The USFG should allow the limited use of Torture

Con admits that torture works. Of course, Con questions its efficacy. And Con says there are better options. But Con drops my evidence that torture has worked in the past, and Con drops my argument that torture works because humans have an intense desire to avoid pain. This concession dooms Con's case.The concession is fatal because it means the resolution is affirmed if there's any imaginable situation where torture is the only way to save lives. In those situations, torture is justified via necessity.For a specific example, imagine a situation where you possess a video of a high ranking terrorist making a nuclear bomb. Further imagine that intelligence efforts discover when the bomb will explode, say in 24 hours, but you don't know where. Finally, imagine that you capture this high ranking terrorist, and you give the terrorist an opportunity to tell you where the bomb is but he refuses. In this situation, torture is the only option. You can't "evacuate" because you don't know where the bomb is. And you can't build rapport with the terrorist because there's simply not enough time. Con asserts that such situations don't exist because there's always better options. But this is nothing more than Con's assertion. And all of Con's sources explicitly acknowledge the limits of "soft" interrogation techniques. For example, Con cites three interrogators who prefer "soft" techniques, but these interrogators explicitly acknowledge that they don't always work.Another one of Con's sources, Mathew Alexander, explains that building rapport takes weeks, maybe months, to develop. [4] So in situations where you have 24 hours, rapport simply isn't going to work. And Alexander also concedes that rapport is off the table in the case of terrorists with particulalry strong religious/ideological commitments. [4]Thus, torture becomes the best option in situations involving severe time constraints and recalcitrant terrorist captives. And nothing Con argued shows otherwise. Indeed, the TV show 24 offers examples of cases where torture is justified in almost every episode (and notice that even the show's title emphasizes its concern with the nature of time contraints in the context of counter-terrorism activities).Con also argues that "it is irrational to believe that law enforcement would have enough information to know who to torture, but not enough to have at least a vague sense of where the bomb might be." But why is that irrational? Con offers no answer. Consider the following scenario: you have video of a kidnapper kidnapping someone but you don't know where the kidnapper is holding his victim. In this situation, which is firmly within the bounds of rationality, you know who the kidnapper is but you don't know where he's keeping his victim. And this logic isn't suddenly irrational in the case of terrorists planning a nuclear attack; the same mismatch is possible.The kidnapping-scenario thus shows that it's plausible to know someone is a high ranking terrorist but not know every detail of their terrorist activities. Indeed, that's precisely why interrogation is a thing in the first place. And even if you have a vague sense of location, say New York City, time constraints still play a role. It'd be impossible to evacuate NYC in 24 hours. So even if you have a vague sense of location, it's still not always the "best option."Finally, Con argues that "there is a significant chance of the suspect being tortured turning out to be innocent." But that's just Con's assertion. There's nothing inherent to torture that makes it likely the suspect is innocent. The problem with torture is how and when it's done. But as long as torture is limited to situations where it's necessary, there won't be any problems torturing innocents.Justifying torture via necessity means limiting torture to situations where law enforcement has proof that the suspect has information that could save lives. There needs to be enough evidence to establish a reasonable belief that the suspect knows crucial information. This is how the necessity defense works. And remember, I'm only advocating torture in these sorts of exceptional circumstances, circumstances that impose an extremely high standard of evidence on would-be torturers. Sources:4. Mathew Alexander and John Bruning, "How To Break A Terrorist" (available on Amazon Prime for 1 cent, lmao)