The first paragraph does a good job of stating your proposal and making your stance on the issue clear. If I were to summarize your thesis: Modern technologies should be utilized instead of the archaic and unreliable torture methods. I had trouble understanding the specifics of your proposal; perhaps you could elaborate further and mention more details regarding your plan.
The second paragraph explains how modern intelligence equipment has been successful in the raid on Osama bin Laden. Your claim was restated nicely and is followed by a couple of supporting claims. The background information regarding the technologies is nicely laid out and flows smoothly. The part about describing flexibility should be changed though because it is hard to follow. One line regarding the flexibility was really confusing and should be revised: “either limiting others’ usage or let suspects electronic devices serve for us”. Some outside evidence could also be used to strengthen your argument.
The third paragraph continues to explain how surveillance and monitoring was employed which led to the raid on Osama bin Laden. The first sentence really does seem out of place and should probably be merged into the first paragraph to give it outside evidence and also reduce repetitiveness. It then describes how the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) played a key role in supporting the raid on Osama bin Laden. The outside evidence works however, the recycled example of the raid on Osama bin Laden makes your argument appear more repetitive and less effective. The first and second paragraphs seem very similar however their reasons are slightly different.
The fourth paragraph starts out by explaining the amount of CIA employees killed in the line of duty. It effectively gets the point across that the amount of causalities can be reduced through the use of unmanned drones and other technology. Your outside evidence from Fenwick should be replaced. Remember, the prompt is about torture in the United States, not the United Kingdom. The paragraph proves how the technology is flexible, however it doesn’t mention how unmanned drones are a replacement for torture. You should try to prove how the technology can get reliable information from suspected terrorists as opposed to torture, not how they reduce causalities.
The fifth and sixth paragraphs should probably be merged because they both include possible objections. The paragraphs don’t mention alternative ways to solve the problem either which makes them even more related. The first objection addressed acknowledges that the effectiveness of the technologies mentioned lacks decisive evidence to prove that they really work. The next objection involves an event in 2011 which outlined the event of a drone being shot down and captured. It is also mentioned how they can be hacked and it is proposed that software could be improved to make them safer. The rapid change of technology has improved as opposed to dated torture methods was also mentioned.
The conclusion does a good job of summarizing your argument. It doesn’t seem to call readers to action or end with something memorable though as mentioned in the Organization Plan on page 328 of Writing Arguments. The thesis statement should probably be revised because I don’t really see how your reasons supporting your claim tie into it. I also failed to see how information obtained through technology is equivalent to the information obtained from the torture of a suspected terrorist. I kept wondering how the intelligence gathered is comparable. I also think it would be better if the thesis was revised and perhaps some paragraphs are changed to make your stance clearer. I can clearly see that you are against torture methods; your reasons could do a better job of proving your stance though. Aside from the suggestions I made, I think your argument could use more supportive evidence and better conform to the Organization Plan.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Proposal Argument (First Draft)
Myles Sachs
Professor Brown
English 1B
5 August 2013
Truth
Through Drugs, Not Torture
There is nothing “enhanced” about “enhanced interrogation”. Various methods of torture have been used for
centuries and most do not yield accurate results. When the Bush Administration was forced into
implementing a solution to retrieve information from suspected terrorists
following the horrific events that transpired on September 11th,
2001 their attempt to solve a problem of getting answers was not only archaic
and unethical, it ultimately failed. The
United States not only spends the most on health care per capita, it is also
known as an innovator in the medical industry.
There hasn’t been any proof that enhanced interrogation actually worked,
however there is proof that drugs have been effective at getting people to
really speak what is on their mind.
I would propose that drugs are used in place of various
mental and physical torture methods as a way to obtain accurate information
without inflicting any physical pain. One
of the most commonly overlooked reasons in regards to using drugs over torture
is that they don’t inflict any physical pain when used correctly. Drugs have also been proven to work when it
comes to obtaining accurate and reliable information unlike torture. When drugs are used in place of torture, they
also don’t cause the same degree of mental damage that a torture method such as
a waterboarding session would. Similar,
if not the same types of drugs are used regularly in the medical industry and
have proven to be safe and effective without any long term damage unlike
torture methods.
