Response to "The Torture Myth"

Response to "The Torture Myth"

        Anne Applebaum makes a good point, or argument. 

        

        When dealing with something as controversial as torture, it is advisable to focus on points that don't rely on support as malleable as morals or ethics. Applebaum immediately dismisses the morality of torture in the first paragraph of her essay in order to counter any opposing arguments that may use the subjectivity of morality issues against her. Instead, the author argues that torture should be discontinued, not because it is immoral, but because it is an ineffective method of extracting information.

         

        The author negates possible counterarguments in her essay in order to establish her own argument. Applebaum states conditions of rebuttal and explains other positions and their arguments. Then, she explains how the other positions would be invalid in this situation and supports this claim with evidence, quotes from people such as the FBI, who complained that "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative". The author contends that torture is ineffective and is actually counterproductive. She also lists the reasons as to why people would believe otherwise, discussing the common belief that "radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier". She refutes this belief and labels this thinking and practice "self-defeating".

        Applebaum supports her thesis with hard evidence, comprised mostly of statements from credible people with experience on the subject. Without ethos from herself, the author has to establish credibility by citing people that do have credibility. She cites people such as intelligence officers and interrogation officers that work in the field, all of whom are credible sources of information. Most of the people she cites are military, who would have experience in the matter of torturing for information. 

        The author also makes the argument alongside her main claim that torture negatively affects the image of the United States. Applebaum supports this claim with more evidence from credible people, like the CIA. Since the author doesn't have much ethos, she relies on ethos from other people, who also happen to serve as her logos. Throughout the essay, the author mostly uses logos and ethos to prove her claim, deriving almost nothing from pathos, which is mostly due to her initial statement: "Just for a moment, let's pretend that there is no moral, legal, or constitutional problem with torture". It would be hypocritical for her to make an argument based on ethos when she declares that her argument would not rely on the moral issues of torture. 

        The author makes an excellent argument of fact. She states the common belief about a fact, discusses it, provides evidence for her claim about the fact, and counters any opposing positions. Her claim is well-founded, backed by evidence and warrants. Her evidence is also supported with backing, which further cements her argument. By the end of the essay, Applebaum has made a convincing argument that is difficult to argue against.