Torture Should be Able to be Used on Suspected Terrorists

Perhaps "niceties" were never thrown out the window as I had never offered them. Concluding from what I have read from my friend's last attempt was that he missed the entire point and did not understand my argument in the slightest. Lets clarify them again. I do not believe torture to be moral or the best solution to terrorism. I do however argue that the practice of torture continue not only because according to my friends own studies (although never linked to) there is a 33% chance of extracting correct intelligence from a given terrorist but, also because human nature is immoral and we wish to cause pain and for these soldiers and intelligence officials that have endured countless personal losses, witnessed enormous civilian casualties, and also that are continuously put into harms way by terrorists deserve retribution in the form of being able to torture a terrorist that does not deserve human rights as my friend likes to say. Without this retribution the soldiers and intelligence officials we constantly order to break morality in the form of drone attacks, special forces missions, and clandestine operations would face insurmountable stress, psychological disorders, and the feeling of neglect and abandonment from there government because they would feel that the losses they have endured did not matter enough to their government. Again do not conflate my argument to saying torture is moral in the first argument I posted I specifically said "I find torture to be the correct punishment for terrorists and I also find it to be a worthy retribution to the personnel that are affected the most and have lost the most from the terrorists let alone it allows the personnel that more inclined to violence to release their rage, immorality, and also to release their self deprecation (albeit for a short intense moment in time) on a person I would deem to not be worthy of human/natural rights." Am I arguing that people accept torture as moral? Or am I saying that despite the immorality of torture it is necessary? Now lets get into the torture report by Senator Diane Fienstein, my friend asserts I have not read my own linked report perhaps my friend did not read my argument instead. Except for context to my friends own studies I ask, when did I make it a point to assert torture is an effective way to gather intelligence? To the contrary I recognized the 33% chance given by my friends study and said we should also allow torture for retribution, can there truly be a way to measure the effect moral boosts can have on our soldiers and intelligence officials? Had we not allowed the barbaric practices to continue it is uncertain how effective our personnel would be given they would have felt there government does not value them. I will lump his 2nd and 4th point together as it can be summed up quite easily. The CIA lies to congress and the CIA also lies to the public. His 3rd point "The CIA's management of the program was inadequate and deeply flawed" perhaps it can be run by different people that are better managers but how one agency's disorganization should affect a practice to the point it be banned altogether is not how most organizations work. Does google for instance hire coders to work on android and receive the coders final work deems it inadequate and then quit? No it hires different coders to make a better product and fires the people that can't do their jobs. My friend also says he is "shocked" to see this as my argument because "Numerous times, the CIA's 'enhanced interrogation methods/techniques' aka torture are referred to as inadequate, deeply flawed and ineffective showing that torture is clearly not the way to go." It's apparent again my friend does not understand but I will try to help him, the report refers to specific instances where torture was inadequate unless the desired outcome was retribution which I argue for. I also find it important to point out that I have also not argued for torture to be the only method of intelligence gathering or punishment just that it should be one of the options. My friend states "Instead we should spend more time and money on things like surveillance and more peaceful methods of interrogation, for America, negotiating life imprisonment vs. the death penalty, or in countries w/o the death penalty, more luxuries in prison, such as television." That's all well and good if you do not scrap torture and use my friends example as another helpful tool in addition to being able to torture. "In this article you have linked (man, really thanks!), it also mentions once or twice the catch 22 moment of torturers being unable to tell the difference between false information, so you've blown another one of your own points out of the water." Apparently according to my friend the fact that "once or twice" (out of an investigation that spanned the course of 2002-2009 and also upwards of 100 detainees) the personnel were unable to verify the person or persons information means I blew my entire argument out the water, instead I argue that it is impossible to work every time like I and my friend have said we have come to agree on his own study that there is a 33% chance of correct information however with what my friend just provided if they're are only a maximum of two examples he can point to where this "catch 22 moment" happened then by essence this program was much more effective than my friend had said was possible. My friend here should take the first thoughts that jump into his head and think a little more vigorously about them. "Pro's third rebuttal wasn't easy to shut down." Yes something we can agree on because my friend did not and could not shutdown this argument because it is a fact. However he states "a country shouldn't betray its own word." Perhaps my friend truly does not understand how the world works, every single country in history has "betrayed" its own words and every single country will continue to do so if it is in their best interest. In the interests of New Zealand as my friend referred to before let's make a point of showing how the U.S. and New Zealand differ it has a population of about 4.5 million people according to the UN, a GDP of $185 billion (U.S. dollars to clarify) according to the world bank, and in 2015 their military budget was $2.24 billion. The U.S. on the other hand has a population of 318.9 million according the U.S. Census Bureau, a GDP of $16.77 trillion (World Bank) , and a military budget of $495 billion according the the DoD comptroller. Possibly my friend was thinking about what could happen too New Zealand because it is not a considerable force by any means, perhaps in his own words "the world" would attack such a small country that could not give any retaliatory consequences to an adversary except possibly, Djibouti? It's laughable my friend thinks of the U.S. as just a country that can be dictated to, my friend the U.S. is the one doing the dictating. Lets move on to his last point. "Pro seems to think that my example of discontent among public was hot air. Then surely there should be no protests against torture. Right?" The only way to explain this is the U.S. is a republic it has many different opinions from many different walks of life. The government could make water a public utility free to everyone and there would still be people protesting, but lets smack this argument down too forgoing that people will protests anything because out of 318 million people it is impossible to all agree. Does my friend honestly believe that 62 people protesting is an adequate number of people that should be listened too? Maybe in New Zealand with such a small population but 62 people in America do not and would never be able to force a debate because there is such a large number of citizens with differing opinions. Perhaps according to my friend because I favor government sponsored medicare for all in the U.S. I only need to bring another 61 people with me and protests? Since my friend lacks the ability to post a link I have done it for him http://www.trueactivist.com... . This is was a total of 12 protests technically "nationwide" but sadly only 12 cities, does anyone remember the Tea Party protests? This was a real protests with considerable numbers that actually did something http://fivethirtyeight.com... over 300 thousand participants were voicing their discontent with the government. So, my friend, I ask where is this large discontent in the U.S. that should be listened to? Or is it that because you believe one thing that you think it should be put into effect over the will of the people? My friend constantly refers to the Geneva Convention. As I have stated before and my friend has agreed "this debate isn't can we, it's should we?" we both have agreed that it is illegal to torture given current laws.He then goes onto say "1.you are innocent until proven guilty and 2.'torture cannot be justified as a mean to protect public safety or prevent emergencies."' then he cites "Human Rights" what are you even quoting? It's hard to argue a human right considering I don't believe they deserve them and my friend here does so it is a circle of argument's that will not be settled. Again though why do you keep trying to change the topic to given laws possibly my friend suffers from short term memory loss. I ask for torture to be allowed in war times by our military and intelligence services for two: reasons it has the possibility of working to learn new intelligence; and also as a punishment/retribution for their crimes against the civilized world and their respective country of origin. Do I think there are better ways to achieve intelligence? Yes, but I also believe torture can be a tool used among others, I have not argued for the dissolution of any other tool in this debate only continuation of this one.