Torture, National Security, and the Ethics of State Coercion
This essay examines the controversial debate over state-sanctioned torture as a counterterrorism tool, centering on two competing academic perspectives. Alan Dershowitz, in "The Torture Warrant: A Response to Professor Strauss," argues for a pragmatic approach that acknowledges torture's covert use by governments and calls for judicial warrants to impose accountability and limit its scope. Against this, C. Sung's "Torturing the Ticking Bomb Terrorist" challenges Dershowitz's constitutional and moral premises, arguing that judicial sanction would legitimize torture, violate Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections, and irreparably damage the United States' standing as a champion of human rights. The essay concludes that, however pragmatically compelling, sanctioning torture ultimately undermines the very national values it claims to protect.
- Introduction: Torture as a National Security Debate: Framing torture as the most controversial counterterrorism question
- Dershowitz's Pragmatic Case for Judicial Warrants: Dershowitz argues for regulated, warrant-based accountability for torture
- Sung's Constitutional and Moral Rebuttal: Sung challenges Dershowitz on constitutional and legitimacy grounds
- Balancing Security and Human Rights Principles: Weighing pragmatic security needs against foundational rights
- Conclusion: Sanctioning torture erodes the nation's core values
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper uses a tight two-source debate structure, letting Dershowitz and Sung directly contest each other's claims rather than treating each position in isolation.
- It accurately captures Dershowitz's nuanced stance — not outright advocacy of torture, but a pragmatic call for regulated accountability — which is a sophisticated reading of the source text.
- The conclusion delivers a clear normative judgment grounded in the preceding analysis, avoiding vagueness while remaining proportionate to the essay's scope.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective comparative source analysis: it identifies the specific terrain on which each author operates (pragmatic-governmental versus constitutional-moral), then shows how Sung reframes the debate to expose gaps in Dershowitz's assumptions. Citing specific amendments and page numbers strengthens the argumentative precision within a short word count.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by contextualizing torture within national security discourse, then devotes one section each to Dershowitz's position and Sung's rebuttal, and closes with a synthesizing normative judgment. The structure is linear and logically sequenced, making it a model for short comparative essays at the undergraduate level.
Introduction: Torture as a National Security Debate
In the inherently volatile arena of national security concerns regarding terrorism, no issue generates greater controversy than that of state-sanctioned torture. The practice may be viewed as a "bottom line" consideration, in that torture is uniformly condemned by the vast majority of nations as an unconscionable act. Consequently, investigating it as an option in the war against terrorism serves to underscore just how deeply felt national security imperatives can be.
A prominent voice in this debate is that of celebrated attorney and political commentator Alan Dershowitz, who reflects at length upon his perceived support of torture as an effective means of terrorism prevention in "The Torture Warrant: A Response to Professor Strauss." The article is fascinating, not least because of Dershowitz's oblique approach to the subject. After addressing — and clearly resenting — myriad characterizations of himself as a proponent of torture, he takes the occasion to clarify what he regards as inaccurate interpretations of his stance.
Works Cited
Dershowitz, A. "The Torture Warrant: A Response to Professor Strauss." New York Law School Review 48 (2003): 275–294. Print.
Sung, C. "Torturing the Ticking Bomb Terrorist: An Analysis of Judicially Sanctioned Torture in the Context of Terrorism." Boston College Third World Law Journal 23:1 (2003): 193–212. Print.
Already a member? Log in
Unlock the rest of this paper
135,000+ research papers · AI writing tools · Plagiarism & AI detection
7-Day Pass
Does not renew
Get 7-Day PassMonthly
Renews at $12.99/month until canceled
Start MonthlyAnnual
Renews at $99/year until canceled
Start Annual- Unlimited AI writing tools
- Plagiarism and AI text detection tool
Plan details
Unlimited AI writing tools are for individual, non-automated use and are subject to our Terms of Service and abuse-prevention measures.
TextChecker scans: 3 during the 7-Day Pass, or 5 per month with Monthly and Annual.
Prices exclude applicable tax.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.