Lazreg)." There are a few problems with this assumption. Under the strict guidelines that I have set out, "indefinite definitions" does not apply. Her claim assumes that there is nothing dictating an "emergency situation." However, under my guidelines, this is necessity. As long as the guidelines are followed, there will always be a "definite definition" of emergency an situation. 

Lazreg describes the ticking time-bomb scenario as " ...  a fictitious case frequently used by advocates of torture to justify its use under exceptional circumstances 'to save lives (118 Lazreg).'" This definition seems redundant. The scenario is obviously fictitious- it a scenario used to advocate for torture under possible future circumstances. To completely rule out this fictitious scenario would be to assume that it is never going to occur. Calling something impossible that seems quite possible in today's radical Islamic terror organizations is dangerous for our country. Just because something may be highly unlikely to occur does not make it impossible. In the fight against terror, nothing can go unaccounted for. This includes the slim chances of a situation like the time-bomb scenario ever occurring. Lazreg also uses quotation marks around "to save lives." This seems very offensive to anyone in the military. She suggests that something other than protecting lives is the main goal of torture use against terrorists. This is difference between terrorists and us. Saving lives is the main reason to use torture for our military, while taking lives is the main reason to use torture for terrorists. 

Another major counter-argument for the use of torture is its effectiveness. In many studies, it has proven that torture is for the most part ineffective in accomplishing its desired outcome. There are many different reasons as to why torture has been ineffective (Robbins). One reason is that a suspect is not always innocent. If an individual does not know the desired information, nothing can make them give it up, not even torture. However, this problem can simply be avoided by not using torture when the individual is not absolutely guilty. As I stated before, the suspect cannot be a suspect at all. Conducting torture on a possibly innocent person is extremely immoral (119 Lazreg). To even consider torture, the captured individual must undoubtedly be guilty of terror crimes and must also certainly have the information to give up. 

In the episode of "The Daily Show", Doc of Rages aired in 2014, Jon Stewart addresses the releasing of the CIA tortures report. In this episode, Stewart lashes out against the effectiveness of torture. He explains that at least 26 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were found to be not guilty of the suspected crime (Stewart). These prisoners may not have been guilty of that specific crime, but there is a chance that they were guilty of a different, unknown crime. This probability needs to be addressed because without it, those men seem innocent. While some might be, it is very likely that some are not. Stewart also explains that the CIA reported that no valuable information was gained from the interrogation. However, there is a chance that information was actually obtained, but not included in the reports. This could be the result of national security. It cannot be expected that the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency, one of the most secretive security agencies) will tell the American public everything. One part of Stewart's episode that needs to be addressed and dealt with is that some types of torture in the report were exceptionally horrifying. Stewart discussed that rectal infusion was used as torture (Stewart). Methods like these are morally wrong and should not be tolerated. These methods should never be considered, and definitely never used. Only techniques that do not cause serious long-term health problems should be considered. These include ones used by the Bush administration, such as sleep deprivation and waterboarding. 

Torture may be fundamentally wrong, but allowing Islamic terrorism to strive is also wrong. The important argument is which on is the bigger evil. It would be amazing if the world was perfect and every race, religion, and country was in peace but this is not the case. A scenario occurred in Germany many years ago mimicking the ticking time-bomb scenario. A man kidnapped a child. After the man was caught, he refused to give up the location of child, who only had a couple of hours of air left (Dershowitz). In situations like these, every attempt should be exhausted to save the innocent. This is why torture can be justified to use to fight terrorism. Terrorism endangers many children, women, men ...  essentially everyone. Once the guidelines are met, torture should be an open consideration. 

The question of the value of life is a tough one. No one deserves to be tortured, but if I had to choose between the life of an innocent person and the life of a terrorist who plots to kill people, I would choose the innocent person every single time. The choice may be more unbalanced than this. Terrorists do torture people on a regular basis, but they also kill people. From 1970 until now, thousands of people per year have lost their lives due to terrorism. The worst terrorist attack in history, 9/11, killed almost 3,000 people (Nagdy and Roser). We have to closely analyze facts like these when dealing with terrorism. So, sometimes the question may be choosing between torturing a terrorist and allowing innocent people to die. We have to consider the risks and reward for inflicting temporary pain versus potentially saving lives. I use "potentially" because there is a chance that no reward will be gained from torture. But that's all apart of the risk. Despite the controversy, questions like these must be considered. 

The effectiveness of torture is always a go-to argument for people who oppose its use. For the most part, torture has been proven to not work (Holzinger). However, if torturing a terrorist worked just one time, it could potentially save lives. It only takes one time for the use of torture to pay off. Then comes the argument that there is a chance that innocent people could be tortured. Well, as long as the guilt is certain, then this can be avoided.  If guilt is definite, situational importance is definite, unknown knowledge is definite, and all other methods have failed, then torture should be discussed. The torture may not be successful every time. But again, it only takes one time to pay off. If it doesn't work, at least we can be sure that an innocent person was not tortured. This is the benefit about following a strict set of rules. 

Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor stated in his an article that "As a moral matter, [he is] categorically opposed to torture, without exception. But as a factual matter, [he thinks] every president would at least consider the option of torture if confronted with an actual ticking bomb."  Dershowitz makes a great point. When confronted with a situation like an actual ticking time bomb, all presidents would at least consider the option of torture. If the option would be considered if an actual situation like this arose, then torture should be discussed now, before the situation occurs. If torture would not completely ruled out, then it has some use. This is why the United States should consider creating guidelines for when to use torture. If there were an actual bomb, it would be best to be prepared and to have torture at our disposal. Mostly everyone is in agreement that torture is wrong, and should always be avoided, but there may be occasions when it would do more good than harm. Ruling out torture completely would be moral from the viewpoint of the victim being tortured but it would be immoral from the viewpoint of the innocent American lives. 

In conclusion, I believe that torture should never be completely dismissed. I think the option should always be on the table. To make sure that it is never used without gain, the guidelines I have set out should be followed. The suspect must without a doubt be guilty of the crimes against them. The suspect must have vital information regarding an urgent situation. An urgent situation has to consist on an immanent threat that will most likely cause the lose of life. And all other methods of non-torturous interrogation must have been tried and failed. If all of these requirements are met, then torture may then be considered. Considered doesn't mean used. There must also be a good judgment of the entire situation by someone who is qualified to make the decision. Following these guidelines will help to ensure that an innocent person is never tortured, and that there is a high likelihood of its success. 

This idea of a torture qualifications mimics Alan Dershowit's idea of torture warrents (Dershowtiz). Dershowitz proposed the idea of collecting evidence and providing it to a judge or court to obtain a torture warrant, much like a police officer obtains warrants to search someone's property. Essentially, torture could not be conducted without these "warrants", which require sufficient evidence to get. Methods like these are the only way torture can ever be effective and justified. Freely using torture without any thought will is completely inhumane. The facts must be present to consider torture. Otherwise, it will never be effective.  

Using torture doesn't come without certain risks. No method of interrogation is effective all of the time. This is all apart of the risks involved. The decision about the risks outweighing the reward will rely on the circumstances. The risk of inflicting temporary pain for the gain of information must be assessed. Every person on earth is entitled to certain rights, including no cruel or unusual punishment. But arguably more importantly for innocent bystander civilians, every person on earth is entitled to his or her life. 

