Is the United States justified in torturing terrorist suspects.

My apologies for dropping the LD style. I must admit getting a little confused as to the formality of the style. I also apologise for my rather long response. First, to defend my arguments. I'm afraid my opponent misunderstood my first point: "In a situation where it is necessary to kill one person in order to save many, I assert it is logical and right to do so." This describes situations where in order to save many, it is necessary to kill one person. You may well chose to do nothing, in which case the many will necessarily die. You could view an example as a gunman in a school. He is currently shooting students, and you have a gun. You could kill the gunman in order to save many, or you could decide that it is wrong for you to shoot someone and walk away. My point was that certain things, such as torture and killing people, are in isolation wrong. They can be ethical, however, if the alternative is worse. It is the 'tragic choice', as Nussbaum had it. My opponent claims I do not account for the fact that "not everyone the US is holding/torturing is known/proven to have this kind of information or...belong to an extremist group". My response: Of course this is true, but that is out of scope of this debate. The debate is whether the US is justified in torturing terrorist suspects at all, not whether it is justified in torturing _all_ terrorist suspects. The latter is clearly false, as justification emerges from the circumstances of each case. My opponent then quotes a fictional character from a popular film. I will quote back Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, who wrote in The New Republic, September 2002, that "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used - and will be used - to obtain the information....no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility." My opponent then challenged me to present a case where admitted sanctioned torture by the US has resulted in viable evidence that can justify the torture. This of course I cannot do. The level of secrecy surrounding this sort of investigation will make all information classified in the United States. There was an interesting report submitted to the UN by Israel [1], however. It claimed that the GSS (General Security Services) had foiled 90 planned terrorist attacks (including suicide bombings, car bombings, kidnaps and murders) using torture. An example, from that report: "A powerful explosive device [was found in the applicant's village] subsequent to the dismantling and interrogation of the terrorist cell to which he belonged. Uncovering this explosive device thwarted an attack...the applicant possessed additional crucial information which he only revealed as a result of their [GSS investigators] interrogation. Revealing this information immediately was essential to safeguarding state and regional security and preventing danger to human life." My opponent countered my point about the lack of balance between the effect upon the family and friends of the victims and the pain of a few hours of torture, by rejecting the words "few hours". He seemed to claim that it would be necessary to put victims through "hopeless years of confinement and deprivation". This is of course untrue. There are many sources that indicate that torture is effective within hours. In fact, in the circumstances of active terrorist plots I was describing, any longer than a few hours would probably be useless. I know that in actuality the United States does keep people in the most awful conditions, and make them suffer extremely prolonged anguish, humiliation and near mental extermination. I am not saying this is just - it clearly is not. I am merely saying that the United States is justified in torturing terrorist suspects. A few hours is plenty. My opponent made the point that accepting torture will necessarily ritualise it and lead to its use as a retributive tool. This needs backing up with references, as it seems pure whimsy. With proper regulation and checks and balances, it can brought under control and made safe from ritualisation. Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule [2] suggested seven methods of regulation. I'll list four of the more pertinent points, but the interested reader can look up the rest in the paper. 1. Police may use coercive interrogation only when they are reasonably certain that an individual possesses information that could prevent an imminent crime that will kill at least n people, where n is defined in advance. 2. There should be a clear limit on the methods of torture to ensure they are kept moderate. All acts of torture should be video-taped for review by superiors or judicial tribunal. 4. If time permits, warrants must be sought from a judicial figure. 7. All instances of torture must be carefully analysed by either a special commission of experts, judicial panels, or public watchdogs. My opponent challenged me to prove that Government-sanctioned torture will only be used for the country's interest. I agree with Posner and Vermeule that with the right legal framework, this can be enforced. ------------------ Now for my opponent's case. 1. "Innocent until proven guilty". Those killed by armed police are not afforded the luxury of a fair trial. It is up to the police officer to make an instant decision as to whether they are guilty and whether it is prudent to kill them. This is largely accepted by society. Also, I am not claiming torture should be part of the judicial framework. It should be used for extracting information relating to life-endangering situations, nothing more. 2a. The US does indeed have the obligation to further human rights. However, all human rights need to be balanced with the needs of the wider society - they are not absolutes. There is a right to free speech, but not to shout "Fire" in a crowded cinema or racially insult people. There is a right to privacy, but not, as the European Convention puts it, "when necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" [3]. 2b. The Third Geneva Convention was written in 1949, based upon that of 1929. It is based very much on the idea of traditional warfare - that of two formal uniformed sides. It instructs, for example, that prisoners of war must be allowed to wear badges of rank and decorations (a rule ignored by all sides in World War II). There is a strong argument that it does not apply to "terrorists picked up off the battlefield -- who don't represent a nation, revel in killing the innocent, and refuse to wear uniforms" as it was rather over-put by Dan Bartlett. These people are far closer to criminals than enemy combatants. I disagree with the term "war on terror", just as I disagree with the "war on drugs" or the "war on teenage pregnancy" [no - pregnant teenagers should not be treated as POWs]. People planning to cause terror through explosion or other means should be treated as that, and not as some idea of a formalised army. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. ------------------ [1] Israel vs the State of Israel, 38 I.L.M. 1471, 1474. Sept 6, 1999. [2] "Should Coercive Interrogation be Legal", Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule. Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No, 84. March 2005 [3] The European Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 1950, Rome, Article 8