A Case for Torture

Lens #3

Arrangement/Organization/Structure. The Method and Notice and Focus are good for this
lens.
A) Structural Parts naming the texts components according to where they come in the
composition: beginning, middle, and end; introduction, body paragraphs, conclusion, and
so on
B) Functional Parts naming the texts components according to what role they play in
assisting the writer to accomplish a purpose with an audience. This involves seeing how
the parts invite the audience to participate in the construction of meaning.
a) Author uses possible scenarios of terrorist acts in order to put his idea into
perspective. When he uses realistic situations that people of our era can relate
to, he is more likely to pull the audience in his favor. He uses fear to relate with
the readers.
C) Capture the essence of each paragraph (summary or paraphrase)
1. Torture is assumed to be something of the past, in a brutal age.
2. Author disagrees with above statement, believes it should be morally mandatory in
specific situations.
3. Scenario given where terrorist has planted bomb and been caught on the day of the
attack, prior to the detonation. Terrorist will not reveal the location of the bomb, prefers
death over failure. If due process is followed and terrorist waits to be heard with lawyer,
millions will die. Author explains that if the only way to save innocent lives it to put
terrorist through worst pain possible, there is no reason we should not do so.
4. Unconstitutional? Sure, but sometimes innocent lives have to outweigh the constitution.
5. Once you realize that torture is okay in certain situations you have agreed that using
torture is used to balance innocent lives with whatever means to save them.
6. Four mothers informally polled if terrorist should be tortured if their newborn were taken
from them. All women said yes.
7. Torture should not be used as punishment. Punishment is used for things in the past that
cannot be undone. Torture should be used to keep future events from happening.
8. If police can torture in order to save innocent ones and stop something that will happen,
by all means do it.
9. Talk about terrorists having rights should mute when difference between them and their
victims is understood. Victims of terror never asked to be involved, terrorists give up their
civilized standard when they threaten to kill for money or an idea.
10. Torture only justifiable to those who hold innocent lives in their hands, the ones who
proclaim themselves as terrorists in order to strike fear.

QUESTIONS:
--Is there some section that clearly lets the reader know what subject the
composition is about and what the writers purpose is?
Second paragraph states purpose (I believe [the attitude that torture is impermissible] is
unwise) and key argument (There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but
morally mandatory.)

--Is there some section that purposefully sets out material in support of the
papers answer to the central question or its argument?
Clearly outlines hypothetical situations in next few paragraphs, sequentially addressing
instances in which the use of torture is the best option to conserve the humanity of many.
Uses the hypotheticals to appeal to the emotions of the reader (the innocent) to make them
understand the authors stance.

--Is there a part that examines possible objections to the answer, argument, or
supporting material (opposing view and rebuttal section)?
He does not have a clear section for the possible objections, but instead throughout the paper
has the rebuttal statements
Just as torture is justified only to save lives (not extort confessions or incantations)
I am not advocating torture as punishment.
If life is so valuable that it must never be taken, the lives of the innocents must be saved even at
the price of hurting the one who endangers them.
four mothers if they would approve of torturing kidnappers if that were necessary to get their
own newborns back. All said yes, the most "liberal" adding that she would like to administer it
herself.
These all include the author justifying the claims that torture is used to protect the innocent. He
wants the reader to see the situations in which the lives of the innocent are greater than the
perpetrator.

--Is there a sentence or section where the writer specifically answers the so
what? question? In others words, is there a section where the writer hints at
or directly states what he or she hopes the readers will think and/or do on the
basis of what they have read in the text?
The second paragraph (There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but
morally mandatory.) This sentence leads into the situations stated that the author hopes the
reader will adjust and change their perspective to see the purpose of torture.

--How has the manner in which the writer has moved from point to point
assisted him/her in achieving his/her purpose?

He states something and then in the next paragraph he either goes against it or with it with
some type of support which helps him because if he skipped around then he would easily lose
people. There are a couple of times when he asks questions which gets the reader thinking and
forming an opinion and then he talks about that topic so it keeps the reader interested.
By answering these questions, you can get a sense, at least provisionally, of how the parts of
the text work to achieve its purpose.