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.
This essay was very eye-opening for me as well. She brings up a very good point when she talks about its ineffectiveness. This is a point that nobody can really refute. If something does not work, then there is no point in arguing whether or not is should be used. For example, if you’re arguing that you should use a Phillip’s head screwdriver, but the screw that you’re trying to drive requires a flathead screwdriver, then there’s no point in your argument. The Phillip’s head will be ineffective, so no one should try to argue for its use. This is the same thing that Applebaum, the author, is saying. Torture is not effective because it will not extract the information from your prisoner. The prisoner will likely yell out whatever information he thinks you want to hear in order to get you to stop torturing him. So you will be fed inaccurate information, and you could mess up by taking action on the basis of that information. I like how you asked for an additional document. That’ll get you a 9 on one of Schmidt’s DBQs. Yes, that source would be useful and interesting, but only if the captive were reliable. For that, you have to consider the point that I just brought up about the captive saying whatever he wants his torturers to hear. Physical or mental stress, whichever the torturer is implementing, can skew the information that the captive gives you.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with one of your points. I think she provides a solid amount of ethos in this essay by means of citing authority. She cites experts who will know much more about torturing than she will. This contributes to her ethos because it shows that she has researched the subject and therefore is a reliable source to depend upon since she knows a lot about it. I think she successfully convinces most of her audience that torturing is an ineffective method of extracting information. Well, I am convinced, and I assume that most of her other readers will seriously question the effectiveness of torture, if not denounce it completely.
I liked and agreed with most of your essay. Then I read the last part.
ReplyDeleteI hope you know that your statements in the last paragraph are more opinion than anything else. After all, you did mention that you "felt" that torture and its use is due more to the torturer than the tortured. I don't believe that, generally speaking, torture is a method of establishing a reputation for the torturer. Torture is a basic method of persuasion. It's not exactly hard to figure out what it's used for and how it's used. Most people are uneducated about the actual effectiveness of torture. Their limited knowledge of the human brain wouldn't necessarily help them understand this concept. In addition, I didn't understand the purpose of your analogy, comparing "the amount of volts surging or the amount of water pouring" and the "pain level". Within the context of the essay, pain level wasn't really discussed in the essay, as was also the "animalistic" nature of torture.
Despite the final blunder, I mostly agree with the former half of your essay. Arguments of fact rely on smaller facts and factual arguments to build the overall argument. Smaller facts prove bigger facts. Ethos and pathos don't really have a place in factual arguments, since their method of persuasion rely not on logic but the emotions of the reader. The author does cite quite a bit of credible sources, mostly intelligence officers and soldiers with experience in the field. Since the author doesn't really have much credibility in the topic, she remedies this by citing people who do have credibility. However, I don't believe that a personal account of a torture victim would be particularly helpful in her essay. After all, the author already has a surfeit of evidence and support about the ineffectiveness of torture. If the author had brought that up, other counterarguments could cite torture victims that did the exact opposite.
Overall, your response was on target and (hopefully) well-thought out. I just wished that you hadn't made the comments you did in your conclusion.