Waterboarding should be legal in the United States.

Re: 1: The point I tried to make was this: It is nearly impossible that intelligence would lead to the certainty of the existence of a "ticking time-bomb" (in the ticking time-bomb scenario that the opponent proposed in his initial first argument.) The exact nature of the bomb, its location, its timing of the detonation, and the lives that at stake. It is also impossible to know that a suspect has information that will end up helping authorities locate and eliminate the bomb threat. And lastly, it is uncertain whether torture will be able to sway an individual to unveil this information (assuming that they, in fact, have it.) Hence, it is impossible to determine with any certainty the exact result (the potential to save lives) as well as the effectiveness of the means (torture) in helping save said lives. This makes it impossible to enter into the ticking time-bomb scenario's ethical calculation that would justify the means (torture) and the ends (saving lives). Re: 2: The opponent states that it is "immoral to let many people die in order to spare a terrorist from waterboarding." This argument is ineffective unless one presupposes that waterboarding is an effective means to preventing the death of people. In the same way, one can say: "It is immoral to prevent a mass murder in order to not brush the killer's teeth." This presupposes that if brushing the teeth of the killer, in theory, were to prevent the mass murder, then it should be done; however, this is a complete assumption made for the sake of the argument, and it brings about a loaded question. Hence, without evidence of effectiveness, this argument does not stand. Re: 3: Waterboarding has, at some point, saved lives. In the same way, I'm sure at some point, someone's decision to bring a fork to his workplace saved a life. Effectiveness is in a completely different realm from this. Ali Soufan, an FBI special agent from 1997 to 2005, told the Senate subjudiciary committee that waterboarding was ineffective. Some CIA officers who were directly involved in the Abu Zubaydah interrogation agreed with Soufan; when interrogated normally, Soufan gave actionable information, but when coercive interrogation was used, Zubaydah stopped talking. After being submitted to coercive interrogation, Zubaydah (a 9/11 planner) was more reluctant to share information.[1] In this way, the waterboarding technique was not only ineffective but also detrimental to the operation. Soufan stated in a New York Times Op-Ed: "there 'was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn't, or couldn't have been, gained from regular tactics.'" [1] Furthermore, A nearly three-year-long investigation by Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats found that little evidence supports the claim that waterboarding is effective. [2] Re: 4: I disagree with the implementation of the rendition policy under the Obama Administration. However, its instatement does not justify its existence. Any claim stating otherwise would be putting forth an "is-ought fallacy." Just because something is just not mean that it ought to be. The opponent must argue that the administration is justified in doing this. Let us remember that the CIA recoiled at the prospect of using waterboarding in the post-WWII era, and the United States prosecuted countries that implemented it during that time. [3] The opponent states that "the alternative to waterboarding is rendition." This statement establishes a false dichotomy. There are other means of gathering information, such as interrogation, which has yet to be evidenced as less effective than waterboarding. --- 1: The opponent argues against the judgment of researchers, such as a Reed College professor who researched historical use of waterboarding. I am not in the position to defend the intricate details of the research, since I am not the one who conducted it; however, NUMEROUS studies suggest that serious, long-term psychological harm does occur. A journalist for the Sun wrote his experiences of waterboarding. During waterboarding he felt like he was choking and about to drown and die. Lastly, he said that he would have said anything the interrogator wanted to hear just to make the torture stop. [4] This experience shows how unreliable and torturous this procedure is. Journalists who get waterboarded tend to get waterboarded once and then call it quits. When one is repeatedly waterboarded (upwards of 50 times), as many tortured terrorists are, more damage is inflicted. Each time feels like drowning and a near-death experience. 2: If something sometimes works, it is not necessarily effective. And waterboarding's effectiveness has been discussed in a prior argument. The possibility of saving lives justifies torture? Any action has the possibility to save lives, and every action can "sometimes work." I could urinate onto my friend's lap thinking that his discomfort is justifiable if my urinating had the potential to save lives. The opponent's notion of "morality" is more vague than one may think, and the line that can be drawn is vague, indeed. And the ethical calculations that led to the opponent's conclusion here have yet to be portrayed. 3: The use of waterboarding encourages terrorists to continue using violent techniques, with the justification of retaliation. Without waterboarding, perhaps terrorists would not be fueled with revenge-fuelled hate, and they would hence be able to be more open to negotations to release prisoners of war. All in all, though, the use of waterboarding undermines the "moral legitimacy" that it has established for itself by making members of its own society doubt the moral foundation of the war against terrorism. Overall, the institution of "interrogation" is being delegitimized by the use of harsh methods of torture (e.g., waterboarding), especially due to their lack of evidential legitimacy. The resolution is deemed null. --- [1] http://articles.cnn.com... [2] http://www.dailystar.com.lb... [3] http://www.nytimes.com...[4] http://www.thesun.co.uk...