Abdulmutallab should be interrogated.

Let me begin by saying that torture, even under the most dire or extreme situations, is never just. My opponent's cost-benefit analysis of the situation is remarkably short-sighted. Assuming that Abdulmutallab has credible and unique information, and assuming that he is willing to provide it (stipulations that should not be taken lightly, as I'll expand upon later) there are grave and considerable ramifications if we were to allow the torture of this man. Forgive me if I dive too much into the generalities, as I promise to talk specifically of Abdulmutallab's case in the following rounds, but it must be recognize that if he is tortured, then credence and justification is lended to torture as a whole, which cannot be allowed. I will break my debate into three sections; -The logistical shortcomings of torture, or, 'Don't taze me bro! ' -The international backlash, or, 'The Bush effect' -The moral and legal arguments against torture, or, 'The Geneva Convention and basic human rights. ' --- I. While conventional wisdom tells us that inflicting pain on one implicated in crime will draw information about that person and their associates. Interrogators, however, tell us a different story, such as former FBI agent Ali Soufan who stated that torture was "ineffective, slow and unreliable and, as a result, harmful to our efforts to defeat al-Qaida. " and went on to account that, "we got actionable intelligence from [Abu Zubaydah] in the first hour of interrogating him" which was -before- he was waterboarded. [1] This opinion was later expressed by Lt. General Jeff Kimmons when talking about the banning of enhanced interrogation at Guantanamo Bay, saying, "No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that. And moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, under—through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility. And additionally, it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there. " [2] Furthermore, a Georgetown study reported that "Torture does not yield reliable information and actually backfires in intelligence interrogations. This was the conclusion of seven research psychologists and four recently retired, senior U. S. Army interrogators" [3] These ideas resonate historically, as well, from Hitler's Germany to Midevil France, the evidence shows that torture was ineffective and generally a waste of time and a distraction from the much more fruitful practice of evidence gathering. Even using methods that would make a normal person spill their guts (literally and figuratively), sometimes as few 3% of the prisoners actually gave any information at all. [4] Quentin Tarintino's Reservoir Dogs sums this up in layman's terms; "If you ------- beat this ----- long enough, he'll tell you he started the ------ Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it ------ so! " You get the idea. So the fact remains that according to specialists; torture simply does not yield results. It forces detainees to give false information, it steals time away from more productive activities and it seriously harms the physical and mental state of the prisoners, burning bridges for future (legal) interrogation. [1] . http://bit.ly... [2] . http://bit.ly... [3] . http://bit.ly... [4] . http://bit.ly... --- II. Even if torture worked, which we've established it doesn't, then we must at least recognize what it would do to said country around the globe. The Western world is losing its stomach for torture which could compromise the mere ability of the United States to use enhanced interrogation techniques, not to mention a potential black-balling of foreign cooperation on terror investigations. Inter-European backlash is already taking place against those countries which aided U. S. efforts to kidnap and torture suspected terrorists, spearheaded by the Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition, who have promised to suspend EU voting rights to any country implicated in operating the secret prisons that America relies so heavily on. [1] While losing international cooperation on terror investigations is problematic, it is considerably more worrisome to be lending ammunition to those who seek to carry out attacks on American soil. Considering the release of some 250 detainees from Guantanamo Bay alone [2] one has to consider the impact they will have once being freed. If an innocent and moderate man was locked into Guantanamo Bay, exposed to the radical teachings and subsequently tortured by American forces, one can only expect that he will start to see reason behind the anti-American rhetoric. The practice of torture is unequivocally lending to recruiting efforts by the exact groups that the United States are trying to defeat. A study from the Jamestown group says, "Explicit references to accounts of torture in the region by al-Qaeda and other militants helps sustain the narrative that Muslims and Islam as a whole are under siege by a hostile U. S. -led campaign. .. " and concludes, "the current trajectory of U. S. foreign policy in the Middle East will continue to serve as a battle cry for militants to take up arms against the United States. .. " [3] [1] . http://bit.ly... [2] . http://bit.ly... [3] . http://bit.ly... --- III. Finally, the legal structure of the Western world must be taken into account. On one hand, if the American government cannot respect the laws that it enforces, why should anyone? If my son were killed by gang warfare, why would I be disallowed from torturing gang members to find his killer? Governments -must- respect the laws they enforce. Furthermore, if the U. S. is fighting for nothing else overseas, is it not freedom? Is it not for the defense of the constitution that grants every person the right of trial by jury. This was not written into the constitution because the founding fathers were soft on crime, but rather because they certain unwavering beliefs about freedom. Just because one isn't an American citizen does not make them automatically guilty of a suspected crime, nor does it mean that they are unworthy of a fair trial. The best case study of this is Richard Reid, the Al Queada-connected man who tried to commit a very similar act of terror. John Ascroft, former U. S. justice attorney, said of his confession by legal means, "Richard Colvin Reid pled guilty to all counts in the indictment for attempting to ignite a bomb on American Airlines Flight 63, and to murder 197 passengers and crew. Today is a victory for justice and for the citizens who are vigilant in the pursuit of justice. " [1] Furthermore, even though Mr. Reid was not caught before he tried to carry out his attack, he was under heavy surveillance that provided many other suspected terrorists, all without the use of torture. [2] What's more is that he cited the systemic use of torture by the U. S. government and its proxies as a justification for his failed attack. The report goes on to say, "Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. .. is handed over to US authorities. .. Two FBI agents from New York are tasked with interrogating him. .. [one] spends more than 80 hours with al-Libi discussing religion and prayer in an effort to establish a close bond. It works, and al-Libi opens up. .. giving him information about Zacarias Moussaoui and. .. Richard Reid. .. But despite this progress, he will soon be transferred to Egypt and tortured there into making some false confessions" [1] . http://bit.ly... [2] . http://bit.ly... Unfortunately, due to the word limit, I will leave my arguments there. I look forward to my opponent's response.