Interrogators should have the legal right to torture terrorists.

He stated that the falsely accused and tortured people does not prove that torture should be outlawed. Well then, let's just all go up to people we don't like and say "I don't like you, IT'S TIME FOR TORTURE!" People have been falsely convicted and put in prison so I guess that proves that prison shouldn't exist otherwise people will just go up to people they don't like and say "I don't like you, IT'S TIME FOR PRISON!" Falsely accused and tortured people might prove that we need a better screening process for determining who is guilty and who is innocent but it does not prove that torture should be illegal. "I'm well aware of the fact that torture is violent." So why are we allowing it? Because I believe that the end result of protecting innocent people justifies violent means. "I don't understand why my opponent described the process of "Waterboarding", "The Rack", and "Chinese Water Torture" for me." To contest your 1st argument that torture was humane. I said that using violence to protect innocent people is self defense and that self defense isn't morally wrong. "I just believe that the end result of protecting innocent people justifies the means of violence." The same was said about the war in Iraq by George W. Bush, and look where that got us. We killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians and only 45,000 militants. Hmmmm. It seems to me that in that case killing terrorists was more important than the civilians. According to Wikipedia there have been somewhere between 90,805 to 1,200,000 casualties in the Iraq War. It was somewhere between 40,000,000 and 72,000,000 in World War II. Was World War II unjust? "But when a police officer shoots someone with a gun to protect an innocent person we not only justify it but thank god that it was done." A police officer's code of conduct always states, "Protect yourself first, then subdue the criminal, secure those in danger around you, NEVER engage a foe unless the OFFICERS life is in danger or the foes life is in danger." Furthermore, what if the criminal has a gun to the head of an innocent civilian. According to a Yale Study done on November 21, 2008, called "Reaction Times" it showed that the gunman will kill the victim before the cop's bullet hits the foe. Therefore, if the cop shoots, 2 people die instead of one. Please read the following article: http://www.usatoday.com... My opponent has made it clear that he does not believe in the philosophy of the end justifying the means. Does that mean that my opponent would want the police officer in this article to be prosecuted? Shooting someone in the head is violent and according to my opponent violence is wrong even if it produces a good result. Why is my opponent referring to dead innocent people as "Information that is lost"? I must disagree that we should just torture the hell out of people that may be innocent, just to find out "Oh, wait. We got the wrong guy. Sorry, dude. We promise not to do it again." This happened more times than we actually caught REAL terrorists. As a matter of fact, at airports, Homeland Security Guards have the right to detain and interrogate random and suspicious suspects. Even I was pulled aside on my trip D.C.. Giving them the right to torture every person that they think is a terrorist is completely derogatory and morally wrong. Because the purpose of an interrogation is to extract information not kill people. If an inordinate number of innocent people are being tortured then we need to devise a better screening process not outlaw torture. Saying that falsely accused and tortured people proves that torture should be illegal is like saying falsely convicted and imprisoned people proves that prison shouldn't exist. In closing I think it's important to point out that I don't want to torture anybody. I can't believe the things that they will torture people for in places like the Middle East. It's completely insane. But if you have information that we need to prevent a terrorist attack then one way or another you are going to give us that information. A choice between suffering a terrorist attack or torturing a terrorist is no choice at all.