Are Enhanced Interrogation Techniques Effective and Should the United States Government Use Them?
James A. Bradley II Having grown up in the age of the internet, I have seen the news stories and videos of 9/11. It has made me wonder several questions such as “Why pick America, of all places, to attack?” or “What did we do to retaliate?” To this day we still aren’t sure of the actual reasoning behind it, but we still have theories. As for retaliation, the government sought out those who did this to our country. I first became interested in this topic this past semester for political science. In groups of two, we had to write a paper based on a topic that we could select. Before doing extensive research into the topic, more questions were forming in my mind. I wanted to know what our government did to seek out justice against those who participated in 9/11. Even though my partner and I collectively had to choose a side, I wasn’t quite sure what side I choosing. Then the research continued. I researched deeper in to the subject. With what little research I had done, I started into the paper. Enhanced interrogation techniques are what the conservatives call it. Liberals call it torture. The more important question is this: Does it work? Liberals say no, while the conservatives say yes. In the eyes of a conservative it might read something like this: We believe that enhanced interrogation techniques work and provide results faster than sting operations that could take years to complete. Enhanced interrogation techniques have been a crucial tool in the war against terror. Former chief of “clandestine” operations Jose Rodriguez reiterates what they did to suspected terrorists, “We made some al-Qaida terrorists with American blood on their hands uncomfortable for a few days” (Rodriguez). Liberals might view it like this: The Geneva Convention came up with rules of war after a gruesome Second World War.
These rules also pertained to the treatment of prisoners of war. Torture was banned by the Geneva Convention in 1984. Anti-torture arguers often say that torture is a clear violation of human rights and disregards any rights given under the Geneva Convention or the U.S. Constitution. These are just some views of how the two different sides see it, however, to get more details about it more sources are needed. In an article from The CS Monitor, Tom Peter focuses more on whether or not these techniques were effective or not. Peter talks about what the President, Obama at the time, did shortly after he was elected president. Also he criticizes the people that try to put their own input on the subject even though they have no previous experience in the matter. In this article, Peter argues for enhanced interrogation techniques and that they are effective. He incorporates the example of Sheik Mohammed and how these techniques helped get information that prevented future terrorist attacks. As with most articles, it is hard to tell what the unaltered truth is and what truth has been slightly changed. Peter’s article showed me examples of when the enhanced interrogation techniques worked. In this article, I learned that enhanced interrogation works. It helped broaden my spectrum for the pro-side. One thing that this source doesn’t include is the times when it didn’t provide information. In my next news article, by Julian Borger, show when enhanced interrogation didn’t work. This shows the other part of the argument brought up by the Liberal side. In the case of Abu Zubaydah, the article claims, from several sources, that the techniques used against this detainee were ineffective. Borger also said from an interview featuring Ali Soufan, that the only information was achieved through normal interrogation sessions. This source made it easier for me to understand the opposing side of the argument. It also shed some light on some of the people involved with the enhanced interrogation such as those who were bosses to the personnel supervising the interrogation. This article brought up some really strong points, but it did have some flaws. Mark Fallon, a source used in the article, said this, “As special agent in charge of the criminal investigation task force with investigators and intelligence personnel at Guantánamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq, I was privy to the information provided by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I was aware of no valuable information that came from waterboarding.” This was a weak point that stuck out to me because it was information that was passed from one ear to the next. I have a problem with this quote because information can be distorted from the original message. Articles aren’t they only part of this argument though. Court cases were a huge part of my paper because it was an indirect ruling for enhanced interrogation. One case would be Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. This case was about the driver of Osama Bin Laden, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who was captured and sent to Guantanamo Bay under American supervision. Hamdan, during his imprisonment, requested a writ of habeas corpus. Prior to the request, he was already confirmed as an enemy combatant by a military court. This request made it, even though he was associated with known terrorists, could have the right to a trial in front of a judge.At Guantanamo Bay, Hamdan was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques; however, under the writ of habeas corpus that was requested, Hamdan could challenge his detainment and the treatment he received there. This court case helped me better understand the Liberal side because it talks about the rights that detainees are supposed to receive. Based on the information gathered so far my fence is leaning more toward the Liberal side just because of morals. The only problem I have with that is if morals are going to keep our nation safe.
In another article I found, Senate Report Finds CIA Interrogation Tactics Were Ineffective by Andrea Mitchell, Robert Windrem, and Erin McClam, shows bias toward the Liberal side of the argument. I made this conclusion because of the liberal background that the website has. Mitchell, Windrem, and McClam all disagree with the anti-terrorism policies that Bush put in the time following 9/11. They also take into consideration the numbers that surround the CIA “Torture Report.” Some of these numbers include 6 years, 6.3 million documents, 6000 pages, and $40 million. The group of reporters discusses the details of the report, the results, how the CIA got away with it, and reactions to the report as well. This article helped me understand the magnitude and severity of what happened in the “Torture Report.” This article is making me lead toward the Liberal side, however, it doesn’t take me off the fence into the Liberal yard. The aspect that keeps me on the fence is the results. No matter what source you use, they always say there were few or many results, but there were still results.
For my final source, I chose a Pro vs. Con article. In the article, Marc Thiessen represents the Pro side while Laurie Blank and Amos Guiora represent the Con side. In Thiessen’s argument he says this, “In normal times, the officials who uncovered the intelligence that led us to Osama bin Laden would get a medal. In the Obama administration, they have been given subpoenas” (Thiessen). He is simply stating that Obama wants to imprison those who helped us get Bin Laden. He then goes on to talk about the success that the CIA has had with enhanced interrogation. Blank and Guiora argue the opposite side saying this, “Torture is always illegal — under any law — and should remain so” (Thiessen). They aren’t arguing whether or not it was effective, just that it is wrong and shouldn’t be used. They also question the circumstances surrounding the death of Osama Bin Laden. They wondered whether or not he could have been captured, however, they do agree that he needed to be killed. This article helped to pursue a different angle of this argument. I think that this article wasn’t biased considering that it gave two sides of the argument.
In conclusion, I am still on the fence about this topic, but my understanding of the two sides has grown immensely. As for my official stance on the issue, I think that it is essential to be able to use these techniques in extreme circumstances; however, these techniques need to be monitored and information needs to be checked out thoroughly before the interrogations can begin.

Works Cited
Borger, Julian. "Senate Committee CIA Torture Does Not Work." The Guardian. The Guardian,
9 Dec. 2014. Web. 17 Feb. 2016.
"Hamdan v. Rumsfeld." Oyez. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2016.
Mitchell, Andrea, Robert WIndrem, and Erin McClam. "Senate Report Finds CIA Interrogation
Tactics Were Ineffective." NBCNews. NBC, 9 Dec. 2014. Web. 17 Feb. 2016.
Peter, Tom A. "Did CIA 'enhanced Interrogation Techniques' Work or Not?" The Christian
Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 26 Apr. 2009. Web. 17 Feb. 2016.
American Lives. New York: Threshold Editions, 2012. Print.
Rodriguez, Jose A., and Bill Harlow. Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions after 9/11
Saved
Thiessen, Marc A., Laurie R. Blank, and Amos N. Guiora. "Pro & Con: Should President
Reinstate ‘enhanced Interrogation’ Tools?" AJC. N.p., 11 May 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.