Cobb

Morgan R. Cobb
Professor James Stapp
Comp 1 MWF 8:30
27 October 2014
The Truth about Torture vs. The Abolition of Torture
Opinions are everywhere and everyone has an opinion. Therefore, everyones opinions
are everywhere! With that being said, sometimes other peoples opinions do not really
compliment someone else's opinions. In Charles Krauthammers article, The Truth about
Torture, he goes into detail of his own stand on torture. In response to Krauthammers article,
writer Andrew Sullivan decided to reply with a complete different opinion. In Sullivans article,
The Abolition of Torture, he leads onto a different approach. Sullivan argues against
Krauthammer and states that we should not use torture to one up our enemies. Both of these
texts go into extreme detail in their arguments. Most people would see both authors intended
audience as primarily speaking to United States citizens. One could also say that the intended
audiences could be toward people who have positive or negative views about torture. These
authors go into the important aspects to speak to their intended audiences. The question is,
which one seemed to be more effective to their audience? With detailed examples and
backstories, Krauthammer is without a doubt most effective. Krauthammer goes into vase detail
to prove a more effective argument using both logical and pathological appeals.
Charles Krauthammers essay was first published in The Weekly Standard on
December 5, 2005. (Krauthammer 616) Krauthammer brings our attention to what was going on

Cobb
2

in Washington in 2005. John McCain had proposed an amendment that would ban cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment to any prisoner by any agent of the United States.
(Krauthammer 617) McCain believed that it was in the United States best interest to end all of
the unnecessary torture. Some would side with McCain and agree with such extraordinary
limits that he specified. Krauthammer, on the other hand, believes a more accurate way to deal
with people who have done such actions to become prisoners. Krauthammer believes that torture
should be limited to controlled circumstances. With that being said, Krauthammer begins to go
into detail of how situations would go if there was no torture whatsoever. Krauthammer puts us
in the shoes of an American soldier in the middle of war and what it is like to capture a prisoner.
He also goes to inform us that there are three types of war prisoners: The Domestic Prisoner, The
Captured Terrorist, and the terrorist with information.
Krauthammer continues to list significant elements to make his point more effective the
audience. He begins to talk about terrorism and what the world would be like without torture in
these situations. Krauthammer discusses terrorists including Osama bin Laden and Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed. He goes to talk about such tragic events like 9/11. When capturing a
prisoner who has done such a horrible thing, should we really seek mercy on them? Some may
say that Krauthammer went into too much detail, but I believe that these smaller details made his
conclusion that more intriguing. Krauthammer states, according to Newsweek McCain says
that the president should disobey the very law McCain seeks to pass (625) McCain had
ended up saying you do what you have to do. But you take responsibility for it. (Krauthammer
626) Krauthammer wraps up his argument perfectly with his conclusion of basically proving

Cobb
3

that McCain and he have the same beliefs. The only time that Krauthammers article seems
ineffective is when he keeps going on about certain issues and does not get to the main point.
Andrew Sullivan comes in with his own response to Charles Krauthammers article
which Sullivan called, The Abolition of Torture. Not long after Krauthammers article was
published, Sullivans article was first published in The New Republic on December 19, 2005.

Sullivan argues that the United States cannot engage in torture if it is to rise above its enemies
and hold true to the very ideals that represents this country (629) Sullivan begins to explain
the factors of how torture is wrong. Sullivan also goes into detail of how he is trying to prove
Charles Krauthammer wrong. Using a pathological appeal, Sullivan begins to discuss the topic
of how emotional torture is and what it can do to a person. He basically goes to say that we are
cowardly to believe that torture is our go to thing to do. Sullivan uses such terms as
waterboarding to make our hearts think that doing that to someone is wrong. Would you just
let someone get away with killing an enormous amount of people?
Sullivan seems to state more pathological appeals than anything. Knowing that he can
make readers emotions rage over torture Sullivan uses this to the best of his advantage.
Sullivan states that we should not be compelled to do such monstrous things. (640) He
tries to make logical appeals to make his argument seem more relevant but Krauthammers
backstories and examples overtook Sullivans pathological opinions. Sullivans article was very
ineffective for the most part because he just made a humanistic view without saying all of the
facts. Sullivan uses many topics of Krauthammers text to make his argument seem like the

Cobb
4

more effective one. Yet, Sullivan is a very biased person. Sullivan is a gay, catholic,
conservative, and often controversial commentator. (629) This puts Sullivan on very many
levels of different thoughts and opinions. With Sullivans morals being different than someone
else, some of his intended audience might just see his biased opinion over everything. Sullivan
concluding sentence could have been used for another article because it hits the most
pathological spot. We will have lost the war before we have given ourselves the chance to win
it. (Sullivan 640) Even though Sullivans article was greatly detailed and was neatly written, it
did not measure up to Krauthammers article. With that being said, it goes to show that
Krauthammer goes into vase detail to prove a more effective argument using both logical and
pathological appeals.