Waterboarding is An Acceptable Means of Intelligence Gathering

I hope that the reader was both entertained and even learned new things during the course of the exchange. === REBUTTALS === PRO begins her final rebuttal by reiterating that the topic is about waterboarding being an "acceptable" means of gathering intelligence. Of course, "acceptable" could mean many things. Because it's vague and subjective, one can only respond in kind with what she herself wrote, which I have aptly done. It could mean acceptable from a moral perspective, it could mean acceptable from workable perspective. Regardless, I will hearken back to my initial sentiments that it's both immoral and ineffective. In the interest of time and a finite amount of characters, I will keep my rebuttals brief. PRO apparently thinks she owns the patent on what waterboarding is, by claiming that cellophane is wrapped around the face preventing water from entering the windpipe. The only thing patent about this statement is that it's patently absurd! What's the point of the WATER and the fear of DROWNING if water never enters the person's windpipe? !? ! Secondly, a towel is the most common method, the reason being is that it's porous enough to allow water to pass through, without allowing the victim to breathe. It's so self-explanatory that I don't even need to waste characters substantiating that. If ANYONE disagrees with that, I invite all to research it. PRO then explains that it's designed not to leave any permanent physical damage. I don't contest that, which is why it is utilized. But it's not in the interest of the victim, it's in their interest to not get caught doing what they know, by legal mandate, which is torture. If waterboarding was merely an interrogation tool, why wouldn't domestic law enforcement personnel be allowed to conduct it on murder or rape suspects? The answer is obvious. .. because it is illegal and considered torture, in accordance with the United States Code. It even has a specific subparagraph that outlines the criteria for mental anguish defined as torture. SOURCE: . http://www.justice.gov... "As for his assertion that I need to respond to his rape argument in order to keep my credibility, I'll simply say this. I ignored the initial argument for personal reasons. Since Con chose to introduce his own unverified experience in BUD/S as evidence, I will also submit my own unverified experience as a rape victim" It's not my intention to bring up painful memories for PRO. The question, after all, was a philosophical question in direct relation to her assertion that torture can only be considered as such if excruciating pain was involved. Her answer is obvious that she knows her qualification for torture is absurd, and my rape corollary proves that. As for my BUD/S experience, in order for me to substantiate that, I'd have to disseminate personal information which compromises both my identity and Social Security number. If anyone doubts my credibility, I invite you to contact Innomen who knows I was in BUD/S. PRO summarizes that the Geneva Convention only applies to a specific criteria. Sadly for her, the Taliban and Al Qaeda qualify. If it were not so, then that would strongly imply that we could randomly pick up any civilian and torture them on account of them not dressing the part. === CLOSING ARGUMENTS === Waterboarding is ineffective: Every comprehensive report to date, even amongst the CIA, either willfully or reluctantly relay that waterboarding, or more broadly, torture, is an ineffective means of extracting useful information. It isn't difficult in understanding why this is. Anyone will say or do whatever is necessary to make the pain and terror stop, even deliberately spreading disinformation. One case study examines two high-level Al Qaeda officers who were waterboarded a cumulative of 266 times without gathering useful intelligence. In fact, the CIA was tying up its resources on wild goose chases. SOURCE: . http://www.csmonitor.com... Waterboarding is torture: I've already given expert testimony detailing how and why torture is an ineffective tool to extract useful information. Since PRO uses the US Navy and its SERE program as template for its effectiveness, who better than a US Navy SERE instructor to define it as ineffective and tortuous? "In my case, the technique was so fast and professional that I didn't know what was happening until the water entered my nose and throat," Nance testified yesterday at a House oversight hearing on torture and enhanced interrogation techniques. "It then pushes down into the trachea and starts the process of respiratory degradation. It is an overwhelming experience that induces horror and triggers frantic survival instincts. As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured. " SOURCE: . http://www.washingtonpost.com... Waterboarding is illegal: Torture is outlawed by both the US Code and the Geneva Convention, and despite what PRO states, all enemy combatants are protected, and moreover, NO United States citizen can legally engage in any form of torture. PRO is completely wrong from a legal perspective. "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 SOURCE: . http://waterboarding.org... In the final analysis, it is beyond refutation that waterboarding is defined as torture, is illegal for any nation to engage in, and is considered and immoral act. I cannot speak for PRO's motivation, but I suspect most supporters of waterboarding are willing to turn a blind eye as long as they feel they can even the playing field. It's true that many terrorists engage in deplorable acts against our brethren. But the second we behave even remotely like them, the second we lose sight of who we are as a nation. Retribution is not worth assassinating the conscience, in my humblest opinion. As CON, my only necessary goal in debate is to prove reasonable doubt. I have gone above and beyond reasonable doubt, and have sufficiently proven, unequivocally, that every contention was proven. I trust the readers know this beyond all doubt. And for this reason, sensible and unbiased voters, vote CON. Thank you.