Waterboarding should be legal in the United States.

Re: 1: My argument regarding "certainty" was strictly in regards to the "ticking time bomb" scenario, which is the topic for the opponent's first argument. It was solely to convey the idea that such a hypothetical scenario is extremely improbable. Solely for the sake of reinforcing the gist of my argument, I will add this statement from Georgetown University Law Professor David Cole: “You can’t know whether a person knows where the bomb is, or even if they’re telling the truth. Because of this, you end up going down a slippery slope and sanctioning torture in general.” [1] Indeed, this hypothetical assumes that all of the unknowns that play into the equation (such as bomb location, time of detonation, and whether or not the terrorist is aware of information) are not only clear, but also known with great certainty. Although, we see such scenarios on the television sitcom 24, a real-life event of this nature would most likely not take place. Re: 2: Waterboarding is not effective, even as a last resort. I emphasize the example that I had given in an earlier argument about Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi. Libbi, after being subjected to torture, stated that there was a connection between Al Qaida, Saddam Hussein, and weapons of mass destruction. This was used as a basis for the war in Iraq, where weapons of mass destruction were never found. Waterboarding causes those subjected to simply say whatever they think the torturers (or, as one might call them, investigators) would like to hear, simply to avoid the feeling of drowning. The negative ramifications of this can be large-scale, such as the war in Iraq. Also, I would like to emphasize the case of Abu Zubaydah, a 9/11 terrorist who cooperated more when normal tactics were used than when waterboarding was used. Waterboarding took away from the operation, according to Ali Soufan, a special agent in the CIA. (See Round 3) Re: 3: As I stated before, CIA agents and journalists under FAR fewer cycles of waterboarding than terrorists. Terrorists oftentimes undergo hundreds of cycles for investigators to extract information. And each cycle enables the potential for permanent harm to accumulate. I have cited numerous authorities in the fields of medicine and psychology, experts in their fields, who stated that there is potential for severe psychological harm that is long-term. Those who have treated victims of long-term waterboarding exposure see many anxiety-related symptoms, such as fears of taking a shower (due to a fear of being submerged under water) or running (due to a fear of shortness of breath.) Indubitably, there is substantial psychological harm that can be associated with waterboarding. Re: 4: The opponent never provided a source that confirmed that terrorists can simply sign a Geneva convention document to avoid waterboarding. And I could not find a source that confirmed it, so this statement is simply unconfirmed. The opponent then provided a moral argument: "no moral person would accept the probable death of thousands of innocent people if harsh interrogation of a terrorist offered a chance of saving them." As I had stated before, the opponent oversimplifies the ethical calculations involved in this situation. His logic is founded on the overly simplistic idea that it is possible that thousands of lives would be saved as a direct result of torture. However, such logic does not stand. Any action has the potential to prevent another action, but this potential does not justify the initial action. If I tackled a person solely for the purpose of preventing a murderous rampage, there would have to be strong evidence suggesting that my tackling would in fact, directly, avoid the rampage. Otherwise, it would be unjustified. And, it is impossible to say that it is probable that the means (torture) would directly lead to the desired ends (e.g., ending bomb crisis), since waterboarding usually is ineffective and simply leads to the small possibility of good results. 1: I have established my conclusions about long-term negative psychological impact in "Re: 3" 2: I have established my conclusions about this point in "Re: 2" 3: Something worse? All right. KSM could have shoved rusty staples in his eyes and brutally sodomized him with hammer and nails. Then, he could have beaten his face into a pulp using a steel-toed boot until the reporter died. But, more relevant to this argument, KSM's killing of Daniel Pearl is a single example of acts of terror. Oftentimes, terrorists let captives go in return for money and other influences. Their willingness to compromise and let hostages go would be lowered if more brutal techniques were upheld by the US government. This shift in attitudes toward POW's was expressed in my previous argument. The president should not be given the right to arbitrate whether or not waterboarding should be allowed. When we consider the assumed impact of "hundreds of lives at risk" and the assumed ability of acquiring information through waterboarding rather than other means, we see that this is a slippery slope that allows torture for a purpose that has no clear grounds. --- The act of torture known as waterboarding should be illegal in the United States. The resolution is deemed null. Many thanks to Roy for participating. I strongly urge a vote for Con. --- [1] http://progressive.org...