The USFG should allow the limited use of Torture

Pro has made this debate very simple by boiling it down to the single issue of whether or not there are any situations where "necessity defense" applies -- situations where (1) there are numerous lives in immediate danger, and (2) there are no viable alternative means to save those lives. The idea is that under those circumstances, torture would be equivalent to self-defense, which is justifiable even under my own moral framework. Obviously, my position is that no such situation exists, specifically because the second condition is never true -- in all realistic scenarios, there are ways to save the lives in danger without using torture. Contrary to Pro's assertions, I do *not* need to show that torture can never be effective. My advocacy is that torture is never the best option, and therefore the "necessity defense" defense justification never applies; this fulfills my burden of proof because Pro seems to agree that torture shouldn't be used outside of "necessity defense" situations. Thus, Pro's burden of proof is to show us situations where torture *is* the best option (i.e. where "necessity defense" does apply). The only time he gets even close to fulfilling this burden is when he brings up the classic ticking time-bomb scenario. The biggest problem here for Pro is that, as I argued last round, there are plenty of ways to extract information from people which do not involve any infliction of physical pain. Pro never contested the efficacy of such methods, so he basically loses the debate on this point alone. Numerous seasoned interrogators have experimented with these alternative interrogation methods and (as far as my research could ascertain) unanimously reported positive results [1]. "A good interrogation is like a seduction. You sit down. You ask the person questions. You try to develop a very intense personal relationship with another human being so they'll part with information they'd rather not part with. You wheedle, cajole, trick, lie. The point is to collect usable, actionable information... What I saw firsthand as an interrogator and, later, as a JAG in Iraq in 2003 working on detainee issues, has left me with a strong belief that torture is counterproductive. What has proven effective in interrogation, time and again, regardless of what culture the detainee is from, is building a positive relationship with an individual... I would challenge the current administration to come up with one example where torture in interrogation has produced actionable intelligence that saved American lives in the United States." "I had to use some of the approaches from the field manual. I used 'love of comrades" a couple of times: I would tell somebody, 'You know that if you can help us end this war sooner, fewer of your own people will die.' When I saw them, they were still reeling from the shock of battle and capture. You should never underestimate the power of one's own imagination to create danger... I know the techniques in the field manual work, and I know torture isn't as effective." These techniques use human psychology to their advantage to extract information with far more accuracy than torture can. However, the most obvious alternative way to save lives in ticking time-bomb situation would be to simply *evacuate* the area(s) where the bomb is thought to be... 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. Speaking of which, knowing who to torture is another major problem with the use of torture in ticking time-bomb scenarios: there are severe time constraints present which disallow a thorough investigation into the situation, which means that there is a significant chance of the suspect being tortured turning out to be innocent. "Ideally, the decision to interrogate is based on solid evidence linking a suspect to terrorist activities or indicating that a suspect is in possession of vital information. However, too often, the decision to interrogate is based on whether a suspect seems to fit a 'terrorist profile,' behavior that is perceived as suspicious, or association with known or suspected terrorists ... intelligence gathering typically involves the time-consuming and laborious process of sifting through mountains of information to identify suspected terrorists. This process often yields many suspects but few confirmed terrorists." [2]. Clearly, the "necessity defense" justification does not apply to the ticking time-bomb scenario. Using non-violent methods of interrogation or even simply ordering an evacuation of the area would actually be *more* likely to save lives than torture (because of the strong possibility of inaccurate information with the latter). Moreover, the alternatives avoid the threat of torturing an innocent person, which is a risk inherent to the ticking time-bomb situation. The resolution is affirmed. - [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] https://www.cgu.edu...