Drugs should be used in place of torture to obtain
accurate information from suspected terrorists while minimizing the impact of
their long term health. Some reasons supporting
my proposal include: they do not inflict physical pain and they can effectively
produce accurate information. There is
simply no contest when it comes to comparing the amount of pain caused by a
needle as opposed to a commonly employed torture tactic such as sleep
deprivation. There is practically no
physical pain when it comes to injecting a substance. Imagine yourself at the doctor’s office
getting an annual flu shot or a vaccination, sure you might feel a stinging
sensation at the point of injection however it is minimal compared to torture
and is very short term. An article
describes the process: “The drug is injected slowly into a vein in order to
induce a relaxed state of mind in which the suspect becomes more talkative and
has less emotional control” (Macdonald 259).
The procedure is quick and doesn’t cause anywhere near as much physical
pain as torture would.
Unlike the use of torture, drugs have had more success in
producing accurate information. As I
mentioned the process of injecting drugs, the purpose of it (which makes a
suspect become more talkative and have less emotional control) is an example I
am sure most of you can relate to. A
recent example is when I went bar hopping with my best friend. I only had a couple drinks because I nobly
insisted that I would be the designated driver.
I didn’t really feel any different; however my best friend consumed a
lot of alcohol before we decided to go on a walk. The first thing I noticed is that he was much
more talkative and didn’t hesitate to share whatever crossed his mind. It was almost like he opened the flood gates
and the secrets he internalized came surging out. He also seemed intent on providing each and
every detail no matter how insignificant.
The information seemed to be accurate because the next time I saw him
sober he wondered how I found out so much personal information. A U.S. News article outlines the effect of a
hormone known as oxytocin on obtaining accurate information by creating a sense
of trust: “Instead of using
interrogation techniques that threaten to harm detainees and have been
repeatedly proven to be ineffective, interrogators could play "good
cop" with detainees. With the added edge of oxytocin, they could "tip
the balances a little” (qtd. in Koebler 1). The bottom line is that substances can really
be effective at obtaining accurate information.
As with most controversial issues, there is almost always
opposition and alternate proposals to address the issue at hand. The proposal I have created is indeed
illegal, however it would appear to be more ethical than torture because it
doesn’t cause any long term damage and some drugs have the same effect as legal
substances such as alcohol. Some could
also argue that using drugs is unsafe because they can be deadly if used in
high doses. Another counterclaim would
be extracting inaccurate information, while it might be true that not all
information received from someone who is under the influence of mind altering
substances is reliable, the amount of accurate information obtained from drug
assisted interrogation is much higher than information received from
torture. An alternate proposal to this
problem would be from the current United States President Barack Obama. He recently signed executive orders closing
the Guantanamo Bay detention camp which would effectively end the secret
prisons operated by the CIA. The order
also required all interrogations are subject to following the procedures in the
Army Field Manual. President Obama
mentioned his intentions with his proposal in a New York Times article: “We intend to win this fight,” he said.
“We are going to win it on our own terms” (qtd. in Shane, Mazzetti and
Cooper). Even though there are
alternatives and opposition, my solution would work especially if the use of
drugs on terrorists was made legal in place of torture.
The solution I proposed
to the issue of torture makes sense because it can effectively extract accurate
information without virtually any pain or suffering. The opposition would lead you to believe that
it is unethical and violates human rights; however it would make sense in
certain circumstances to drug a suspected terrorist especially when lives are
at stake. Even though President Obama
enacted his version of a solution to this problem, it is only a step in the
right direction and not the major jump the United States needs. If you knew that drugging someone prior to
asking them questions would help obtain the answers you’re looking for as
opposed to an ineffective method such as waterboarding, which method would you
use?
Works Cited
Koebler, Jason. "Oxytocin, the 'Trust Hormone,' Could Become
New Interrogation Tool." U.S. News.
U.S. News & World Report LP, 15 May 2012. Web. 6 Aug. 2013. <http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/05/15/oxytocin-the-trust-hormone-could-become-new-interrogation-tool>.
Macdonald, John M. "Truth Serum." JSTOR. ITHAKA, Aug. 1955. Web. 6 Aug. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1139862>.
Shane, Scott, Mark Mazzetti, and Helene Cooper. "Obama
Reverses Key Bush Security Policies." The
New York Times. The New York Times Company, 22 Jan. 2009. Web. 6 Aug. 2013.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/politics/23obama.html?pagewanted=all>.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)