Sides in Torture

In the argument for using torture only in necessary situations, the writers make some very good points as well as some key mistakes. He uses human emotions to pull at you heart and make you feel guilt or pain to cloud your judgement. What i mean by this is that while these types of emtions can be very useful in certain situations, here they just get in the way of your clear thinking and can even force you into a decision you wouldn't be ofr otherwise. Now I'm not saying that this is a dirty trick or anything like that, but merely a well thought out strategy to get people to see his view of things.
While he does put out a lot of good points, the way in which he did it seemed rushed and very vulnerable. Because he was verbally pelting the reader with all of these ideas and arguments, it was suppose to not give the reader time to come up with a response or a counter arguement. This clearly shows that while he can make a good opening satement for his side, he is most likely not ready to continue on in a drawnout argument about this subject. In this case he is clearly either not through enough in his undestanding of the subject or that he just issint a good debater. By reading his paper I would be put to the side against it just because he uses more mental warfare to try and pursuade people than actaully giving him facts and clear convincing explnations, but I still have to side with him because what he said only enforced what I thought before reading this paper.