Submitted to the United States Army Command and General Staff College
Class 07-002
“He was hanged and cut down alive before having his genitals cut off and burnt before him. His intestines were slowly pulled from his body before his ribcage was opened to show his heart. Only when his heart was removed did he finally, and mercifully, die.”1 This description of the execution of William Wallace is typical of how Americans viewed torture before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Torture was an idea reserved for far away places and times, when brutal rulers employed barbaric techniques in the daily governance of their empires. The terrorist attacks of 2001 changed everything, forcing torture to the forefront of American debate.
The purpose of this paper is to argue that torture is a necessary and proper tool for the United States to use in its prosecution of the War on Terror. There are two primary reasons for this position: to ensure the safety and protection of American citizens by facilitating the acquisition of timely and relevant information, and to provide the government with all available resources to combat the forces arrayed against our country.
Charles Krauthammer describes a situation in which torture would be acceptable for gaining timely and relevant information: “Ethics 101: A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. It will go off in one hour. A million people will die. You capture the terrorist. He knows where it is. He’s not talking.”2 Do you do what it takes, without restriction, to obtain the needed information? If the answer is yes, the matter is settled and torture is permissible. If the answer is no, government is risking the lives of its citizens to protect the rights of a known terrorist. According to Krauthammer, the choice is simple because of government’s solemn duty to protect its citizens: “However rare the cases, there are circumstances in which, by any rational moral calculus, torture not only would be permissible but would be required (to acquire life-saving information).”3 In other words, if torture can yield information that will ensure the safety of Americans, it must be not only allowed, but must be used as a tool in the War on Terror.
The second reason for allowing torture as an interrogation tool is to provide government with all possible resources for the protection of the citizenry. Oren Goss, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and an expert on the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict, explains this position as follows:
…experience tells us that when faced with serious threats to the life of the nation, government-any government-will take whatever measures it deems necessary to abate the crisis. An uncompromising absolute prohibition on torture sets unrealistic standards that no one can hope to meet when faced with extremely exigent circumstances.4
To ban the use of torture as a tool for protecting Americans during the Global War on Terror would be an unjustifiable restriction on the government that could endanger the welfare of American citizens.
The chief argument against torture is that the practice, essentially, is immoral. Vladimir Bukovsky, in Torture’s Long Shadow, says, “…if Vice President Cheney is right and that some ‘cruel, inhumane or degrading’ (CID) treatment of captives is a necessary tool for winning the war on terrorism, then the war is lost already.”5 And David Rivkin, a Washington, D.C. lawyer, says, “The reason I oppose torture…is because no matter what are the stakes involved, using it would fundamentally degrade our society and political system; this is a price we cannot pay, no matter how ticking some time bomb may be.”6
The use of torture stirs passionate emotions among both supporters and opponents of the practice. Debating such topics serves a valuable purpose in our society, but in the end ensuring the safety and protection of American citizens and using all available resources to fight the War on Terror are critical responsibilities of the United States government. Therefore, torture is a necessary and proper tool for our nation’s leaders to have available, and to use when necessary. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bruce, Robert. “Scotland’s Past-William Wallace.” [On-line]. (Accessed 05 May 2007).
Bukovsky, Vladimir. U.S. Department of the Army, Command and General Staff College, Student Text C-100, Foundations, pp. 175-177. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 2006.
Goss, Oren. “PBS Frontline.” [On-line], (Accessed 05 May 2007).
Krauthammer, Charles. U.S. Department of the Army, Command and General Staff College, Student Text C-100, Foundations, pp. 167-173. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 2006.
Rivkin, David. “PBS Frontline.” [On-line], (Accessed 05 May 2007).
2 Department of the Army, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Student Text C-100, Foundations (Fort Leavenworth, KS: USACGSC, June 2006), pp. 167-173.
3 Ibid.
4 Goss, Oren. “PBSFrontline.” [On-line]
5 Department of the Army, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Student Text C-100, Foundations (Fort Leavenworth, KS: USACGSC, June 2006), pp. 175-177.
