As a part of the response to the Al Qaida attacks on 11 September 2001, the United States found itself having to answer many difficult questions regarding its action in the Global War on Terrorism. One of the most contentious was the use of torture against captured enemy fighters. The United States, a strong proponent for humanitarian law, soon found itself criticized for its treatment of detainees. As a result, commentators and politicians have had endless debates about interrogation techniques and the legal applicability of international law and treaties to a nonstate enemy. The central research question derived from these issues is: Is torture a viable tool for use in achieving goals as outlined in the 2006 National Security Strategy? Interrogational torture was examined from the following standpoints: legal, effectiveness, and ethical. Results showed that torture is wrong. The next step applied the analytical results against the ethical decision-making triangle and also concluded that from the three standpoints torture was wrong and not a feasible means of achieving the United States' national security objectives.

ADA 471454 Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)