"Harsh Interrogation" should not have secrecy protections

"National secrecy... satellite monitoring." I agree with you here. "However, I assert in this argument that violations of the U.S. constitution, laws and international accords (such as the Geneva convention) are not valid national secrets and to attempt to use secrecy protections to hide such crimes constitutes an abuse of power...." I do not have a very recent source, but according to http://en.wikipedia.org..., as of Jan 14, 2007, the United States has yet to ratify the Geneva Convention protocols. Because they have not ratified it, it is technically not in effect in the United States, unless my opponent can prove me wrong. Additionally, the U.S. Constitution only applies to the citizens or residents (I forget which) of the United States, which does not include terrorists. "The United States possesses a great wealth of military might, technology, prowess and capability. We are the only remaining superpower. However, I feel quite adamant that above all of this -- in fact, because of all this -- we are charged with putting honor and grace before we engage in these unmatched tools. If we abided by the ends justifying the means, then perhaps we should have supported the Axis during WWII instead of the Allies, achieve 'World Peace' through conquest and genocide -- when non-unified minorities are eliminated, after all, there would be no one left to fight and thus we would have 'World Peace.'" You really think the U.S. should have sided with Germany? A country that committed mass genocide to six million Jews? Eliminating all minorities in the entire world for the sake of "World Peace" does not sound like using "honor and grace". "To quote a comic book: 'With absolute power comes absolute responsibility.'" That doesn't mean that you shouldn't use the means you have to accomplish goals; just that you need to be responsible using them. "It is, to me, exactly that we are such a mighty nation, that we must be supreme in our honor and not allow absolute power to corrupt us into a nation that bullies anyone we don't like into submission. I do not believe that was the state envisioned by our founders." It's not that we don't like Al Qaeda; it's that they are a threat to national security. 9/11 was a bit more than just not liking them. Our Founding Fathers probably did not want us to bully all of the other countries, but I'm sure that they would want us to take care of terrorist invasions so as to protect the American people, which is the first duty of any government, according to the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..." "Regardless of whether or not exposing techniques of torture would offer our enemies a chance to prepare for them, to hide shameful deeds cannot be done without hiding from justice against ourselves being a motive, and that's where the right to secrecy fails -- we aren't protecting ourselves from a terrorist threat, but from taking responsibility for our own actions." If we capture an Al Qaeda terrorist, and he knows the location of a bomb that is set to blow off any minute in an unknown location, and the government needs to know where the bomb is, I think that the terrorist, by planting the bomb, gave reason for him to be tortured; thus, it ends up being his own fault. The government has good reason to hide their techniques. We need to fight foreign terrorists, because they are a threat to national security. We DO NOT want another 9/11. "If we grant immunity to the shadow agents of our government, then we cease to be a democracy of truth, justice and honor. We become a nation of evil, and in silently accepting torture, we are each tainted by the dishonor and disgrace of it." It's the terrorist's fault for us needing to torture information out of them. We are still a democracy of those things, and we are a democracy that puts its own people first. We do not become a nation of evil, because the terrorists started the War on Terror by flying three planes into some of the U.S.'s most important buildings, killing thousands of lives. http://en.wikipedia.org... "All of our complaints about human rights abuses fall flat when we ourselves commit them.... Regardless of the ends or intentions, wrong is wrong, torture is torture, and when an administration starts using secrecy protections to obstruct justice within the U.S. courts and within the United Nations for human rights abuses, we are no better than China for what it does to its political prisoners. Is rule by hypocrisy okay if you carry the biggest stick, and in the end that's all that matters?" If we do not defeat those who want us all dead with all of our power, we are risking the lives of every American alive, and every future American. The U.S. courts are irrelevant to this debate, because we don't allow terrorists the right to a lawyer. What does China do to its political prisoners? Who are China's political prisoners? You compare the U.S. to China, without determining where China falls in regards of prisoner torture. "In response to the 'one reason' CON stated for keeping all the harsh interrogation techniques, I actually agree we do not wish our enemies to know our techniques, but it's not just because they will adapt against them -- its because our torture takes away our moral high ground and reduces even further our standing in the world's court." Well, you agree that we do not wish for our enemies to adapt to our attacks. Your second point, I disagree with. "That, however, is exactly the reason we need to stop hiding the truth to escape persecution or prosecution.... Think beyond al-Qaeda, for doubtlessly they will never embrace honorable warfare as they continue slaughtering civilians en masse ... think bigger than al-Qaeda. What do you think China thinks of our human rights complaints about them and their political prisoners when there's convincing doubts as to our own integrity in abiding by the Geneva Convention? Will they feel more or less pressured to mend their human rights ways?" If we use our techniques on Al Qaeda, and you agree that they do not respect honorable warfare, then we should not reveal our techniques, because it poses a threat to our nation, because it gives Al Qaeda another resource to use against us. We don't want that. The terrorists are the ones who asked for torture; we would not harm them if they did not make themselves threats to national security. China should acknowledge that we are "fighting fire with fire". "Or the Islaamist theocracies? Are we setting an example to them on how to run a just, responsible and honorable democracy when we refuse to answer for what we have done?" We answer for what he has done by saying that it is in defense of the people, and if they didn't attack us, we'd have no reason to torture them. "Illegal techniques do not deserve secrecy protections. I rather hope al-Qaeda operatives do become immune to them and they become useless, for I feel the stain of dishonor in them being used is a worse strike than a terrorist's bomb." If a terrorist was armed with a bomb, and hid it in your basement, and the government captured the terrorist, would you seriously rather have the bomb explode, and have yourself, your family, and many of your neighbors die, than have a guilty terrorist criminal tortured to reveal the location? The terrorist asked for it. Because revealing our torture techniques increases Al Qaeda's ability to be a threat to national security, our hostile interrogation techniques should have secrecy protections. Now to include a quote from NCIS: Special Agent Gibbs: The biggest mistake you made... FBI Agent Fornell: You shot our agents! http://www.imdb.com... That is why the U.S. interrogates terrorists so harshly. It's their own fault.