Waterboarding is An Acceptable Means of Intelligence Gathering

The topic for debate is actually that waterboarding is an acceptable means of intelligence gathering. One of the arguments I choose to use in proving that overall point is that waterboarding is not torture. My opponent states that this is subjective, and somehow believes this disproves my entire thesis. In reality, his disagreement with me on the definition of waterboarding as torture does not, in any way, mean I lose the debate. This is because I do not have to prove waterboarding is not torture to prove that there are situations when it is acceptable or necessary to use. There are plenty of sources who actually agree with Con that waterboarding is torture, and still do not hesitate to use it because in the greater context, its use can be justified. However, we shall go on to rebut Con’s position one last time before final round closing arguments. First of all, Con is completely, and bafflingly, misinformed about what waterboarding is. Note the following statements: - “And how strapping someone down against their will and pouring water down their windpipe doesn't constitute torture is a complete mystery to me.” - 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.” Even though I clearly defined what waterboarding is and how it’s done in Round 1, let’s revisit the definition one more time. "The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt." How, pray tell, if there is cellophane over the terrorist’s face, are we “pouring water down their windpipe?” This is simulated drowning; emphasis on simulated. At no time is the subject actually drowning, nor is he having water “forced into his lungs.” As for the “immediate and extreme fear of death,” well, yes. That’s why it’s effective. However, there is no medical evidence that “You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation.” That’s simply not possible, because there is no damage to the lungs. There is no inhalation of water, and there is no oxygen deprivation reaching critical levels. What makes waterboarding so effective is that it fools the subject into thinking he is in danger when in reality he is not. The Cornell Progressive, a liberal source, admits that “Despite the great discomfort associated with waterboarding, the fact remains that it is simulated drowning, and when done properly, no permanent physical damage occurs.” [1] In the Daily Collegian, alumni Stephen Johnson, a Navy aircrew member, explains that he was waterboarded as part of his training. He states that “It does not maim, cause permanent physical damage or result in death. It is only terrifying. Causing an emotional response is not torture.” [2] Con’s argument here is null and void, since he finds himself in Round 3 of a debate on a practice he does not even understand. R2: He tosses up a decision question meant to make me re-think my position through emotional response: “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?” If someone I knew and loved was actively plotting to kill Americans, and there was no time for interrogators to build up rapport and trust with the subject to get him to talk, I absolutely would not hesitate to support enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. The bottom line is that there are lives at stake. Con goes on with the argument that “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.” I’ll let Lt. Col. Rick Francona answer this for me. He states that “The argument that use of aggressive interrogation techniques by CIA interrogators will place our military personnel at greater risk in the future should they be captured does not stand up to scrutiny. American prisoners of war have never been treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions – the only countries that adhere to the protocols seem to be the United States and its allies. In virtually every conflict, our captured personnel have been brutally treated and abused.” [3] Keep in mind, the United States didn’t design waterboarding. We learned it because it was done to our own men. Then again, “some human rights organizations consider even blindfolding and handcuffing to be torture, as well as isolation and sleep deprivation.” Cornell goes on that “because waterboarding and many of the other interrogation tactics described above may have lasting psychological effects, it should only be allowed in dire situations where the failure to obtain intelligence will most likely mean the certain death of others. In these situations, the ill psychological effects will be the price that the terrorists pay for their involvement in heinous acts.” Con tries to use yet another version of the moral superiority argument, but I’m going to turn it on its head and hand it back. Would Con be willing to subject someone to waterboarding if his loved one was about to die and the man in front of him had information that would save them? Psychology shows that the instinct for survival—and by extension, protection of the survival of those we love—is the single most motivating factor in all of human behavior. Chances are good that Con, like almost anyone else, would engage in whatever he had to. Having sympathy for the perceived suffering of our enemies is not based on moral superiority. It is based on “ignorance of our own mortality, ignorance of any threat against an individual personality, and fear of others perceiving us in a negative manner along with whatever social consequences come along with that.” 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. Con’s argument about rape being torture is ridiculous. Con can no more argue that rape is torture—especially to someone who actually has experienced it—than I can argue that being kicked in the testicles is torture when I don't have testicles. One last thing. Geneva applies to the following: members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war [4] In order to receive Geneva Protections, combatants have to meet every one of the above conditions. Terrorists do not, the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case notwithstanding. In this round, I have shown the following: - Con operates with a completely mistaken idea of what waterboarding even is. - I do not have to prove waterboarding is not torture to win the debate. - Terrorists do not meet the criteria for Geneva Convention protection. - Con’s moral superiority argument is also nullified by basic psychology. I look forward to closing arguments. [1] http://www.rso.cornell.edu... [2] http://www.collegian.psu.edu... [3] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [4]http://jb-williams.com...