The question for my research project is "Can Torture be justified with the use of certain restrictions and guidelines?" Conducting a research project on torture seems very appealing to me. I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed and thoroughly researched. When I think of torture, the first thing that comes to my mind is terrorism. These two words go hand and hand in my eyes. Whether it be the idea of the terrorists conducting torture, or torture being inflicted on terrorists for prevention. I find terrorism to be one of the most disgusting acts of the present day world. I strongly believe that anything that may help to prevent terrorism should be used as long as certain guidelines are met. The government's main priority is to protect its citizens. I find that it would more immoral for our government to not use torture if it could in any way prevent terror, assuming that the guidelines are followed. As for stooping to the level of terrorists, the reason for torture must be taken into consideration. Using torture to prevent mass murder is not the same as using it for your own personal gain, whether it be religious or economically. I feel qualified to discuss this issue because I live in a country that is a constant target of many, many terror organizations around the world. I feel that terrorism is a rising threat in the United States. I think it is important to explore a way that torture may be used effectively and efficiently to fight terror while still maintaining a moral path. To conserve humane morals, a few requirements must be met to use torture. The suspect must be without a doubt guilty, the situation must have a time constraint that qualifies it a an emergency, the suspect must have knowledge of valuable information that could save lives, and all other form of interrogation must have been attempted and failed. 

In an article by Alan Dershowitz, he argues that torture should never be accepted on a moral level. However, even Dershowtiz, who has a strong moral opposition to torture, agrees that it may saves lives by discovering the location of a bomb, or discovering a high ranking Al Qaeda member's location. Dershowtiz uses the ticking bomb analogy to explain when he and other people who oppose torture could look the other way and accept it. Dershowitz says that many presidents agree, that if thousands of innocent American lives could be saved, torture is an option that should be strongly considered. Dershowitz proposes the idea of a "torture warrant" which I used a template for my argument to set out guidelines that must be met to use torture. There are many values involved in this article. The biggest one being morality. Morality of actual torture as well as the morality of not using torture at the cost of innocent lives is explored in this article. Many Americans have strong moral values that will be affected by torture. The only distinction is what can be saved from torture.  Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard University. He is slightly biased against torture, but still considers his idea of a warrant for torture use. He still agrees that anything that can save America from the heartache of losing thousands of citizens can be justified in some sort of way. There is no question that Dershowitz has credibility to write about this topic. Being a professor at Harvard, he is at the top of the academia world. Given that he teaches law gives him even more credibility due to the fact that laws are supposed to distinguish right and wrong, and what is allowed and what's not. 

Jamie Dettmer also wrote an article regarding terrorism. Dettmer's article focuses mostly on actual terrorism rather than torture. Dettmer argues that President Obama is not fighting terrorism hard enough in the Middle East. Dettmer discusses the storming of Shiite forces stormed into a presidential palace in Yemen. These Shiite forces represent terror groups such as Al Qaeda. Dettmer claims that the area was supposed to be contained by Obama's anti-terrorism policy, which has obviously failed. Many things are at stake in this article. For the most part, President Obama's ability to fight and contain terrorism is being analyzed. According to the article, Obama's policies against terrorism just aren't getting the job done. The other stakes in this article are Yemen citizens and American citizens. The terrorists that stormed the palace threaten the lives of both countries' citizens. Jamie Dettmer is an American-British journalist. He has worked for many organizations including The Dailey Beast and The Washington Times. Being that he is journalist, his article is mostly free of bias, aside from his critique of President Obama. Dettmer mainly strives to provide the facts of the Shiite forces in Yemen. Dettmer is very credible to write this article given his lengthy reputation in the world of journalism. 

The last article analyzed is written Jacob Sullum. In Sullum's article, he argues that torture is and always will be an absolute wrong. According to Sullum, nothing can justify torture under any circumstance. He uses arguments made by Charles and Gregory Fried, a professor of law and a professor of philosophy respectively, to promote his own argument. He uses evidence such as religion, chances of torturing an innocent person, and natural human rights. The major values involved in this article are the values of religion against any torture, no matter the gain of information or prevention of attacks. The main stake involved is the government's ability freely to conduct torture. American citizens also hold a stake in this article because we are affected by the growing problem of terrorism. Sullum is a chief editor at Reason Magazine and a nationally syndicated columnist. Sullum is credible to write this article given his achievements in his profession. There is some bias in this article. Sullum provides facts about the Fried's arguments, but he also agrees with him in his article. 

My research question is arguable because they are many sources with many different arguments and perspectives to this topic.. Many of the sources I have analyzed agree that torture may be able to save lives in some circumstances. Many sources also agree that under these circumstances, most people can accept the use of torture. I believe that creating certain restrictions to when and how torture can be used will help us maintain our morals as a nation. My personal perspective on torture has slightly changed from reading these sources. I still believe that torture may be justified to fight terror, but it cannot be used freely without considering very important things, such as definite guilt, or maybe other forms of interrogation that may be used. My opinion on torture is pretty strong, but these sources have shown me that there is more to the question than I originally thought. 

