
Torture is one of the most debated topics when speaking about the matter of war; especially the war on terror. It has been an especially hot topic as of late in the United States with the relatively recent release of the CIA torture report. The CIA torture report was the documented history of the CIA's interrogations and detention of terrorism suspects and what each entailed, often noting inhuman torture techniques as methods of divulging information. Much uproar has been caused by the release of these documents, and for good reason. The torture report revealed many facts that prove the CIA misled the media and the government about what exactly they were doing, the success rates of their methods, and its accountability (Ashkenas, Fairfield, and Keller). This has played a major role in many peoples arguments and ideology about torture.

Torture is a controversial issue before one even begins to speak about the legality of it. What is torture? Where is the line drawn between hard interrogation and torture? These are the most important questions when approaching the issue of torture. According to the Association for the Prevention of Torture, torture is defined as " ... the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical suffering ... " in order to obtain some sort of information. It also notes that the involvement of a public official or policy may also further constitute torturing an individual. The problem with defining torture is that there are many different forms, and the legal definition is a loose generalization of the goal of torture. This plays a crucial role when arguing the legality of torture because varying ideas about what torture is may lead to skewed arguments with inaccurate information. It is important to understand what torture really is; the inhumane treatment of any individual to divulge information from them. This may sound broad, but torture is carried out in many different ways, every single one being inhumane. This being the basis of the argument, no one should be treated in an inhumane manner regardless of the information that they know. All humans have civil rights and liberties and being tortured violates both of those.

Currently torture is illegal both in the United States and internationally, and has been for a long time. The timeline of the legality of torture is actually quite straightforward. In 1984, the United Nations began hosting the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and has since become one of the most popular of United Nations Conventions (Goering, 2014).  The United States ratified this convention in 1992, indicating an anti-torture foreign policy. There is not one single written statement of the U.S. Constitution that specifically prohibits torture, however the act of torture is a clear violation of much of what is on the Bill of Rights, by default outlawing it. The United States has also made a clear stance about being against torture, however with the recent release of the CIA torture report many are in an uproar about the hypocrisy and violations of human rights carried out through their multiple detention programs.

The CIA torture report is a detailed document released by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and reveals information regarding the CIA detention and detainee program involving terrorism. This is a very controversial event due to the fact that for a majority of time all the information in this was classified and kept a secret from the general public. With the release of the torture report many peoples' feelings have changed about the topic. This is due to the fact that many formed opinions without being completely educated on the issue. In an article written by Jeremy Ashkenas, Hannah Fairfeild, Josh Keller and Paul Volpe they write about the most alarming information revealed in the CIA torture report. This includes the mismanagement of the operation, the brutality of it all, and how the CIA misled the government and public about its operations. They go into detail and say, "The report cites dissatisfaction among intelligence officers about the competence and training of interrogators. Those found to have violated agency policy were rarely held accountable." The reason the CIA did not have adequate oversight and was able to mislead the public was because it was all kept a secret. It was kept a secret due to the illegality of it, which wouldn't have happened had it been legal and regulated. Also, with regulated torture the United States could train individuals to carry out the acts of torture so they could guarantee both training and competency. If the CIA had been receiving government funding for regulated torture with both limitations and guidelines none of these terrible occurrences would have happened. With regulation there could be more control over what is happening, especially if funding was controlled by our national government.

This issue is multi faceted and does not have two distinct opposing arguments. The argument is a foreign policy, but a policy nonetheless, and needs to be ever evolving to a changing world. Some feel torture should be outright illegal, while others feel it should be regulated or only used as a last resort. Every argument presents valid points and ideas that need to be acknowledged, however, the strongest and most concrete argument is that torture should not be completely outlawed, but regulations must be put into effect. The regulation of torture during this post 9-11 era would be the safest, most intelligent move by the United States. While completely banning torture would have a lasting negative effect, if it was used in times of crisis or emergency and had more flexibility it would not be used regular or without good cause. This is essentially the best of both arguments; it would greatly diminish, but still be available for the most crucial of times if needed.

A major argument against torture has a lot to do with the inhumanity of it. The moral argument details human rights and empathy. The basis of this argument is that all humans have rights and no one should have to undergo such an "evil" as torture is. To some degree, this is an accurate statement, however it may be worth it if the information can save many more lives. This becomes a factor when on speaks about desperate times and desperate measure, and when torture comes into play.

One of the most important arguments, and the reason that torture should not be outlawed completely, is the 'ticking time bomb' scenario. This scenario is as follows: Would torture be acceptable if the information that could be divulged from the suspect with that information could potentially save thousands of lives by stopping the detonation of a time bomb? (Nicks, 2014) So the real question becomes whether or not torture is necessary in the most desperate of times. 

Conor Friedersdorf, a writer for The Atlantic, states that "The problem is that the issue isn't nearly so binary. Even John McCain  --  a vocal opponent of any kind of torture  --  has conceded that in some hypothetical nuclear ticking-time-bomb scenario, torture might be a necessary evil." This quote means several different things. One meaning is that torture is a very multi-sided issue with many contributing components. Another thought this quote provokes is that torture might eventually, at one time or the other, become a necessary evil to save lives. Those who believe this also believe that the damage done to one individual in order to save hundreds, maybe even thousands of lives is worth it. Jessica Devlin writes "The "ticking bomb" argument for torture does not allow for the use of torture routinely. It is only arguing for the use of torture as a tool in extreme circumstances." This goes back to the idea that torture regulation is ideal. It calls for its only use in extreme situations, and would not be carried out regularly.  Arie Kruglanski harps on this in a similar way in his article titled, "The Ticking Bomb Dilemma: How Effective is Torture?". He writes, " ... administration of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) to individuals believed capable of identifying Bin Laden's courier is rather remotely connected to any specific catastrophe that must be averted." What the author is saying in this quote is that although the information to locate an infamous terrorist organization leader is important, its not directly related to stopping one specific event that could save many peoples lives, therefore, it is not necessary. 

Another vital argument against torture questions its effectiveness. According to Arie Kruglanski, torture affects everyone differently. Some of those who are getting tortured may say anything to get the pain to stop. This can backfire on the organization that is carrying out the torture, and would happen way more often if the US tortured every single suspected terrorist. Implementing regulations and guidelines for when torturing could occur would decrease the frequency of the tortured lying to simply stop it. Regulation is the answer to nearly all of these problems.

In article published by BBC, ideas about torture regulation are written about in detail. A very strong argument for torture 'warrants' can be made when weighing both the pros and cons (BBC, 2014). With a so-called warrant for torture, not only would probable cause be needed, but the motion for the torturing can be denied which would keep the frequency of it under control. In the article by BBC it states, "regulating torture officially would guarantee accountability, record-keeping, standards, and limitations." This statement is the major reason why torture should be regulated. Due to recent history it is apparent that regardless of the laws about torture it is going to happen, therefore, regulation is the best and most logical option.

