The use of torture is justified in ticking time bomb situations.

Torture Doesn’t Always Obtain Accurate Information. a) Inherent Flaw in Torture The use of torture isn’t guaranteed to produce the desired information. The main goal of an individual being tortured is to say whatever is required to stop the pain. Many people who have been subjected to torture claim afterward any truthful information they revealed was, “intentionally incomplete or mixed with false information”2 and they said what they did to “appease the torturer, not to reveal the truth”2. This idea is solidified by Douglas A. Johnson, the Executive Director at the Center for Victims of Torture, who stated that almost every client he dealt with would falsely confess to a crime, give up inessential information or provide the names of innocent acquaintances if tortured3. Since there is a clear chance of inaccuracy of the knowledge obtained, we can’t justify subjecting an individual to it on the premise of saving lives. b) Covert Organizations are Constructed to Reduce the Efficiency of Interrogation. The accuracy of interrogation is decreased by terrorist cells’ structure which are made so that individuals don’t know enough information to compromise a plan, and to be flexible in the event that a member is captured. This is reflected in an excerpt from the “Terrorist Manual”, a book found in Osma Bin Laden’s house that served as a guide for terrorist cells, “It should be composed of many cells whose members do not know one another, so that if a cell member is caught the other cells would not be affected, and work would proceed normally.”4 The practicality of this structure is seen in a study that mapped the terrorist cell involved in the 9/11 attacks. This study found that even those who were considered team members for this operation where “beyond the horizon of observability” from each other5. Given how terrorist cells are organized, it is unlikely that an individual has all of the information needed to prevent an attack; furthermore the group ought to respond quickly to their loss. This decreases the validity of their information, showing a lack of justification to torture them. c) Alternative Methods are Available. Next we turn to how other methods are more successful for collecting crucial information, even in high-stress times. An example of this is the testimony of Matthew Alexander, who served as an interrogator in Iraq and relied on relationship building and other intellectual interrogation methods6. He credits this method as highly successful, especially in comparison to the more violent methods that others proposed. The success of different interview methods is constantly under research, which led to the creation of the FBI’s High Value Detainee Intervention Group (HIG).7 HIG is a group that focuses on only using relationship—building techniques to obtain information, and on researching different, non-torture methods for interviewing suspects. HIG has been called in to work on cases like the Boston bombing8. The use and success of HIG reinforces how, even in ticking time bomb situations, we shouldn’t rely on torture because other methods are available and are more-reliable. Torture Corruptions all Individuals Involved a) Inherently Corrupts the Victim. Torture is used to coerce the truth out of an unwilling subject. It is clear that torture, of all forms, has long-lasting negative effects on its victims. Stephen Xenakis, MD, explains, “Victims of abusive interrogation suffer with anxiety and depressive disorders, manifest brief psychotic disorders, including delusions and hallucinations, develop obsessive-compulsive disorder, and are moved to the brink of suicide.”9 It is important to weigh these long-terms effects as they are some of the costs of choosing to employ torture techniques. b) Requires Corruption of U.S. Citizens. Allowing for torture in ticking time bomb situations would require training U.S. citizens in techniques, such as water boarding, and allowing them to conduct such behaviors on human beings. What needs to be seen here is the psychological consequences for the torturer. While in this situation it is easy to follow orders and not question the morality of one’s actions, this was exemplified in in the Milgram Experiment, where 65% participants were willing to deliver the maximum shock level to another person, based on a perceived authority’s urging10. However, interviews with people who conducted torture interrogations revealed that afterward they suffered from the same psychological effects as their victims2. Here again we see the long-lasting effects of allowing torture, in any situation. Moving on to my opponent’s case. Water boarding is effective Zubayda My opponent referenced a 2007 article from CNN to show how the use of water boarding resulted in obtaining crucial information from Abu Zubayda. What’s important to note is that since 2007 the story of Abu Zubayda has changed dramatically. First, in 2009 Ali Soufan came forward stating that he obtained Zubayda’s testimony without the use of torturea. Then later, as more intelligence was gathered it seemed that Zubayda didn’t even have a crucial role al Qaedab. Zubayda example aside, what needs to be considered is that torture, like water boarding, is effective at obtaining some information. However, referencing my first point, this information has a high risk of being inaccurate. Water boarding is non-lethal My opponent claims we will be putting the terrorist in “temporary discomfort”, yet he rejects the potential resulting psychological harms. His main support for this is that people who volunteered to be water boarded experienced no psychological trauma afterward. Yet, this cannot be applied to cases where someone who, after previous torture failed, is put in this state without consent. In fact, referring back to my case, Xenakis directly addresses how water boarding causes psychological harm9. The alternative to water boarding is rendition My opponent fails to acknowledge any the more effective alternatives to torture in his case. He references the Bush Administration’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” to improve the reliability of the information; yet, look at Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi who, after being tortured by Egyptians during the Bush Administration, gave false information that pushed them in the wrong directionc. In comparison, the group HIG stands out for being anti-torture and effective. There is a slippery slope to complete ineffectiveness Here my opponent claims that without the use of harsh tactics, we will never obtain information from terrorists. Again this is directly contradicted by my HIG example. Summary This issue boils down to if we can justify the use of torture to save lives. My opponent claimed it would be immoral to not use techniques like water boarding because “the potential is for saving many innocent lives and the worst case for the detainee is that he is terrorized temporarily”. I have shown how the information obtained from torture has a high risk of not achieving the desired end because it is unreliable, and that the means it involves produce many immoral consequences, harming both the detainee and the torturer. This is why the use of torture is not justified in ticking time bomb situations. References 1 http://tinyurl.com... 2 http://tinyurl.com... 3 http://tinyurl.com... 4 http://tinyurl.com... 5 http://tinyurl.com... 6 http://tinyurl.com... 7 http://tinyurl.com... 8 http://tinyurl.com... 9 http://tinyurl.com... 10 http://tinyurl.com... a http://www.nytimes.com... bhttp://www.washingtonpost.com... c http://tinyurl.com...