Torture is
a very controversial means of acquiring information. However, is it effective?
Applebaum explores the effectiveness of torture in her essay. In doing so, she
opens with a statement that sets aside all bias and that allows her to take a more
objective approach. I find her argument very interesting because it goes
directly against what I believed to be true about torture. I happened to be
biased. I believed that if a person was withholding information, then torture was the necessary. I did not realize how ineffective
it proved to be as the torture victims would just lie to save themselves from
the cruel punishment. One of the many interrogation experts that she cites
states that only 6 out of 10 torture cases prove effective in extracting
valuable and reliable information. He goes onto say that in 9 out of 10 cases
he can get the captured to talk through normal interrogation techniques.
Torture for him, therefore, is quite ineffective. Though this would be very
rare, I would like to see a personal journal of a torture victim to gain
insight into his world. Would torture be getting the best of him? Would he be
willing to die and never talk? This would be a very interesting addition of
Applebaum’s argument of fact.
Applebaum
uses an argument of fact to explore whether or not torture is effective. By
doing so, as mentioned above, she eliminates any bias in that she is solely
trying to prove that a fact is indeed a fact of not. Also, she uses this form
of an argument because it relies heavily on evidence and therefore on logos.
Pathos and ethos are rarely found in an argument of fact because they are means
of persuading an audience to take one side or another. Applebaum’s goal is the
opposite: she wants the audience to decide for itself whether torture is an
effective method or not, based on the evidence that she can provide. Applebaum
uses a wide variety of evidence and cites many experts directly from the
military interrogation field to ensue that she gets facts from people who have
been exposed to torture.
Overall,
Applebaum’s argument proves to be effective in concluding that, after all of
the evidence has been considered, torture is an ineffective means of extracting
information. I happen to agree with that. I feel as if torture is more deeply
rooted within the resentment and the vindictiveness of the torturer. This cruel
and sometimes unusual form of punishment seems to be a way for the torturer to
establish his reputation. Whether he is a biologist or not, he is probably
uneducated enough to not understand how the human mind works. He can probably
measure the amount of volts surging or the amount of water pouring but he
cannot measure the pain limit of the human mind. Torture is animalistic and it
satisfies only the needs of the torturer’s side. That’s just what I think.
