For not the first time now i am having second thoughts about a project title.
I was quite set on the title 'Is torture justifiable at Guantanamo Bay'. However, when conducting my research i have found that each of my research-finding documents concludes to or mentions: 'the war on terror'. My original question tends to dodge this specific topic area and i am now feeling that this is possibly a mistake.
I asked myself 'why i would I miss out a core element that is constantly being addressed and instead go for a question area that would involve interpreting the information i have gathered into a different response?'.
Therefore, I have come up with a number of possible questions, which still keep the 'justifiable' part of the question but either focus or address the 'war on terror'. Such are listed below:
1. How effective is the war on terror?
2. Can the use of torture be validated for the war on terror?
3. Can the western world validate torture for the war on terror?
4. Does torture combat the war on terror?
However, i do understand that such questions leave a wide range of possible answers and angles to be looked at. Therefore, i still want to condense it to the subject of Guantanamo Bay. Therefore, i would amend my questions to focus on Guantanamo.
1. How effective is Guantanamo Bay on the war on terror?
2. Can the use of torture, at Guantanamo Bay, be validated for the war on terror?
3. Can the Western World validate torture for the war on terror? With reference to Guantanamo Bay.
4. Does torture, at Guantanamo Bay, combat the war on terror?
I am going to meet with my supervisor to discuss this and possibly ask a range of other people, as the sooner the question is sorted the sooner i can focus my research on it and start my essay.
No comments:
Post a Comment