George W. Bush violated Human rights, and claimed it stopped Foreign Terror attacks, which it didn't

Since Islamic terrorists are bound by a religious concept of jihad, it's clear that it was religion that distinguished them as terrorists, not selection by Bush. I would be equally errant to claim that because Nazi war criminals were German it proved they were being discriminated against on grounds of national origin." You are technically correct, but it must be noted that there are "Jihadist" practiced in other religions as well. The Christians had nine huge ones (the crusades), Nazis (as you noted) and neonazis were Jihadists. The KKK? Jihadists. Skinheads? Yup. And how about the Jews? Hanukkah? The celebration of the MaccaJihad. My point is, we can lock up Jihadists, but we have to be equal opportunity about it. "His ref (1) says that detainees are accommodated in their religious practices, in contradiction of his contention that they are discriminated against. " They are discriminated in the fact that it is a concentration camp, not that they weren't allowed to practice their religion. "I find no reference that all are Muslim, although I don't doubt they are, since that's what it takes to be a jihadist." It says something about how every new prisoner is issued a Qu'ran. "Ref (2) doesn't establish that there are detainees not tied to the war." The issue, though is that they don't know, because they never had a fair trial. "Pro concedes that Fifth amendment rights were not violated." In the most literal of terms, that is correct. However, it really is open to interpretation as to whether it violates (or skims on) the fifth amendment. "It is not torture because, if performed properly by trained personnel it causes no permanent mental or physical harm." I'm sorry? Where did you get your definition? Let's ask our old friend, Mr. Webster. Torture (1); n Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle Date: 1540 1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain 2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure 3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining Torture (2); transitive verb 1 : to cause intense suffering to : torment 2 : to punish or coerce by inflicting excruciating pain 3 : to twist or wrench out of shape : distort , warp Where do you see anything about lasting damage? Also, thank you for that link. I found it very interesting. Especially because it proves my point about waterboarding. Almost down to the letter. Here is the quote from the passage, "Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture." Here is my quote, "Call it what you want, but if waterboarding isn't torture, what is?" So, you seem to have inadvertently proven my point. Thank you for that. And, speaking of that definition of torture that we were disputing, it doesn't even really matter. Here's what you said, " It is not torture because, if performed properly by trained personnel it causes no permanent mental or physical harm." This is in the article you referenced, "'Water boarding' is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body." But what blew my mind was the title of the article that you referenced in order to persuade me that waterboarding was torture. The title of the article was, "Believe Me, It's Torture." Bet you didn't think your own reference would backfire so much, huh... "If it is deemed torture, it is nonetheless not a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual *punishment.* The three times it was used, it was not used as punishment. It was used to extract information." That makes perfect sense. I'll concede that torture might not violate the 8th amendment. Doesn't make it any less illegal, though. How about the U.N. "Universal declaration of Human Rights?" Try article 5 of that. And while you're at it, try articles 9, 10, and 11.1. If you don't like that, it's also illegal under the Geneva convention. So, even if the 8th amendment doesn't specifically prohibit torture in that sense, torture is illegal, and WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE. "It was used to extract information. As such, it is a reasonable tradeoff of whatever rights the detainees have to saving the lives of dozens or hundreds of civilians." Polygraphs are just as effective as torture, if not more. Although terrorists are said to train to beat the polygraph, they are also trained to lie under torture. Although the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act of 2001 does violate the 4th amendment, and it should be repealed, they could get a warrant to tap the phone calls of suspected terrorists, and then bring them in for further polygraph tests if they seem suspicious. But torture is primitive, inhumane, and illegal. And as Mr. Dershowitz didn't seem to understand, the fact that torture happens doesn't make it any less illegal. "Pro asserts that the statement by the Administration (in his ref 4) that 'I will protect the people and at the same time conform with the findings of the Supreme Court.' amounts to claiming that human rights will be violated." Reread what I said. "Similarly, there had been no attacks by dive bombers on a Navy base in the US for the 200 years prior to Pearl Harbor, so by Pro's logic it should be considered unremarkable that FDR prevented further such attacks, especially considering that during the FDR administration there were an unprecedented number of attacks by foreign aircraft worldwide." You are correct. There is no evidence that FDR prevented anything. The reason that he was such a great president was that he fixed the economy and he LED us very strongly through WWII. The fact that we only got attacked once is irrelevant. "By Pro's argument, FDR did no more in WWII than Bush did in the war against terrorism. " So, by your logic, the ONLY part of war is preventing attacks on the homeland. That is a part, yes, but we made progress in WWII. But, that's a different debate, and if I go into that, I will undoubtedly run out of room. As it happened, George W. Bush vetoed the ban on waterboarding, thereby allowing what most agree is torture. Torture is undoubtedly illegal. That is a huge human rights violation. If he was a CEO of a company which was found out to do something half as bad, he would have been kindly asked to step down. As president, he was protected by the second and third in command, who were just as bad, or worse. On his second day as president, Barack Obama signed an order to close Guantanamo Bay federal detention camp. that was a giant leap in the right direction, and we will see how that turns out. All of the detainees will be put on trial. I have no doubt that some will be found innocent. Some will be found guilty. They will go to a prison where they are treated like prisoners, not dirt. " Pro has provided no evidence that Bush thought he was violating human rights, so it follows that Bush would not claim to be violating them." When did I ever say that he admitted to violating human rights? No one, not even George W. Bush would do that. I would like to thank my opponent for a most excellent debate. I honestly don't have any idea of who will come out with the most votes, because we both argued quite well (although you might want to check your sources before posting them =-]). So, thank you for accepting this debate, and may the better man win! (and I almost used up all of my characters!)