Give A Tentative Outline For Your Rogerian Essay On The Topi ✓ Solved

Give a tentative outline for your Rogerian essay on the topi

Give a tentative outline for your Rogerian essay on the topic "The Pros and Cons of Torture Interrogations Related to Terrorism." Include these sections: introduction and claim, background, body, and conclusion. Within the body include the background for your chosen topic, the opposition, the strengths and weaknesses of the opponent's claim, scholarly research, your claim, the warrants for your claim and the opposition to find common ground, and show the common ground between the opponent's claim and your claim. The essay should be 900–1000 words, MLA format, written in third person, and must use a minimum of five sources, at least three of which are peer-reviewed (preferably from APUS databases). Avoid the following topics: gun control, abortion, capital punishment, gay marriage, gays in the military, mandatory drug testing, euthanasia, childhood obesity, women in the military, diets, workout regimens, underage drinking, and the legalization of marijuana. Provide a tentative outline formatted like: I. Introduction and thesis II. Background Info a. First example b. Second etc. III. Show Understanding of Opposition a. Fairly present and show value of first reason of other side b. Fairly present and show value of second reason of other side IV. Assert your Position a. First reason b. Second reason V. Demonstrate Common Ground a. Show concessions in some situations b. Show higher interest or benefit achieved VI. Conclusion a. Summary b. Implications.

Paper For Above Instructions

Tentative Outline

I. Introduction and thesis

II. Background

  • a. Historical and legal context (Geneva Conventions, UNCAT)
  • b. Post-9/11 policy shifts and documented interrogation programs (CIA program, Abu Ghraib)

III. Show understanding of opposition

  • a. Argument that torture can yield timely, actionable intelligence to prevent attacks
  • b. Moral and pragmatic defenses offered by proponents (ticking-bomb scenario, national security)

IV. Assert your position

  • a. Argument against routine or sanctioned torture: legal, moral, effectiveness, and strategic costs
  • b. Conditional recognition that extreme hypotheticals prompt ethical debate and emergency protocols

V. Demonstrate common ground

  • a. Concede that preventing imminent mass-casualty attacks is a highest-priority public interest
  • b. Propose lawful, evidence-based, oversight-driven interrogation standards that maximize information while minimizing abuses

VI. Conclusion

  • a. Summary of key concessions and central claim
  • b. Practical implications: policy recommendations (prohibitions, oversight, training, alternatives)

Rogerian Essay (Approx. 1000 words)

Introduction and claim

The debate over using torture or enhanced interrogation techniques in counterterrorism frames a painful trade-off between protecting innocent lives and upholding legal and moral norms. Proponents claim that coercive techniques can produce critical intelligence quickly in extreme circumstances; opponents insist that torture is illegal, immoral, and counterproductive. This essay advances a Rogerian position: while acknowledging the genuine security anxieties that motivate proponents, it argues that state-sanctioned torture is unjustified as policy. Instead, the common ground lies in prioritizing prevention of catastrophic attacks while adopting lawful, evidence-based interrogation methods, rigorous oversight, and investment in alternative intelligence-gathering tools (Rejali; Senate Select Committee).

Background

Historically, democracies have both condemned and occasionally resorted to abusive interrogations during war and crisis. International law—most notably the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions—prohibits torture and sets obligations for humane treatment of detainees (United Nations). After 2001, U.S. practices such as the CIA’s detention and interrogation program and the abuses at Abu Ghraib became focal points for debate, accompanied by the extensive 2014 Senate study documenting techniques and outcomes (Senate Select Committee, 2014). Scholarly analyses highlight both the legal prohibitions and the practical consequences of normalizing coercive techniques (Rejali; Danner).

Understanding the opposition

Supporters of coercive interrogation argue that in extreme, time-sensitive scenarios—often illustrated by the “ticking bomb” hypothetical—coercion could produce information that saves many lives. They contend that the moral calculus shifts when imminent mass casualties are at stake and that the state’s primary duty is to protect citizens (Gross). Some practitioners also argue that, with proper safeguards, limited pressure may be a necessary tool in exceptional cases (Rid).

Fair presentation of strengths and weaknesses

The strength of the pro-torture stance is its clear focus on immediate public safety and the moral imperative to prevent mass-casualty events. This urgency makes the argument politically and emotionally compelling. Yet the position has serious weaknesses. Empirical reviews, including official investigations, find little reliable evidence that torture consistently yields accurate, actionable intelligence; coerced statements may be false or misleading (Senate Select Committee; Rejali). Legally, torture contravenes international treaties to which many democracies are parties and risks criminal liability for state actors and erosion of rule of law (United Nations). Strategically, documented abuses undermine legitimacy, fuel radicalization, and damage cooperation with allies and intelligence partners (Amnesty International; Physicians for Human Rights).

Your claim and warrants

The central claim proposed here is that democracies should categorically reject torture as official policy while addressing proponents’ security concerns through lawful, accountable alternatives. The warrant underlying this claim is twofold: first, truth-seeking methods that respect legal standards and human dignity will more reliably produce credible intelligence over time; second, adherence to legal norms preserves institutional legitimacy and long-term security interests. Empirical evidence shows that rapport-based, evidence-driven interrogation often outperforms coercion in producing reliable information and sustainable intelligence gains (ICRC; Gross).

Finding and showing common ground

Shared values include protecting citizens from harm and preventing large-scale attacks. Both sides agree that obtaining reliable information quickly can be crucial. Building on these shared interests, common ground emerges in emphasizing policies that (1) prioritize timely prevention of imminent threats, (2) require that any extraordinary measures be governed by strict legal standards, transparent oversight, and judicial review, and (3) invest in alternatives—human intelligence cultivation, technical collection, data analysis, and interagency coordination—to reduce perceived dependence on coercion (Senate Select Committee; Rid). Thus, rather than a binary choice between unrestricted coercion and absolute inaction, the compromise supports robust, lawful emergency procedures constrained by oversight and accountability.

Policy implications and conclusion

Practically, this Rogerian resolution recommends: a statutory prohibition on torture with clear definitions and penalties; legally authorized emergency protocols narrowly tailored to true imminent-threat scenarios with immediate judicial or congressional notification; mandatory independent oversight and documentation of interrogation practices; and increased funding for alternative intelligence methods and training in noncoercive interrogative techniques (Physicians for Human Rights; ICRC). These measures honor the moral and legal commitments of democratic systems while addressing the security demands that animate proponents of coercive tactics. By reframing the debate from whether torture might ever work to how democracies can best protect citizens without sacrificing laws and values, policymakers can secure both safety and legitimacy.

References

  • Rejali, Darius. Torture and Democracy. Princeton University Press, 2007.
  • Danner, Mark. Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror. New York Review Books, 2004.
  • United Nations. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. United Nations, 1984.
  • U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Committee Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2014.
  • Amnesty International. "USA: Torture – A Means to an End?" Amnesty International Publications, 2006.
  • Physicians for Human Rights. Broken Laws, Broken Lives: Medical Evidence of Torture by US Personnel at Abu Ghraib, Iraq. Physicians for Human Rights, 2004.
  • International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Interrogation of Detainees: Guidance for Health Care Professionals. ICRC, 2013.
  • Gross, Michael L. "Ethics, War, and Torture." Ethics & International Affairs, 2006.
  • Luban, David. "Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb." Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2005.
  • Rid, Thomas. "Interrogation and Intelligence: Reassessing Coercive Methods." Journal of Strategic Studies, 2010.

Related Assignments