Abdulmutallab should be interrogated.

My opponent seems to think I misunderstood the resolution, which is quite incorrect. Let me sum up the two points my opponent has made thus far; 1. Abdulmutallab should not be afforded a legal trial 2. Abdulmutallab should be interrogated by any means that results in information given, whether that be plain interrogation, or torture (waterboarding, etc.) Since my opponent has not defined torture, and has seemed to chide me for not doing so, I'll provide the U.N. definition; "...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." [1] This, of course, includes waterboarding and just about every other twisted method my opponent has in mind. My opponent has tried to soften his case and suggest that Abdulmutallab will only be asked questions, but two immediate faults arise with this; what happens when he doesn't talk and will he be given his Miranda rights, which my opponent has seem to decry thus far? If the first is true, then Abdulmutallab is tortured and a century of fighting for basic human rights is thrown away. If he is interrogated without his Miranda rights, then the justice system we have worked so hard to build and protect is nullified in one fell swoop. Heaven forbid he's ever actually tried after that, because any information received would be inadmissible. But let's look directly at my opponent's case, "Abdulmutallab was provided a lawyer a public expense and apparently afforded all the rights given to citizens charged with ordinary crimes ... Accordingly, he may choose to volunteer statements, but he has the right to refuse to talk to investigators from the FBI, CIA, or other government agencies having responsibility for national security." My opponent here is certainly lamenting Abdulmutallab's basic rights. He is suggesting that non-U.S. citizens should not receive the same legal rights as Americans receive while inside the country, which is a ludicrous suggestion. It is common knowledge that if a foreign national commits a crime within the United States, they are tried within the United States with full legal rights intact. If I am accused of shoplifting in New York, considering I am a Canadian citizen, will I be denied a lawyer? Evidently not. Furthermore, this sets up a hypocrisy in that the American government has always demanded the release of one its citizens when they are taken hostage in a foreign country. This is a case of American exceptionalism; it is acceptable for the American government to capture and detain whoever it pleases with no legal recourse, yet if any other country does the same, it is illegal. This sets a terrible precedent. "Therefore, he should be treated as an enemy combatant and not afforded the rights of a citizen charged with an ordinary crime." What my opponent is herein describing is synonymous with torture. If we look at the working definition of enemy combatant, this becomes immediately obvious, (It should also be noted that the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant has been transformed by the Bush administration so that every associate or member of Al-Queada or any related terrorist group is deemed 'unlawful', removing their eligibility of being a POW, such a Nazi war criminals.) "An 'enemy combatant' is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban....Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. " [2] So we see that even if my opponent isn't directly advocating torture, he is advocating the same breach in human rights, so the point is moot. The act itself is just one heinous cog in the machine, it is the systematic removal of basic human rights. If it was unacceptable for the Vietcong, it should be unacceptable for the American government. We must not become what we are fighting. So my opponent would like us to believe that he is merely advocating questioning Abdulmutallab, but it is not a black and white decision of asking him questions vs. not getting the information. As I have shown with the case of Mr. Reid, finding information legally is quite possible. But let's look at the case for merely asking Abdulmutallab questions, sans lawyer. First, it must be recognized that there is nothing Abdulmutallab will say that he won't say with his lawyer present. My opponent seems to think that if his lawyer is removed from the room, the answers will start flowing. And if they don't? You've already crossed the bridge of legal procedure, so you've screwed up any chance for a legal trial. Abdulmutallab must then absolutely be tried by tribunal, which is quick-fix if you ignoring someone's legal rights. I assume my opponent's next level is 4, which is secret military code for 'deprive them of food and water', which has be used in the past to forceful coerce answers from detainees, and is certainly a form of torture. So while my opponent seems to want to avoid torture, we see that by his reasoning, it is unavoidable. Secondly, removing Abdulmutallab from the legal system removes the prospect of a legal confession. Assuming Abdulmutallab has an intellect over that of a first grader, it can be assumed that he knows he is going to lose his case. My opponent agrees with this, but seems to come a different conclusion. For my opponent, knowing that he will be convicted somehow justifies skipping the legal process and trying to extract information in illegal ways. This is an incorrect analysis. Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui, Saajid Badat and Mohammed Ajmal Amir [3], all convicted of terrorism, confessed to their parts in the crimes. Would my opponent have their convictions thrown out for the sake of 'interrogation'? What does he think can be accomplished? If anything, I would argue that those detainees are more likely to confess in a legal setting, because they know, A. they have a chance of a reduced sentence or an improved prison and B, if they are interrogated in violation of their Miranda rights, they can petition the U.S. government and their native governments for release because their rights are being infringed upon. Whether it works is irrelevant; it will give them a sense of hope and prolong their confession. So, up until this point, I have heard no argument from my opponent in regards to why an illegal 'interrogation' is better than the legal aspect. He takes for granted that removing their rights will produce information, and he furthermore ignores that he is, by extension, arguing for waterboarding. If that is not the case, I would sure like to hear it as I imagine it would be a big relief for everyone reading the debate. Thank you [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.cfr.org... [3] http://blog.taragana.com...