Torture should be legal

1.Legality"My opponent says that terrorists are not part of a country, we should not abide by the Geneva Conventions. He is basically saying "it is okay" that we torture random citizens who are of a threat to our nation."_Contra, Round 3, R1. LegalityNo, I stated that because we are not legally at war, these terrorists we capture are not POW's (prisoners of war), are not representing a country in war, the Geneva Convention does not apply to them. This is the truth. Again, the Geneva Convention is [1] "an agreement first drawn up in Geneva in 1864 and later revised concerning the treatment of captured and wounded military personnel and civilians in wartime." I must have missed your constitutionality argument, otherwise I would have refuted. Seeing as the terrorists captured are foreigners, the constitution does not apply to them. If they were citizens, then it would, but every terrorist captured by our military are foreign, so they do not have any constitutional rights.2. Intelligence You state that "ticking time bomb scenarios" are rare, however that doesn't mean it can't happen. In the case of it coming up, do you really and truly want to limit your options of finding a bomb? I don't. "I already proved in round two that torture is the same or worse at collecting information than other conventional, ethical means."_Contra, Round 3, R2. IntelligenceYou claim to have shown that it doesn't work, but I showed you it can, with the torturing of Khalid Sheihk Mohammed and Abu Farak al-Libi leading to the finding of Osama Bin Laden. So yes, it can work. You claim that this example doesn't prove my case, but indeed it does. You say it doesn't work, I showed it can. Again, I don't think every terrorist should be tortured, just the ones who are believed to have information detrimental to our national security. You say that it leads to false information, and again, since most of the documented tortures performed are classified, we really don't have any statistics on the matter. But my example shows that it can work. So why throw out torture entirely? Save it for those that won't cooperate. Bottom line is, it has worked, so it can work. As far as "US resentment", there's already plenty of that going around. Again, if they want to terrorize this country, they can't belly ache when we torture them for information in order to protect our citizens."My opponent also didn't respond to my argument why don't we line up the terrorist and their families, and torture their families if it would be more effective than torture against the terrorist at gathering information? The slipperly slope of torture would make this desirable - torture the families of terrorists for information. My opponent dropped this argument."_Contra, Round 3, R2. IntelligenceI did in fact refute those. Go back and read my argument. I said "I also do not condone using the terrorists family or any other individual other than the terrorist in the act of torture. Perhaps stage something (set up a camera and stage an attack on the terrorists family, but not cause any direct harm whatsoever to them) but most certainly not harming them. Of course there is a ceiling of how far you can go, and harming anyone else is certainly not an option."_EvanK, Round 3, MoralitySo no, I did not drop the argument.3. Torture our citizens? I stated in my previous argument that torturing our citizens is unnecessary because we can monitor them much easier over here, at home. We have the legal system to support a good balance of freedom and security, and so there would be no reason to torture our citizens. And again, it is against the constitution to torture our citizens. There is no reason for us to do so, and it is against the constitution. It is not against the constitution, however, to torture a terrorist, because they are not American citizens. The constitution does not apply to them.4. Harm to our Troops? "My opponent attempts to drive away the point and say perhaps if we weren't there in the Middle East there wouldn't be terrorists harming us. This isn't related to the debate or accurate."Regardless, my opponent left this point alone. I believe we should oppose terrorism and fight it through more multilaterist approaches, and leave military force as an option after negotiations and diplomacy. But, my opponent failed to prove my point wrong."_Contra, Round 3, R4. Harms the TroopsFirst off, my point is related to the debate. How would our Troops be harmed by foreign terrorists, if we weren't over there in the first place? They wouldn't be. Furthermore, the leaders of Al Quaeda have said that our presence is one of their motives to attack us [2]. So it certainly doesn't help.You go on to say that we should fight terrorism, leaving military force as an option. For starters, one of their demands is that we leave the Middle East. Right out of the mouths of Al Quaeda. Furthermore, isn't killing innocent civilians in the Middle East in order to capture or kill the terrorists worse than torturing terrorists? Your argument doesn't seem to make sense. We can't torture terrorists for vital information, but we can kill innocent foreigners? I'm against terrorism, but there are right and wrong ways to avoid it. I conclude that our presence over there is what harms our Troops the most, not torturing our enemies, and that it also sparks a lot of the terrorist attacks against us.Conclusion In conclusion, I have shown that torture can be necessary, that it can work, that it is legal, and that it doesn't harm our troops as some say it does. Bottom line, it needs to be an option as a last resort for gaining vital information. Vote Pro! Thanks again to my opponent for a fun debate! [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...