Waterboarding is An Acceptable Means of Intelligence Gathering

=== REBUTTAL === R1. PRO begins her argument in this Round by taking exception to the Dictionaries definition (as if I invented the word and its meaning) to allude that it must somehow be misconstrued on my end. Apparently torturing someone through fear and mental anguish is not really torture at all. That being the proposed case, I have to ask PRO whether or not she thinks locking up a 5-year old in a dog cage for days on end is torture? If not, why not? Does the fact that the child wasn't physically struck mean that they're not being tortured? Any reasonable person of sound judgment would clearly recognize that as torture. And how strapping someone down against their will and pouring water down their windpipe doesn't constitute torture is a complete mystery to me. R2. PRO then asserts that I somehow attempted to negate her 3 POW's with my 1 POW. It doesn't negate their testimony, nor does my use of John McCain automatically stand up to scrutiny. What it does do, however, is fully demonstrates that we're dealing with something subjective. What she personally believes is not torture is at odds with mine. It's not really a provable point in the same sense that DNA is, because ultimately it comes down to a difference in interpretation. I'm simply establishing that their testimony can be contradicted. PRO then asserts that Special Operations units attending SERE school are subjected to waterboarding, so how could it possibly be considered torture? The answer is obvious, and indeed, she unwittingly shoots herself in the foot. The whole reason why they use waterboarding is specifically so the member knows what torture is like. The critical difference is that it's in a controlled environment, and quite unlike what it's like in an actual interrogation, it stops rather quickly. In a real interrogation, this method of torture can be inflicted dozens of times, for an undetermined amount of time in an attempt to extract the information they have, regardless of whether or not the subject actually knows. But what if PRO is actually being very selective? I have to ask PRO what she would consider if a loved one was subjected to these 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' How would she respond, HONESTLY? PRO, you have the floor. PRO further states that, "Congress has officially put the welfare and humanity of mass murderers and conspirators above that of our own citizenry." She is mistaken. If the US continues to use these archaic practices on others, you can guarantee that no reprieve or quarter will be given to our troops. It only further exacerbates the ill-treatment, which means it actually makes everyone less safe, not more safe. PRO then dismisses my next argument about rape and PTSD entirely. Instead of supporting her assertions, she simply states "this is fallacious." That's not an argument, that's a declaration. If PRO would like to keep her credibility intact, she must respond genuinely. PRO then denigrates her enemies by saying that they are deserving of such treatment. I submit that the greatest virtue of America has been their historical unwillingness to engage in unethical practices that only makes us more like our enemies, not saves us from them. But at last we see the true motivation -- unrestrained retribution. PRO then states, "In Season 3 of Mythbusters, the idea that CWT can cause someone to go insane was proven—but not like he says. Episode notes show that "The required torture equipment (and involuntary movement restrictions) is highly effective even without adding the discomfort of the water drip. The water drip itself... is almost negligible." PRO, again, inadvertently makes the case for me. She states that just the act of restraining someone can cause them to go insane. PRO, are you aware of what is necessary to restrain an individual undergoing waterboading? Compounding the issue is not a single drop of water, but a complete lack of oxygen and the terror of drowning. Or as Jesse Ventura stated, "its not simulated drowning, it is drowning "Perhaps Con should ask those who have been subjected to both—such as every member of the Special Forces, Navy SEALS, Delta Force, and Long Range Recon since World War II, as well as all CIA interrogators and operatives." I went to BUD/S (Navy SEAL training) in 2000. While I was medically dropped before attending SERE school, and therefore was not personally subjected to waterboarding, I do personally know battle-hardened SEALs and other Special Operators who have been waterboarded. They all stated, uncategorically, that it was terrifying. Mind you, they knew it was going to stop rather quickly and the frequency was not nearly rival to what an actual field operation where there is no assurance when their torment will end. R3 PRO then alleges that I misquoted her about Denton, when in fact, I didn't quote her at all. She made several allusions, most notably that, since Denton was a POW and was brutalized by the NVA, he therefore must be more credible than everyone else. If he says waterboarding isn't torture, then it must not be. That's a logical fallacy. Secondly, it is a non-sequitur. Just because what the NVA did to him could be considered worse by many people, doesn't negate the point that waterboarding is ALSO considered a form of torture. So mentioning what the enemy does is entirely irrelevant. It's just an emotive argument geared towards gaining sympathy for her cause in justifying waterboarding. I'll allow the reader to come to that decision for themselves. R4 PRO does not take in to consideration that the CIA has, on many occasions, violated not only it's own laws, but also international laws. Here's the plain fact: Waterboarding IS considered TORTURE according to Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. "It's a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labeled as torture. It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture. First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering– one central element in the UNCAT's definition of torture. In addition the CIA's waterboarding clearly fulfills the three additional definition criteria stated in the Convention for a deed to be labeled torture, since it is 1) done intentionally, 2) for a specific purpose and 3) by a representative of a state– in this case the US." [1] As well, the CIA has been caught red-handed in cases of extraordinary rendition, that is, essentially, torture by proxy. They take the detainees to a Black Site in a country that does not abide by the Geneva Convention to engage in these practices. Now, why hide it if it's not torture? Why take them, specifically, to a country that does not follow the Geneva Convention if they honestly believed what they were doing was legal, let alone ethical? [2] PRO then dodges my argument where I stated that one could only reasonably know the effectiveness of the waterboardings only if we viewed them. That's a reasonable request. Instead of dealing with the argument, PRO strawman's it by mentioning that we're dealing with an "evil enemy." Immaterial! Irrelevant! In kindergarten we learned that doing the same things in return invalidates your justification for doing it back to them. Sadly, my character counter indicates I've run out of characters to utilize. I will attempt to pick up where I left off in the next round of debate. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com...