The use of torture is justified in ticking time bomb situations.

Water boarding is effective Recall the ticking time bomb scenario. Information is obtained that there is a terrorist plot to explode nuclear bomb in New York City. A terrorist is captured with good evidence that he knows details of the plot. The terrorist is interrogated, but he rebuffs befriending techniques as an insult to his deep convictions, as did KSM. The evidence of the involvement of the terrorist is presented to a judge, who rules that there is ticking time bomb situation, and that the detainee is likely to have important information. The judge issues a warrant allowing for harsh interrogation ranging from a face slap through water boarding. The downside of not using the harsh techniques is that New York City will almost certainly be destroyed – ten million people, lovely parks, skyscrapers, and all the rest. From the GITMO data we have a reasonable estimate of the probability of saving the city through use of harsh interrogation. About half of detainees did not yield to conventional interrogation. Of those who were subsequently subjected to harsh methods, all but three of more than 500 revealed what they knew using methods short of water boarding. Of the three subjected to water boarding, two provided the information. That is about 99.8% certainty that the information will be successfully obtained through harsh interrogation once conventional interrogation fails. In one case, a single face slap worked. For Zubadaya, it took 25-30 seconds of water boarding. I presented all the references [especially 9] in previous rounds, and Con took no exception. Con correctly maintains that 99.8% probability of success is not certainty. I acknowledged at the outset there is no certainty, claiming only the "potential" for saving lives. What is the moral hazard in using harsh interrogation? The terrorist won't suffer physical harm; he's monitored by a physician. Con claims some possibility that the terrorist, already a fanatic eager to kill ten million people, might suffer psychological harm. If the bomb goes off, the terrorist and the interrogator will be vaporized along with everyone else, a downside for the terrorist worse than water boarding and for the interrogator worse than potential anxiety attacks. I claim that no moral person could choose to substantially increase the probability of the city be destroyed. The potential harm by water boarding is so slight, and the potential good from water boarding is so great, it's not a close decision. If the decision is really so obvious, why don't U. S. presidents agree? They do. President Obama finds it politically expedient to be publicly opposed to so much as slapping the face of a terrorist, but he quietly turns over terrorists to be brutally tortured by other countries. Clinton and Bush used rendition. The responsibility of the president is to protect American lives, not preserve the health of murderous fanatics. A system of warrants and limited harsh interrogation techniques is far superior to rendition. Con's objections a) Con grants that conventional interrogation is unreliable. Therefore that's not an argument against using harsh interrogation. The moral argument is separate. The moral hazard in harsh interrogation is limited and doubtful. The moral hazard in not using harsh interrogation is that many innocent people die. Con argues that friendly interrogation techniques are improving. That's good, but it admits that they need improvement. We agree that friendly techniques should be tried first. It doesn't address what should be done when friendly techniques fail. Con says interrogators using harsh techniques are sometimes poor at detecting lies. CIA interrogators are unquestionably highly skilled. I gave an example of the FBI blowing an interrogation. The harsh techniques work about 99.8% of the time. b) Con admits that harsh interrogation works. Its a matter of risks and probabilities. c) It's good that friendly interrogation methods, working half the time at GITMO, are improving. Our debate is about when they fail. 2. Water boarding is non-lethal Con says “The fact that someone has already committed horrendous acts, and/or may plan to in the future doesn’t give us the right to strip them of their human dignity. ” We lock up mass murderers for life, a greater insult to their human dignity than a face slap or water boarding. It's justified not by their past acts, but to save lives by preventing future acts. All harsh methods, including the face slap, are currently considered torture. Water boarding is needed about 0.6% of the time, so whatever the risks of harm from water boarding, it is weighted by it's low frequency of use. Risks to the interrogators The Milgram experiment is not relevant because nothing nearly so harsh is within the scope of the resolution. Con speculates that harms might exist that are now hidden. That can be said of anything. Con provides no evidence that the practice of water boarding with CIA safeguards harms the interrogator. With no evidence, the claim is pure speculation that can be said of anything. I argue it is unlikely because not only has Con found no evidence, but apparently no one who has had the task has found any evidence. Con argues that firemen only take risks on the spur of the moment. That's wrong. Firemen know well that they will be taking life-threatening risks, and they choose the profession anyway. So do policemen, soldiers, CIA agents, and many others. Most are aware of the psychological risks of their high-stress jobs as well. Soldiers know about post-traumatic stress disorder. Con is arguing that a psychological harm that's never been observed in the CIA is enough to shift probabilities to allow innocents to die. Risks to the terrorists Xenakis says there is no data from which to draw conclusions about the psychological after effects of water boarding by CIA methods. He says he found terrorists subjected to harsh interrogation methods “suffer with anxiety and depressive disorders … Many are demoralized and hopeless. ” Correct, being demoralized and hopeless is why they talk-- to regain hope. Our debate is about the choice between keeping terrorists bright and enthusiastic, and saving innocent lives by demoralizing him. Xenakis doesn't distinguish between methods used by the CIA and radical abuse; he speaks in generalities and references studies of unlimited torture. He does not show understanding that CIA water boarding simulates drowning while historically water boarding used actual drowning. He does not claim that any of the adverse psychological affects are more than temporary. The paper is published by the IRCT, an advocacy group. It is not peer-reviewed science; it is more like a blog post. Xenakis and the IRCT never so much as acknowledge the moral hazard in letting terrorists not talk. 3. Rendition is the alternative to water boarding Rendition occurred under Bush and Clinton, and that it continues under Obama. Harsh interrogation is designed to minimize the need for rendition, while improving the quality of the information obtained. Bush continued rendition while attempting to minimize the necessity. Obama says he supports friendly interrogation, and that's good, but he knows the necessity of rendition, and he uses it extensively.4. There is a slippery slope to complete ineffectivenessCon says International Law already prohibits any interrogation. (Terrorists are not signatories to any international treaties or agreements, so they are not covered. ) Con is granting that the end result of giving terrorists no reason to talk is at hand. We're not there yet, Abandoning attempts to save lives is not justified. ----------------I did not contest Con's sources for such minutiae as that terrorists divide in cells. My previous objections stand. My uncontested sources give the facts of what has worked and with what frequency.