CIA report

There is always an ethical issue that rises with interrogations. "Is is ethical to use force on a suspected terrorist?" If the methods used to break a terrorist inflict terror themselves then what is the difference between the good guys and the bad ones? The again a terrorist has no conscience so will guilt and words ever work? Do terrorists deserve to have their rights, or should they be hurt int he same manner that them hurt others. This issue can never really be resolved for the arguments are strong for both sides, and the most compelling arts to the stories of these tortures are that they are always accompanied with a great deal of emotion. This emotion influences the listener making them unable to reason out without bias.
For an American affected by 9/11 and an Indian affected in 26/11 any amount of pain inflicted on a terrorist could be acceptable, but for a mother whose son used terrorism as means to earn money and support her illness, even a pin prick would be too much. There are two sides to all stories, and as seen in Khuda ke liye, often those accused are not the ones guilty of any hostility. There are people who wont break with any amount of talk. An American can promise a better prison facility, and can show pictures of the people who died through a tragedy that he caused, still no compliance can be a result for there are some terrorists who are faithful to their cause. In that case is it right to keep uselessly talking to a man withholding such importing information, or is it right to use force to get a was. Who draws the line which says no threatening can be done for a terrorists needs their rights?
Through this media source the author is trying to convey that we are so often kept in the dark on out own policies. men who interrogate by breaking the law can just leave when they are done to avoid facing charges and most of the times charges are dismissed. Yet one can help but wonder, the people who sit to question terrorists or suspected terrorists are doing so because they made an oath to preserve and protect the country and are just trying to prevent people from getting hurt. But what the author hasn't taken into consideration, talking about the wrong done to people in prison is that they have also taken the oath to prserve and protect the constitution and law of their countries. though people want to take action against these torturers, i cant help but wonder, what if that man has taken 200 people hostage? should he be protected by the same law he has no respect for? As Jack Bauer says in 24, "If you don't tell me what I want to know, then it'll just be a question of how much you want it to hurt." Here is a man who who fought only to protect his coutry. is it right to act the say he did?
There is a fine line between terrorism and heroism, but where one line ends and the other begins, is a mystery even this author is unable to answer.