Waterboarding is An Acceptable Means of Intelligence Gathering

R1. Definitions He begins by introducing new definitions. While he cites “a cause of mental agony or worry” as a definition of torture, if we take that literally then all of us have experienced torture. That is like saying that because one of the definitions for the word “love” is “sexual passion or desire” that anyone who’s had sex has experienced real love. [1] R2. Torture Victims Pro and Con I offered three examples of former POWs who have experienced actual torture, all of whom agree with waterboarding. My opponent offered an identical example of a former POW who is against it. Does his example negate mine, and if so, how? Waterboarding has been used for decades in the training of our own Special Forces with no ill effects and the full support of Congress. For Con to argue the point that it's torture, then he must also admit thus: a) We have been torturing our own troops for over 60 years with regularity; b) Congress—including opponents of waterboarding terrorists—has known about and accepted this “torture”; c) Congress has officially put the welfare and humanity of mass murderers and conspirators above that of our own citizenry. My opponent brings up PTSD and rape in an effort to claim that these are torture. Con argues that any emotional trauma in someone’s mind makes the causal factor an act of torture. This is fallacious. Another point that bears mention is the mindset of the three subjects who were waterboarded. They were men who spent the better part of their lives actively planning and reveling in the idea of the deaths of Americans. What’s more, they were actively involved in a group that engages in torture on a routine basis, including sawing the heads off of innocent people on video. Who is more deserving of our protection--our own countrymen, or those trying to kill us? My opponent also mentions Chinese Water Torture. In Season 3 of Mythbusters, the idea that CWT can cause someone to go insane was proven—but not like he says. Episode notes show that “The required torture equipment (and involuntary movement restrictions) is highly effective even without adding the discomfort of the water drip. The water drip itself. .. is almost negligible. ” [2] Hence, it’s not the water drops that cause the insanity, it’s being restrained. Also, Con insinuates that the drip is on a schedule. In actuality, CWT is most effective when it's NOT on a schedule, as they also found. Since Con’s information on this topic is incorrect, his argument using CWT is null and void. Con wonders how I would answer if I were waterboarded or given CWT. Perhaps Con should ask those who have been subjected to both—such as every member of the Special Forces, Navy SEALS, Delta Force, and Long Range Recon since World War II, as well as all CIA interrogators and operatives. Waterboarding is not something we pulled out of an Inquisition manual ten years ago. It is a tried and true method that we have been using on our own men for six decades. R3: Justification Here, Con misquotes me, claiming that I used Denton “to explain why what the NVA did was worse than torture, which is a non-sequitur. ” Please allow me to re-post the actual quote: “Denton says now that ‘Waterboarding is not an evil. Some of the things [the NVA] did to us were torture. I passed out a dozen times from torture. We’re not exerting that kind of excruciation. ’ [emphasis added] As you can see, Con mischaracterizes my statement and uses it to bolster his argument. In fact, no non-sequitur occurred. He then says that “Just because one version of torture may be considered worse torture doesn't invalidate the other side,” which is true. Unfortunately, in making this statement he agrees that waterboarding, if it is in fact even torture at all, is not as bad as other forms, thus partially negating his own argument. R4: Sources Con’s tossing out of my sources because they are mostly government is amusing, since he uses government officials for his own argument. Con would have us believe that those who are in a position to speak on the effectiveness of the practice only have valid opinions if they agree with him that waterboarding is wrong. According to his logic, anyone who has engaged in it or experienced it and still agrees with the practice must be assumed to be part of the “shadowy underworld. ” The truth is, there will be opinions on both sides, even within the "shadow community. " Just like there are conscientious objectors in the military, not everyone in the intelligence community is willing to use waterboarding. However, it’s important to look at the example of the CIA agent I quoted in the first round. He actually believes waterboarding is torture—and still agrees that it was necessary. [3] He personally would not perform it, but says circumstances still warranted its use. Con states that we “have no way of verifying [government] claims without actually watching the interrogation videos of Mohammed…" I ask Con if the videos of Nick Berg being beheaded, or of American soldiers’ mutilated bodies being dragged through the dirt convinced him that we’re dealing with an evil enemy. Does he believe that seeing the videos of KSM’s interrogation would possibly convince him that the methods used were warranted? As for Con’s query about control measures to see how many people gave credible information as opposed to “wild goose chases,” this is simply not a valid argument. Firstly, any statistics given would immediately be thrown out by Con due to his already-stated disbelief of any member of the intelligence community who does not agree with him. Secondly, how does Con propose to even measure such a thing? And how much credible information justifies waterboarding’s use? He offers hypotheticals knowing that he doesn’t find them valid, then asks “What if bin Laden wasn’t stupid enough to tell anyone about his whereabouts? ” Osama is dead because we got him. Con cannot use a false situation to argue a point when the opposite of his hypothesis already happened and proved his argument incorrect. Con states that “Just to verify their claims could take days, weeks, months, or years,” but ignores: a) Other methods of interrogation, such as sleep deprivation, exposure to cold or hot environments, or prolonged standing take the same amount of time, during which they have NO information to go on; b) After one session of waterboarding, interrogators are always given information. Is it a “waste of government resources” if that information turns out to be false, but leads to true information later? Intelligence is a painstaking process, and involves chasing down false leads that may lead somewhere and may not. Police detectives follow every lead regardless of its seeming falsity—because it just might be real, or lead to that. R5: Testimonials Con refuses to see my sources as valid, even though they operate in the same circles as his own. I view his sources as educated, and entitled to their opinion. I will mention, however, that Terrence Russell, a SERE instructor who Con cites as being against waterboarding, is actually in favor of it, and has taught it. He's against “something that would cause permanent physical damage. ” [4] In fact, he personally waterboarded trainees. Con's sources take quotes against torture and use them to bolster the idea that these men are against waterboarding. They aren't—because they don't see waterboarding as torture. R6: Conclusion The Constitution mentions these detainees, certainly—they’re called “enemies, foreign and domestic. ” The phrase “cruel and unusual” is not in the eye of beholder, nor does the Bill of Rights apply to enemies of the U. S. As for us not living in the Dark Ages, Con should take a trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. They do. [1]. http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...(season_3) #Chinese_Water_Torture [3] . http://abcnews.go.com... [4]. http://www.american-buddha.com...