Literally.

Today, five prisoners suspected of involvement in the 9/11 attacks, asked to pleade guilty and forgo their trials that are currently pending. The men released a collective statement saying, "We all five have reached an agreement to request from the commission an immediate hearing session in order to announce our confessions ... with our earnest desire in this regard without being under any kind of pressure, threat, intimidations or promise from any party."

The men are currently being held at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The prison camp has come under harsh scrutiny amid allegations of abuse ,civil and human rights violations. President-elect Obama has vowed to close the prison and try detainees in U.S. civilian or military courts.

Last night, over Sunday dinner with the family, the topic of torture came up. Should it be used to try and extract information from unforthcoming enemies? Although all of our opinions differ, we did collectively agree that the use of torture was not a reliable method of attaining valid information. A prisoner, under diress, might offer up false information just to cease the torture. Or, as my boyfriend pointed out, many terrorists are willing to die for their cause, therefore torture wouldn't urge them to offer up any information, as they would rather die then aide the "enemy".

Many argue that torture has provided our government with valid information that has thwarted possible terror attacks. That may be so, however, if you pinch me hard enough, I'll tell you whatever you want to hear.

Ultimately, in a world riddled with conflict and terrorism, is employing such a violent tactic to combat violence and terrorism, the answer? We're not preventing violence, we are attempting to control violence with violence.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Are we perpetuating or solving a problem?Therefore, are we diplomats or hypocrites?

Think about it.