The United States should allow the limited use of torture.

The limited use of torture should be permitted in the United States in order to safeguard the wellbeing of the general public. This policy should be put in place because torture can be both an effective means of acquiring information, and it can be reasonably justified in some circumstances. These circumstances may include any case where tremendous amounts of human wellbeing are placed in jeopardy. Undoubtedly, some may be worried that allowing this policy would pave the way for all sorts of unnecessary human rights violations. But ultimately, this is not the case; torture can be conducted with moral justification and in a way that can be reconciled with the pursuits of a civil society. C1: Torture can be a feasible means of gathering information. Despite what many people may believe, there is ample evidence to suggest that torture can be an effective means of gathering information. Consider, for example, the French military's use of torture in Algeria. In 1956, the Algerian FLN (National Liberation Front) initiated a terrorist bombing campaign in Algiers that often targeted civilians. As a result, the French Government, with the aid of Gen. Jacques Massu, began a counterinsurgency campaign in Algiers that included the strategic use of torture. [1] With these tactics and a powerful military presence, only months later France was victorious over the Algerian forces. In fact, the campaign was so successful that the English military theorist Brian Crozier put it like this, "By such ruthless methods, Massu smashed the FLN organization in Algiers and re-established unchallenged French authority. And he did the job in seven months -- from March to mid-October." [1] This strong evidence from history indicates that it is possible to use torture as a feasible means to gather information. Additionally, there are other cases in recent history that would seemingly provide strong reasons to suppose that torture can be used effectively in dire situations. In 2003, a law student named Magnus Gï¿½fgen kidnapped Jakob von Metzler, the 11-year-old son of a prominent banker in Germany. [2] After the kidnapping, Mr. Gï¿½fgen murdered the 11-year-old boy by wrapping his mouth and nose in a type of duct tape. Later on, he was captured for his role in this crime, and when he was questioned about this incident, he refused to provide the whereabouts of the child. Fearing that the child was in imminent danger, German authorities sought and received legal permission to bring in a torturer to extract information. And as soon as the torturer came in, Gï¿½fgen, not wanting to be hurt, disclosed where he had put the child. From this incident, it seems quite clear that torture can help produce valuable information. C2: Torture can be ethically justified in certain circumstances. Given the increasing proliferation of destructive technology, it's possible to envision a scenario in which the refusal to administer torture would not only be unwise, it would be perverse, especially given the prospects of nuclear terrorism. Martin Hellman, a professor of electrical engineering at Stanford, who has been focusing on nuclear deterrence for the past 25 years, estimates that there is a greater than 50% chance that a nuclear weapon attack will occur in the next 80 years unless the number of weapons and available weapons-grade material is radically reduced. [3] Moreover, organizations that make it their business to study nuclear proliferation, such as Harvard's Belfer Center, now agree that a terrorist organization acquiring a nuclear weapon is a very real danger. [4] And according to the Belfer Center, "In a 2005 poll of international security experts taken by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the median estimate of the chance of a nuclear attack in the next ten years was 29 percent — and a strong majority believed that it was more likely that terrorists would launch a nuclear attack than that a state would." [4] Therefore, the potential that we can gain information about future terrorist attacks that utilize nuclear material is very real, and it becomes progressively more likely as nuclear material continues to proliferate across the globe. Consequently, it should be evident that torture can – at least potentially – help us avoid nuclear catastrophe. C3: Incurring collateral damage is far worse morally than the torture of certain people. Torture should concern us far less than collateral damage during wartime concerns us. Inevitably, certain parts of any military campaign simply won't be successful, and these mishaps are occasionally responsible for killing innocent men, women, and children that were not the intended targets. And unlike terrorists, the victims of collateral damage are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. As such, the death of innocent children from collateral damage should be far more troubling than the temporary discomfort of avowed terrorists. Sam Harris, a philosopher and neuroscientist, points out the following, "What, after all, is "collateral damage" but the inadvertent torture of innocent men, women, and children? Whenever we consent to drop bombs, we do so with the knowledge that some number of children will be blinded, disemboweled, paralyzed, orphaned, and killed by them. It is curious that while the torture of Osama bin Laden himself could be expected to provoke convulsions of conscience among our leaders, the unintended (though perfectly foreseeable, and therefore accepted) slaughter of children does not." [5] Indeed, it is truly bizarre that collateral damage is less morally troubling to most people than judicious torture. Furthermore, even if we were resolved to only fight defensive wars, the point would still remain. Whenever any nation engages in modern warfare (for either offensive or defensive purposes), thousands of innocent people will certainly be killed, blinded, and maimed as a result. Thus, if we are unwilling to engage in torture to achieve certain objectives that are of grave importance, then we should also be unwilling to wage modern warfare. And if we are willing to wage modern warfare, then it logically follows that we ought to allow the limited use of torture. ::Conclusion:: Historical evidence regarding the utility of torture and moral reasoning both suggest that torture may truly be preferable in some scenarios, especially in ‘ticking time bomb' cases. Of course, certain people may still be worried about the possibility of torture being used for non-essential purposes if it were allowed. In attempting to calm these fears, Alan Dershowitz, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, suggests the following, "we should never under any circumstances allow low-level people to administer torture. If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice." [6] Whether or not we can all concur with Dershowitz on his specific proposals is irrelevant. The point is, of course, that there are situations where torture can be conducted with oversight, accountability, and moral justification. Thus, there are good reasons, both practically and morally, why the United States should allow the limited use of torture. Sources: 1. Schulz, William F., and Juan E. . Mï¿½ndez. The Phenomenon of Torture Readings and Commentary. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2007. p. 255 2. http://www.nytimes.com... 3. http://www.cbsnews.com... 4. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu... 5. Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005. p. 194 6. http://edition.cnn.com...