Arguments for and against water-boarding and torturing Al Qaeda agents in ‘enhanced interrogations’ are dichromatic.

They must be examined only in two manners: 1) Moral arguments, and, 2) political arguments. I am a neutral analyst.

Arguments for and against enhanced interrogation techniques, moreover, must not be viewed through either a democratic and/or a republican lens.

They must be analyzed solely in terms falling within a particular theoretical framework of whether torturing Al Qaeda agents to obtain valuable information for protecting our country and its future posterity, is worth it.

Those advocating political arguments for torturing Al Qaeda agents of terrorism will argue torturing one person will protect the many innocent United States citizens. And, although this may be illegal within both national and international legal perimeters. I si true it can prevent another 9/11 from occurring.

Those against enhanced interrogation techniques or ‘torture’ for information will say the United States must obey the same human rights instruments they themselves are party to. I have been one of the persons clearly stating this in many of my political papers.

However, in the case of terrorism and in light of 9/11, it is clear that Al Qaeda and its leaders are not playing by the rules and America shouldn’t either. It is an individual choice and it is up to each one of us to decide within the aforementioned perimeters.