Abdulmutallab should be interrogated.

Con says, "Let me sum up the two points my opponent has made thus far; ... 1. Abdulmutallab should not be afforded a legal trial ... 2. Abdulmutallab should be interrogated by any means that results in information given, whether that be plain interrogation, or torture (waterboarding, etc.)" Those claims with regard to my case are unsupported nonsense. I used the standard dictionary of "interrogation." which is "formal questioning." I said that Abdulmutallab could be a test case of whether simple formal questioning will yield information, and I said that he might well talk with no more than simple questioning, for reasons I gave. I stated clearly that Abdulmutallab should be given a trial. In my opening statement I said, "[Interrogation] should be done whether or not he is ultimately tried by military tribunal. There is no interest in getting him to confess. There is already plenty of evidence to convict him in any court." Enemy combatants can still be tried in civilian criminal courts. That is what the current Administration is doing with KSM, even though the Administration continues his status as an enemy combatant. When KSM is tried in the criminal courts, any evidence gained through interrogation cannot be used against him, however a conviction can still be obtained if there is sufficient evidence aside from that. Trial by military tribunal is perfectly legal. That was upheld by past and present Supreme Courts. I clearly assumed at the outset that he would be tried either by civilian courts or military tribunal. Either approach is legal. Con gives no grounds for his assertions that I advocated torture or that I said he should not be given a legal trial. He did not cite any definition of "interrogation" that includes anything other than formal questioning. He gave no evidence that military tribunals were not legal trials. I cited the Supreme Court and both the Bush and Obama Administrations as agreeing that classification of terrorists as enemy combatants was legal. Con's misinterpretation of my case is a complete fabrication that is irrational and unjustified. Con cites a definition of torture as "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental." The current limitation invoked by the Obama Administration is that terrorists should suffer "no discomfort." Common criminals are allowed to suffer some discomfort. However, I did not suggest that "no discomfort" standard be amended. The resolution calls for him to be interrogated, no more. Con says, "If he is interrogated without his Miranda rights, then the justice system we have worked so hard to build and protect is nullified in one fell swoop. Heaven forbid he's ever actually tried after that, because any information received would be inadmissible." It is correct that anything he says would be inadmissible in civilian courts. There would be nothing to present in court other than the physical evidence that he had enough high explosives in his butt crack to take down an airliner, and that he tried to set it off. My bold claim is that nothing whatsoever beyond that is needed to convict him. He could, in any case, be held as an enemy combatant as is KSM. "My opponent here is certainly lamenting Abdulmutallab's basic rights. He is suggesting that non-U.S. citizens should not receive the same legal rights as Americans receive while inside the country, which is a ludicrous suggestion." Con's error is failing to recognize the distinction between a criminal and an enemy combatant. About 500,000 prisoners were held within the borders of the United States during World War II, mostly German soldiers. None were afforded the legal rights given to criminals. During the Cold War, the US and Soviets would capture each others spies. Spies are enemy combatants. The most common Cold War practice was to quietly trade captives, not demand unconditional release. As cited, WWII saboteurs were ruled enemy combatants, not treated as common criminals. The "enemy combatant" classification has been established as legal, and the classification process had been upheld by the Supreme Court, and legality asserted by Congress and used by both Bush and Obama Administrations. If Abdulmutallab were a criminal, he ought to be given Miranda rights. He is not, he is an enemy combatant and ought to be in accordance with the laws that apply. Under Court rulings and new legislation passed by Congress, Abdulmutallab can appeal to civilian courts his classification as an enemy combatant. (I think that is the correct procedure.) If such an appeal were successful, he could still be tried in civilian courts based upon witnesses and physical evidence. "Furthermore, this sets up a hypocrisy in that the American government has always demanded the release of one its citizens when they are taken hostage in a foreign country." A "hostage" is an innocent civilian not an enemy combatant. Many US troops were captured by the Germans in WWII, there was no demand that they be given civilian trials or released. Even in Vietnam, the demand was that American captives be given the rights of POWs, greater than that of enemy combatants, not released. Con's claim is false and unsupported. Con states, "Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui, Saajid Badat and Mohammed Ajmal Amir [3], all convicted of terrorism, confessed to their parts in the crimes. Would my opponent have their convictions thrown out for the sake of 'interrogation'? What does he think can be accomplished?" Quite clearly, what can be accomplished is protecting the United States from terrorist attacks. Abdulmutallab might tell us about the organizational structure behind the wave of homicide bomber attacks against airlines. We'd like to know how he as recruited, how he was given explosives, and who assisted him in boarding the plane in Amsterdam. His was the third failed attempt to bring down an airliner using explosives undetectable by ordinary screening. (X-raying shoes, incidentally, detects nothing.) We cannot assume future attempts will fail. Every bit of information helps stave off future attacks. Is Con really concerned that the physical evidence of high explosives in Abdulmutallab's butt crack cannot by itself bring a conviction? Will he claim it was a gift for his niece? Why does he think that the main hope of conviction lies in a completely voluntary confession done contrary to his lawyer's advice to say nothing? Moreover, even if there are highly improbable obscure circumstances where a conviction cannot be obtained, so long as Abdulmutallab is classified as enemy combatants they will not be freed. Neither Obama, Congress, or the Supreme Court has shown any inclination to abolish the enemy combat classification. Con says, "So, up until this point, I have heard no argument from my opponent in regards to why an illegal 'interrogation' is better than the legal aspect." I have not argued that interrogation ought to be illegal. It is perfectly legal to interrogate enemy combatants. I challenge to Con to state that he had no idea I was arguing that interrogation is legal. How did he miss it? Con goes on, "He takes for granted that removing their rights will produce information, and he furthermore ignores that he is, by extension, arguing for waterboarding." Unable to cope with what is actual proposed by the resolution, Con insists on inventing something else. I pointed to the GITMO data showing that about 99.7% of detainees talked without waterboarding, but only when interrogated. It's fair to argue about the 0.3% who didn't talk, but that not the subject here. I'm saying, OK, no waterboarding, let's go for the 99.7% that might be obtained with straight interrogation. Abdulmutallab should be declared an enemy combatant and legally interrogated. If the Administration wants to try him in civilian courts, he can be convicted without using anything he might say. The resolution is affirmed.