Abdulmutallab should be interrogated.

Since Con completely misunderstood the resolution, I'm not exactly sure how to proceed with the debate. Since there are two more rounds for Con, I'll press the current resolution. The resolution does not call for torturing or waterboarding Abdulmutallab, it calls for interrogating him. inï¿½terï¿½roï¿½gate: to question formally and systematically http://www.merriam-webster.com... In a debate, words take their ordinary dictionary definition unless an exception is deliberately made. Sometimes there are multiple meanings of a word, but only one definition is applicable to this debate. The only other definition of "interrogate" pertains to radio transponders. Moreover, if there was anything unclear about the definition, my opening statement makes it clear: "Accordingly, he may choose to volunteer statements, but he has the right to refuse to talk to investigators from the FBI, CIA, or other government agencies having responsibility for national security." My only reference to waterboarding was to stipulate it shouldn't be done in this case: "Those opposed to waterboarding claim that ordinary interrogation techniques are just as effective as enhanced interrogation techniques. OK, we should test that with Abdulmutallab. He should be promptly interrogated by the FBI or CIA." There is a progression of approaches for handling fanatics devoted to killing us: 1. Torture the whiz out of them, Spanish Inquisition style. 2. Use enhanced interrogation techniques, of which waterboarding is the most extreme. 3. Threaten to deprive them of milk and cookies before bedtime. 4. Ask them questions, i.e., plain interrogation 5. Make sure they are not asked any questions, and keep them lawyered up so we never learn a thing. If he starts to say something, his lawyer will tell him to shut up. 6. Send them home with our apologies and a fresh load of explosives Currently we are at level 5 in this system, no doubt moving towards 6. The debate resolution proposes that we go to level 4. In order to do that, captured terrorists must be treated as enemy combatants, not as domestic criminals. This was the policy at GITMO. Roughly a thousand terrorists were captured and every one of them was interrogated. All but three of them provided the information sought without waterboarding. The remaining three cracked under waterboarding. Some of the 99.7% who talked without waterboarding were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques like sleep deprivation. Still, it's reasonable to suppose that a fair percentage will provide info when questioned. Some claim that 100% will spill the beans under ordinary questioning. I suppose that religious fanatics include talkative types. So the resolution proposes declaring Mr. A to be an enemy combatant and then making polite inquiries of him. "Enemy combatant" is defined under the Geneva Conventions. It is a guy who wants to kill you in the name of a cause, but who doesn't wear a uniform, carry papers, or obey the ordinary rules of warfare. To my knowledge, the declaring of GITMO detainees to be enemy combatants has not been overthrown by the Courts. Obama has said that if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is found to be innocent at trial, he will not be released, he will be held as an enemy combatant. KSM may then be held until hostilities cease. In World War II, there was a case of some saboteurs who landed near New York. One was a US citizen who had defected to the Nazi cause and was trained in Germany. The Supreme Court ruled that all could be treated as enemy combatants. The citizen was ruled to have de facto renounced citizenship when he received enemy training overseas. Mr. A is not a citizen, therefore he was in the the category of the Germans who sneaked in to US territory to blow something up. They were tried by military tribunal and executed. So I am stipulating for this debate that Abdulmutallab ought not be tortured, waterboarded, or deprived of milk and cookies. I propose that he be questioned. (I'd be pleased to do a waterboarding debate, but I'm not willing to abandon the current resolution. You may challenge me separately on that if you like.)