The USFG should disallow torture and forgo using it as an interrogation technique.

Preamble: Length is not a substitute for substance. Please try to be pithy, do you have any idea how many other debates you're holding up making me read your redundant arguments for this one? For you I forgot to explain why flag burning should be banned so please, try to keep it to 4k characters? Con's Independent Points: 1. Effectiveness of Torture. You cannot actually argue for the ban of torture because it's ineffective. Torture is a tool for gathering information. So is the promise of leniency, the offering of a reward, the deprivation of sleep, and granting of immunity. If the issue is effectiveness, then it should be up to the agent on the field to decide what method to use. None of us, spectators, speculators on our ivory pedestal, know when just when the "ticking bomb" scenario will take place. By all means, RECOMMEND our agents not to use torture. By all means, INFORM them of the statistics and the data about the effectiveness of torture in general. By all means TEACH our field agents that "the effectiveness of torture in generating intelligence is questionable at best", but if its a tool for generating intelligence, let it be at their disposal. By allowing the use of torture, at the very least agents could at least use the threat to coerce unwilling potential informants. And let's face it, there aren't exactly many terrorists out there dying to tell us the information we need to save American citizens are there? As to the argument of building strong ties with communities that host insurgents, if it were that easy, there wouldn't be insurgents to begin with. And when American lives are at stake from an imminent attack, we don't have time to go around building strong ties. I am all for opening as many channels of information gathering as possible to our intelligence agents. And so let them decide whether or not the use of torture is worth the risk of alienating local communities. By taking the choice away from our intelligence agents, Pro makes one of two claims. Either the Intelligence Agency is completely unaware of the effectiveness of torture and is staffed by idiots who bury their head into the sand and believes everything they're told and have no experience at interrogation and sorting truth from fabrication, OR our Intelligence Agency is composed of Sadists and Masochists who delight in the torturing and brutal treatment of others and commit torture not out of a desire to protect American safety but out of the pleasure of doing so. Which one is it? To accuse our Intelligence Agency of being like the Catholic Church of the 15th Century is the height of irresponsibility. It is essentially accusing the Intelligence Agency of torturing people for fun and without justification. It is accusing the Intelligence Agency of torturing people they do not have just cause to believe to be terrorists. It is also a completely unsupported supposition. Con brings up no examples of any innocently tortured individual, nor even dares to make that accusation directly. His roundabout hints have been noted and thus far refuted. (note, the moral argument is not a refutation, its an independent point of the Con and thus will be addressed later) 2. Dishearten the enemies of America I'm glad you decided to resort to history to support your argument. Because history is against you. History is filled with examples of when a conquering empire employed savagery to cow resistance. Particular to Iraq of course was the savage destruction of the Mongols. Against India, there was the British atrocities. And relatively modern, against Tibet, the Chinese were also quite ruthless. After a strong display of ruthlessness, the enemies of all the overlords quieted down for a considerable period of time. Now am I saying it is a good thing to discourage / dishearten the enemies of America? Personally I'm not much for it. But some are, and it is a consequence. 3. The Duty of the American Government I repeat. The Duty of the American Government is to protect American citizens. The comfort of the lives of foreign nationals trying to destroy America comes, always comes, secondary to the duty of the American Government to protect American Citizens. Con here is trying to argue that America can better serve its citizens by protecting the human rights of foreign nationals trying to destroy America because it would then bring about "international cooperation" which would then stop terrorism. So let me get this straight ... Osama Bin Laden attacked us because France didn't cooperate with us? Did he attack us because we were enemies with Saudia Arabia? Are you also saying Germany and Japan will stop arresting terrorists just because we torture ours? At no point did you mention any specific consequences of permitting torture in regards to this nebulous "international cooperation". And so my argument stands as it is: The duty of America is to Americans. Con's Independent Points 1. The Moral Level "It gives no value to the psychological and physical harm incurred in the process of torture" Correction. It gives no value to the psychological and physical harm incurred in the process of torture OF FOREIGN NATIONALS TRYING TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES. As I have stated more than once, the United States Government exists for the citizens of the United States. The lives of American citizens are thus worth more, far more, than the lives of foreign nationals, and especially foreign nationals trying to destroy the United States. And don't even try to claim all lives are worth the same. If America believed all lives are worth the same, we would be spending trillions trying to help the people of Sudan, the people of Rwanda, the people of the Democratic Republic of Cong, the people of India, etc. If all lives are worth the same, there would be no debate on outsourcing, no debate on immigration, etc. Heck, we don't even believe all American lives are worth the same, but at least we pay that lip service. The simple truth is, from the perspective of most Americans, and the perspective of the American government, our fathers and brothers, mothers and sisters, their lives and their happiness is worth more than the suffering of foreign nationals trying to destroy the United States. Even if they were not enemies of the United States, which they are, by being foreign nationals, they are outside the considerations of the United States. Maybe some day America will experience a moral transformation that will allow us to cherish the lives of Iraqis as much as the lives of our brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbors, but that day is a long way off, and will continue to be a long way off so long as half of America remains too conservative to want such universal brotherhood. That this scares you is not an argument. If it scares you, by all means try to transform human nature, maybe splice some empathy into the human DNA. Might do us some good, might not, depends on who you ask, but the point is, what you want Americans to be is not what Americans are at the present. 2. Torturing everyone. I don't actually see where you get this point. As I mentioned, Americans value the life, comfort, and security of Americans. Thus we have strong limitations on what the government can do to Americans. The grant of power given to them by the people restrict them from torturing Americans, for whatever reason. Foreign nationals trying to destroy the United States are not Americans. Therefore the restrictions imposed on the Government by us in regards to ourselves are irrelevant. And for all these reasons I am proud to oppose.