Waterboarding should be legal in the United States.

1: Waterboarding is used to collect life-saving information All of my opponents arguments are claims that without absolute certainty, no harsh interrogation is justified. Certainty is never used as a legal standard, because certainty is never attainable. As one academic put it, "The [highest] standard of proof is "absolute certainty." Although the law recognizes this standard of proof, it explicitly never requires it, because the law considers absolutism unworkable (i.e., no criminal would be convicted if 100% proof were required)." [10. http://karws.gso.uri.edu...] Evidence that may provide adequate foundation for a warrant includes: claims of knowledge made by the terrorist himself, documents or computer files showing substantial involvement in terrorist acts, testimony from undercover agents or witnesses as to the nature and extent of terrorist involvement, physical evidence like DNA on bomb-making components, intercepted phone or computer communication showing general involvement in a terrorist plot, or other evidence of participation. 2. Safeguards In the proposed safeguards, either the President or a judge must determine that there is both probable cause that the captured terrorist has critical information and that lives are at stake. Currently, the President authorizes drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists without any certification of probable cause, although it's likely the President maintains reasonable standards. Without the option of waterboarding, two options available are death by drone strikes or rendition to another country. Neither require any judicial review or formal certification of probable cause. I posed the argument that it is immoral to let many people die in order to spare a terrorist from waterboarding. The quotation from Dershowitz serves to phrase the argument and to show that a liberal jurist believes it true. Con did not respond to the moral argument. con must assert that if the President believes thousands of lives can be saved by waterboarding a terrorist, then morality lies with sparing the terrorist and letting the people die. Con must give his reasoning behind that moral dictate. My reasoning is that the potential harm to the terrorist is low and that the value of saving thousands of innocent lives is high, so morality demands that water boarding proceed. 3. Waterboarding is effective My case for the effectiveness of waterboarding comprises specific examples and expert opinion. Con did not deny any of the examples in which waterboarding saved lives. We have therefore established that waterboarding saves some lives. All that is left at issue is how many. I claim that saving innocent lives in any number is a positive balance when weighed against the duress endured by the terrorists. Expert opinion is valid evidence. The question is whether the person cited is qualified as an expert. The FBI is forbidden by law from engaging in harsh interrogation techniques, because they are a domestic agency. The U.S. military is forbidden by law from using harsh interrogation. Only the CIA has experience with the methods, and they are best qualified to judge the results. The CIA seeks intelligence data, and they use escalating measures to obtain the vital information. Of the 1500 or so detainees at Gitmo, only three were waterboarded. The rest yielded less extreme methods. The CIA is therefore best qualified to judge effectiveness of different techniques, and Rodriquez opinion is therefore valid. 4. The alternative to waterboarding is rendition I claimed that no moral person would spare a terrorist if it meant the death of innocent civilians. The Clinton Administration relied upon handing over terrorists to other nations so the terrorists could be subjected to unlimited torture, and that the Obama Administration has kept the policy of rendition. Con has not responded. C1. Con argues that waterboarding has long term negative psychological impacts. Con cites an web post that claims a type of waterboarding dramatically different from that used by the CIA. In the waterboarding cited, interrogators "Pour water onto the inclined face so that the water runs into the upturned mouth and nose. The water stays in the head, filling the throat, mouth, and sinuses with water." In the waterboarding used by the CIA, water is prevented from entering the mouth and throat of the detainee. In the CIA method "the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths." [1] There is a psychological impact from the sensation of drowning, but it is far short of the trauma studied. The source for the long term effects was a professor of political science at Reed College who studied unspecified historical accounts of waterboarding. It seems unlikely that in historical use that interrogators would carefully limit exposure so as to not cause harm; in all likelihood more severe methods were used along with waterboarding as well. Terrorists are conditioned to expect waterboarding, as are U.S. special forces and CIA agents who are subjected to waterboarding as practice. There is no evidence that a single terrorist or U.S. operative has suffered any of the traumatic effects claimed. Journalists have volunteered to be waterboarded so they could write about it. None have reported suffering any permanent mental or physical harm. Are we in any case really worried that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, having masterminded the killing of 3000 innocent people will "have a long-lasting inability to develop close and intimate relationships?" If he escapes execution, he will remain in prison for the rest of his life. C2. Con conceded that sometimes it does work, and I concede that sometimes it does not work. Thus there is a possibility of saving innocent lives, but not a guarantee. Morality lies on exercising the possibility of saving lives rather than sparing the terrorist discomfort. Con argues that a person will confess to anything. In the proposed constraints on waterboarding, confessions are never sought, only verifiable intelligence information. Terrorists provide false information whether they are waterboarded or not. Intelligence agents always have to verify the information. KSM gave up the identity of a man plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, and agents acting on that information discovered documents proving the plan. C3. Con argues that "the enemy is more likely to react more harshly, escalating violence." So, without waterboarding, terrorists kill 3000 innocent people and cut off the head of journalist on television but if waterboarded they might escalate the violence. What is left? Is there any doubt that if they had a nuclear weapon they would use it? The resolution is affirmed. Al Qaeda mastermind Khalid sheik Mohammed admits he personally murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, according to an updated version of his confession released today by the Pentagon. "I decapitated with blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan," Mohammed said in a written declaration submitted to a military tribunal at Guantanamo last weekend. … "For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head," KSM said in his statement. US officials had told ABC News that identifying marks on the hand of the masked man holding Pearl’s head matched those of KSM. http://abcnews.go.com... Terrorists can choose to avoid waterboarding by simply signing on to the Geneva Conventions or negotiating a mutual ban with the U.S. They refuse to do so. If waterboarding is legal, as it now is, the President is allowed to make the judgement as to whether the risk of inflaming enemy forces outweighs the potential benefit of averting terrorist mass killing. That option should be left with the President, who has the best ability to appraise the situation.