The US should allow the limited use of torture

Note: I only advocate torture in order to gain information which could save multiple lives. So I don't support torture in circumstances such as "to obtain a confession," or "to punish." Don't hold me to any of that. == Pain ==Con argues that torture causes pain which is a harm in itself, to which I agree. But if torture works in saving lots of lives, my offense outweighs Con's argument that torture causes harm from pain. I'm sure Con agrees since this is basic application of a utilitarian standard. == Individual autonomy ==Con argues that torture somehow violates "individual autonomy," and that violation of such individual autonomy would "cascade into violent dystopia." There are a few reasons why this argument fails.First, the whole argument is a slippery slope that hasn't been proven by evidence at all. Many liberal societies have used torture or the death penalty, and haven't cascaded into "violent dystopia" or totalitarianism. There's no justification for this being true at all. Second, violations of individual autonomy are justified to prevent net harms - this is a fundamental liberal value, captured by John Stuart Mill's "harm principle," which holds that "power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, to prevent harm to others." [5] If torture is justified by necessity, then it would reduce net suffering. If Con doesn't agree with the harm principle or a utilitarian standard, then Con's kritik becomes irrelevant because the resolution uses the word "should." "Should" is used to indicate obligation, duty or correctness, all of which are based on a standard of what is desirable. Furthermore, Con concedes that suffering is inherently bad, so reducing suffering should form a purpose of government. == Propaganda ==(1) The only way by which such organizations can use torture as a propaganda tool is if such information is necessarily made public. But in ticking time bomb scenarios, such information probably isn't going to be made public. The government must ensure confidentiality of torture. (2) Con offers no evidence that torture is used as a propaganda tool, especially since the United States currently doesn't even perform torture (or at least, doesn't declare acts of torture). This is a purely speculative impact, and one that fails anyhow since confidentiality must be ensured with regards to subjects such as torture. (3) I only would allow torture in the rarest of circumstances. Such circumstances don't happen much at all. For a scenario to qualify to be a "ticking time bomb scenario," it has to meet a few conditions. There must be a significant threat to the lives of civilians, there must be a time constraint of a few months or less, and the government must have imprisoned a guilty person with probably knowledge that would save the lives of those civilians. Such scenarios have only happened a few times in human history, so it won't be a significant tool for propaganda. == Effectiveness ==First, the Hamas example was absolutely not my only example of torture working. Con drops my example of the torture of the terrorist Jamal Beghal. Con also drops my example of John McCain, who gave up more information than he intended to, in order to prevent his pain. Second, Con misrepresents what my source says. My source doesn't say that it is implied torture was used in the interrogation of the Hamas member because the Landau model allows it. In fact, the source says the Landau model was not followed. In fact, my source explicitly says, "If the security services had acted according to the Landau guidelines in interrogating Hamas members, they wouldn't have reached the place where the kidnappers of Nachshon Wachsman were found." (R2, source 2) The note that the Landau model allows limited torture is irrelevant to what was done. It's clear that they violated the Landau guidelines, i.e. they used enhanced interrogation techniques. Con is wrong that the Prime Minister was assassinated before the Landau Commission was formed. The Landau Commission was formed in 1987, while this incident took place in 1994. Also, the Landau guidelines are "guidelines," not laws. So violation of them isn't punishable within Israel. Prefer my source, a reliable report, to Con's own subjective opinion on historical fact. Next, let's look to Con's own arguments against the effectiveness of torture. All of Con's arguments involve a misinterpretation of what Con's burdens are, since all those arguments prove is that "torture usually doesn't work." But to prevent an impact of such magnitude, one has to take chances. Con's burden is to persuade the reader that torture should never be used, under any circumstances, and that torture never works. Because if torture works in even some instances, it's worth trying torture along with methods like rapport building if there's even some chance that it would save lives. When it comes to saving thousands of lives, something has to be done. My example of Jamal Beghal proves that torture has actually worked in a ticking time bomb scenario before. So it might work again. And we can risk the probability that it might not work, because if it has worked in the past, it just might work in the future. The torture of Abu Zubayda allowed critical information that led to the arrest of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed. [6] Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, on interrogation (with usage of enhanced interrogation), revealed a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, thus saving lives. [7] Indeed, "Once Abu Zubaydah broke under water boarding, he told our officers something remarkable. 'You must do this for all the brothers,' he said. AZ explained to them that Allah knew that they were only human and once they had been tested to their limits there was no shame in their cooperating with us . . . Once he became compliant, the information AZ willingly provided us was by any reasonable measure some of the most important intelligence collected since 9/ 11. Those who say otherwise are simply ill informed or misleading the public." [8] Con sources Kassin and Kiechel, who - per him - say that torture victims have false confessions 69% of the time. So, I read the study and Googled some relevant things, and found that Con's misrepresents the study so much it's hilarious. The study doesn't say "torture victims" confess falsely 69% of the time. Indeed, all they said was that -- when falsely accused of a computer crash -- students in colleges were willing to sign a false confession 69% of the time. I have little doubt now that Con didn't even read his source. While this might reflect on to torture victims, Con doesn't explain the link clearly, because in this case, we're talking about information - not confession. And I have multiple examples that prove that torture works. Con's argument that torture takes time is true in most circumstances, but torture takes less time than rapport-building and similar alternatives. [4] That's an objective fact. So, the question we have to answer in this debate is simple: if there's a huge risks of lives being lost, and there's some chance that torture would prevent this, should the use of torture be allowed? In Pro's world, since there's a good chance it won't be effective and since it inflicts pain, it shouldn't be allowed. But when there's so much magnitude at risk (e.g. blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge), something has to be done, and if torture could potentially work, it ought to be used. Unless Con proves that torture never works, vote Pro on magnitude, since if Abu Zubayda and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed hadn't been tortured, the Brooklyn Bridge would have blown up. In Con's world, the United States Embassy in Paris and the Brooklyn Bridge would have been destroyed. Therefore, vote Pro. [5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] Jose Rodriguez, Bill Harlow. "Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved Lives," p. 72.