Commentary #3

           

The author’s paper is about “enhanced interrogation” or torture. Her thesis clearly states what her two criteria are going to be talked about. She is first stating that you get false information obtained by torture which is valid and very arguable point that even Hitchen’s himself argued. Her second criteria point is that in the United States judicial system and the Geneva Convention laws say it is illegal and therefore it should not be used. Her criteria in the essay are relevant to the thesis statement, which is a very strong thesis. I think that people on the other side of her argument would accept the criteria presented because these points are the main issues that come up when arguing about “enhanced interrogation” or torture. She needs to acknowledge the fact military does not follow the same rules as regular United States citizens follow. Acknowledging this point will give more validity to her argument against “enhanced interrogation” or torture I think. She evenly weighs both sides of the argument evenly. Maybe add a little more to the refutation side. Give a better case for the opposite view point. But not much needs to add to that. She follows her criteria that was presented in her article and does not stray away from her criteria at all. All of her quotes are relevant to the criteria and give strong support to her paragraphs and points that she is talking about. The quotes are backed up with strong support following the quote. She cherry picked a little, but that is a given when giving an argument. I am a skeptic and to her point of view on this subject and I accepted that argument she made. It was strong and most importantly clear. Some of her examples are a little to specific, but they are really good examples. The examples presented might be rare cases so that could be a fault. I thought the essay was well written, structurally sound, and very clear and a lot of strong support to back up her criteria.