Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, such as waterboarding, enhance the national security of the U.S.

"EIT's compromise the safety and undermine the effectiveness of American troops abroad by providing a recruiting tool that plays into the hands of the terrorists" -It is foolish to believe that EIT's are used as a recruiting tool. We were not using EIT's before 9/11, but the terrorists attacked the twin towers nonetheless. The Spanish have not used EIT's but suicide bomb attacks against the Madrid commuter train system took place on 3/11/2004. The British have not used EIT's but suicide bomb attacks against the London public transport system took place on 7/7/2005 by British Muslims whose motivations were the Iraq War (1). The terrorists hate us not because of EIT's but because of 1) Iraq 2) "Indifel" troops in their holy land 3) Our culture and 4) Their religion which preaches "death to infidels". "Many of the United States greatest allies are repulsed by the United States' use of EIT's" -I disagree with this statement. Unless my opponent backs this up with a source, this point is void. "This is because "enhanced interrogation" is torture." -I disagree with this statement as well. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel has released numerous memos and legal documents saying that the EIT's being used are completely legal. "On May 19, 2006, the UN Committee against Torture issued a report stating the U.S. should stop, what it concludes, is "ill-treatment" of detainees, since such treatment violates international law" -The US Department of Justice Memo, dated March 14, 2003, justifying enhanced interrogation techniques states, "...we examine the applicability of customary international law. We conclude that as an expression of state practice, customary international law cannot impose a standard that differs from U.S. obligations under CAT, a recent multilateral treaty on the same subject. In any event, our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the President is free to override it at his discretion." (2) "Not only do EIT's, as a form of torture, go against international law, but they violate United States constitutional law...EIT's violate due process." -The same Memo as above says, "we conclude that the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, do not extend to alien enemy combatants held abroad. In Part IT, we examine federal criminal law. We explain that several canons of construction apply here. Those canons of construction indicate that federal criminal laws of general applicability do not apply to properly authorized interrogations of enemy combatants, undertaken by military personnel in the course of an armed conflict. Such criminal statutes, if they were misconstrued to apply to the interrogation of enemy combatants, would conflict with the Constitution's. grant of the Commander in Chiefpower solely to the President." (2) "Terrorists are not a "different kind" of enemy. Letter from General John Vessey..." -General John Vessey clearly states himself, "I continue to read and hear that we are facing a ‘different enemy' in the war on terror; no matter how true that may be." Vessey says himself that we are facing a 'different enemy in the war on terror'. He is simply states that "inhumanity and cruelty are not new to warfare nor to enemies we have faced in the past." The only argument he is trying to make is that terrorists are just as smart and tactful as organized armies. A September 13, 2006 Letter from General Colin Powell to Senator McCain on the subject of enhanced interrogations(4): "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore it would put our own troops at risk." -I am not debating with you on the moral basis of our fight against terrorism (as you stated yourself at the beginning of the debate), so the first two sentences are void. Colin Powell in no way backs up his statement that, "it would put our own troops at risk" so that sentence is void. "Defenders of aggressive methods claim that the only good question is whether useful intelligence was collected. Just as important, however, is whether bad intelligence has been collected. If these interrogations produced bad intelligence, leading the U.S. astray and diverting resources, then these methods are worse than inefficient; they undermine our national security. In the case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who described to his Egyptian captors a false link between Saddam and al-Qaeda in order to avoid torture. Torture arguably contributed to the creation of a false premise that led to an unnecessary war, which distracted Americans from locating and destroying the real threat in Afghanistan." -There is no evidence that the U.S. has been led astray from bad intelligence from EIT's. As for your case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, he was tortured in Egypt by Egyptians and gave the bad intelligence there. He was not interrogated by EIT's. "Claims about EIT's effectiveness are questionable..." -In the end though, we were able to get invaluable information out of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Isn't it more important that we get the information out of the suspect at one point than no point at all? If instead we set him down in a room with two FBI agents and interrogated him while he had a nice cup of coffee, would of have ever confessed then? The answer is more than likely not. "There is almost no scientific evidence to back up the U.S. intelligence community's use of controversial interrogation techniques in the fight against terrorism..." -It may be true that there is no scientific evidence. But there is no scientific evidence that backs up more effective methods of interrogation than EIT's. ---WOW, just wasted a little less than 6,000 characters rebuking your arguments. Now its my turn. EIT's obtain info effectively, and the process, save lives. The interrogations of Khalid Sheik Mohammad led to the namings of "about a dozen key al-Qaeda operatives believed to be plotting terrorist attacks on American and other Western Interests...Mohammed's cooperation has improved investigators' understanding of al-Qaeda's command-and-control structure. Sources say he has explained that at any time, the organization has open-ended plans for as many as two dozen attacks — mostly ideas proposed by field operatives and sanctioned and financed by Osama bin Laden's inner circle." The national security of the U.S. is being protected by these interrogations. (3) It is absurd to take EIT's off the table in case of ticking time bomb scenarios. If the U.S. were in a situation where we needed intelligence immediately, it is most likely that terrorists would not cooperate quickly with standard, army-manual interrogations. Terrorists are much tougher than the average person and we need to keep EIT's on the table in case of ticking time bomb situations. Three former CIA Directors and the current CIA direcor have testified before congress that EIT's work and they need to be left on the table. CIA Directors are non-partisan government officals whose only interest is the national security of the U.S. (4) According to an April 24-25 Gallup Poll 55% of Americans believe that EIT's are justified, while 36% are not. This is a government for the people, by the people. American citizens know that the importance of their life is more important than political correctness. EIT's, including waterboarding, are used on our own military personnel to prepare them in case of capture in the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) program. If EIT's are so heinous and disgusting, why would the U.S. military subject it's own people to them. If EIT's were not in use, they could not be used to prepare our troops for capture in foreign territory. Without the proper training, our forces would reveal the truth immediately. That would compromise our national security. (5) I will post sources in comments section.