Is the United States justified in torturing terrorist suspects.

First, let's refute my opponent's points. From my opponent's Case: "I'm afraid my opponent misunderstood my first point: "In a situation where it is necessary to kill one person in order to save many, I assert it is logical and right to do so."" My response: I fully understand my opponent's argument. The wording with the "NECESSARY" makes any outcome agree with your conclusion; this is abusive. From my opponent's Case: "My point was that certain things, such as torture and killing people, are in isolation wrong. They can be ethical, however, if the alternative is worse. It is the 'tragic choice', as Nussbaum had it." My Response: WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? How can we universally justify agree on which is worse when everyone is going to have a different opinion? From my opponent's Case: "Of course this is true, but that is out of scope of this debate. The debate is whether the US is justified in torturing terrorist suspects at all, not whether it is justified in torturing _all_ terrorist suspects. The latter is clearly false, as justification emerges from the circumstances of each case." My response: This is irrelevant. If the US can find a way to justify torturing someone, it will find a way to extend that reasoning to torture all of its prisoners of war. From my opponent's Case: "My opponent then quotes a fictional character from a popular film."… "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used - and will be used - to obtain the information....no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility."" My response: My opponent deems my quote less important because its origin is a work of fiction. Should we stop quoting literature? Should we deem all fictional resources irrelevant? Later, he refers to an example on nuclear bombs. How can we know, without a doubt, that the P.O.W. will know this information? When has this occurred? Mad Props for answering my challenge!!! I didn't except an answer. My opponent refers to secrecy on the part of the government. WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT TRY TO HIDE AS GREAT OF AN ACCHIEVEMENT AS A VICTORY IN THE WAR AGAINST TERROR IN TIMES OF LOW ECONOMY AND MORAL? My opponent will most likely refer to national security in his answer. Is this the sole motivation, or could the US be hiding breaches in international treaties which would render US nationals to the mercy of such courts as the ICC on charges of crimes against humanity? From my opponent's Case: "He seemed to claim that it would be necessary to put victims through "hopeless years of confinement and deprivation". This is of course untrue. There are many sources that indicate that torture is effective within hours. " My Response: I completely agree that torture can be affective in a few hours. However, if the questioner doesn't get answers, will he stop the torture? How about Guantanamo Bay and other prisons? Can you say that the P.O.W.s were only detained for a few hours and subjected only to minimal pain? From my opponent's Case: "I know that in actuality the United States does keep people in the most awful conditions, and make them suffer extremely prolonged anguish, humiliation and near mental extermination. I am not saying this is just - it clearly is not. I am merely saying that the United States is justified in torturing terrorist suspects. A few hours is plenty." My response: My opponent agrees with the point I made above! He admits to the US's actions in detainment for an extended period of time. He later is trying to justify his argument by saying that the US is justified in torturing for short time periods. Is this realistic? Does he really expect us to believe that torture by the US is justified when he agrees with the lack of morals on the US's part? From my opponent's Case: "With proper regulation and checks and balances, it can brought under control and made safe from ritualiation." …My opponent challenged me to prove that Government-sanctioned torture will only be used for the country's interest. I agree with Posner and Vermeule that with the right legal framework, this can be enforced." My response: Wouldn't this render US nationals under the jurisdiction of international courts, such as the ICC? Is this to the best interest of the US? Isn't that unconstitutional? ------------------ To defend my case From my opponent's Case: "Those killed by armed police are not afforded the luxury of a fair trial." My Response: ARMED POLICE??? How is this even relevant to the torture of Prisoners of War? From my opponent's Case: The US does indeed have the obligation to further human rights. However, all human rights need to be balanced with the needs of the wider society - they are not absolutes. My response: SHOULD WE IGNORE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A HEGEMON AND THOSE STATED BY THE CONSTITUTION WHEN IT PROVES EASIER? From my opponent's Case: There is a right to free speech, but not to shout "Fire" in a crowded cinema or racially insult people. There is a right to privacy, but not, as the European Convention puts it, "when necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" [3]. My Response: For the rest of the contention, my opponent refers to John Locke's Social Contract theory. (When we join a society, we give away some of our rights for protection) WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? For my second contention, my opponent refers to the past breaches to justify the "New and Improved" definition that the US has adapted. My opponent lacks the personal knowledge to make an argument against my contention. In his study for the University of La Verne in 2007, Jeff W. LeBlanc argues and proves the immorality of the re-interpretation. After reading this paper, my opponent can argue against it. The paper's cover can be found in the following link: http://www.americanstudents.us... Unfortunately, I could not find the entire article for free, but feel free to purchase it if you wish. The study makes very fascinaing observations and is truly worth a close look. From my opponent's Case: "I disagree with the term "war on terror", just as I disagree with the "war on drugs" or the "war on teenage pregnancy" [no - pregnant teenagers should not be treated as POWs]. People planning to cause terror through explosion or other means should be treated as that, and not as some idea of a formalised army." My Response: "war on drugs"/"war on teenage pregnancy"???? How is this relevant??? On to the Key Voting Issues: My opponent lacks the personal knowledge to argue against one of my contentions. My opponent does not provide us with as tangible evidence as it would be possible. My opponent does not argue against the arguments portraying to morality as well as I do. My opponent's case has fundamental structure flaws. My opponent fails to refute my arguments very effectively. I do a much better job in defending my case than he does. I successfully carried out my burden, when my opponent failed in carrying his. Awesome debate- hope to hear more from you!