Waterboarding is Good

First of all, I'd like to offer the following definition of good. S: (adj) good, well (resulting favorably), from the princeton dictionary[1] Furthermore, the debate is not to center around waterboarding being illegal as Barack Obama has banned it, this debate is just about whether it is 'good' or not. For this debate, I'd like to provide a framework. Framework: When we look at waterboarding as an enhanced form of criminal interrogation, we must look at the alternatives. Therefore, if I, as the affirmative team, can prove that waterboarding is better than the alternatives, then the round should go to me. Contention 1: Waterboarding is not torture The United States Code of Law, specifically Title I, Chapter 113C, section 2340, defines torture as the following: (1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. First of all, waterboarding is not intended to "inflict severe physical or mental suffering" as stated in provision 1; the point of an enhanced interrogation method like waterboarding is to gain valuable information, not maliciously to inflict pain. Agents who employ the use of waterboarding do so with the intention of ultimately producing valuable intelligence, not unnecessary pain and suffering. Logically, what incentive would agents have to inflict immense suffering anyway? Tortured subjects generally give false, misleading "confessions" that are intended immediately to stop the procedure, and to send agents on a "wildgoose chase." Techniques that violate section 1 are actually against the interests of the CIA, and could never produce valuable intelligence. The practice of water boarding does not violate section 2. Like I previously stated, there is no exclusive intention of inflicting "severe physical pain or suffering." Further, the interrogator never physically strikes or attacks the subject; the water is made to simulate the gag reflex of drowning, and there is no physical pain. The subject may certainly feel some discomfort, but "some discomfort" is nothing close to "severe suffering." Once again, if the subject endured severe suffering and prolonged mental harm was caused, the subject would not be mentally fit to withstand an interrogation, and could not provide legitimate intelligence, which is the primary reason for waterboarding. Remember, the CIA is not looking for a culprit; to date, the three individuals who have been waterboarded were known terrorists. Rather, the CIA is looking for new intelligence that it can use in order to prevent further acts of terrorism. The CIA does not benefit from measures that cause prolonged mental harm because the subject cannot provide the needed information. In Response to section C, and D, There should be no question regarding whether the subject is going to die or the subject should believe he is going to die. With waterboarding, no such question exists; the subject is never verbally, nor physically threatened with imminent death. Waterboarding is a simulation, and is not actual drowning. When waterboarded by CIA professionals, the subject can never face nor expect a legitimate threat of imminent death; further, CIA professionals know the technique is not being used to murder the subject, and subsequently do not intend to kill the subject. Section 2, C and D, like A and B, do not apply to waterboarding because there is no imminent threat of death; it is a simulation designed to produce valuable intelligence, not maliciously to harm or kill terrorists. The last provision, found in the latter half of Section 2, D, which mentions "the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality," also does not apply to waterboarding. The only "substance" used in the technique is water; certainly, we can agree that water is not mind-altering like LSD, PCP, Cocaine, or any major hallucinogen or narcotic. Second, why would the CIA even want to use a mind-altering substance? Once again, the purpose of an enhanced interrogation is to produce valuable, legitimate, and trustworthy intelligence. By using substances to alter the normal thought processes of subjects, could the CIA honestly expect legitimate results?[2] Contention 2: Waterboarding is beneficial As I have previously mentioned, the objective of waterboarding is for the United States to obtain information which couldn't be gained any other way. While water boarding is an extreme, such methods are required. In the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he was waterboarded a total of 183 times by the CIA. Khalid was one of Osama Bin Laden's 'most trusted associates' and his name is linked to most of al Qaeda's recent operations.[3] Furthermore, he admitted to planning the devastating 9/11 attacks; a criminal mastermind.[4] According to the Bush Administration, Mohammed divulged information of tremendous value during his detention. He is said to have helped point the way to the capture of Hambali, the Indonesian terrorist responsible for the 2002 bombings of night clubs in Bali. He also provided information on an Al Qaeda leader in England. Michael Sheehan, a former counterterrorism official at the State Department, said, "K.S.M. is the poster boy for using tough but legal tactics. He's the reason these techniques exist. You can save lives with the kind of information he could give up."[5] Contention 3: Waterboarding is quick and efficient Rather than spending months interrogating a suspect, waterboarding is quick and efficient. According to the Independent, CIA waterboarding 'broke suspect after 35 seconds'[6] Abu Zabaida was waterboarded for a total of 35 seconds, and after the experience, instantly revealed everything. This is waterboarding is good. Abu Zabaida had been uncooperative ever since he had been captured a year ago, and the CIA had not been able to get anything from him with conventional interrogation. Waterboarding is like a secret weapon, that's quick, easy, cheap, and effective. Therefore, for these reasons you should vote affirmative. [1]http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2]http://thebrownspectator.com... [3]http://edition.cnn.com... [4]http://www.guardian.co.uk... [5]http://www.newyorker.com... [6]http://www.independent.co.uk...