Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, such as waterboarding, enhance the national security of the U.S.

I accept my opponent's definitions. My argument is that Enhanced Interrogation Techniques undermine the national security of the United States. The morality of torture will not be discussed. With the opportunity to begin the debate, I shall start with the claim that Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (from hereon referred to as "EIT's") at once endanger the lives of American troops and American civilians. EIT's compromise the safety and undermine the effectiveness of American troops abroad by providing a recruiting tool that plays into the hands of the terrorists, growing their numbers. It does so by reinforcing an image of the American imperialist behemoth that will stop at nothing to destroy the enemy and civilians. The promotion of EIT's leads only to the polarization that afflicts the region, and continues the self-defeating cycle towards the destruction of the Middle East. Enhanced interrogations create a significant amount of animosity abroad, particularly in the Middle East, which fosters radicalism and terrorism. Many of the United States greatest allies are repulsed by the United States' use of EIT's(1). This hampers willingness to cooperate with the United States in the war on terrorism. Because the war on terrorism is a global effort requiring the cooperation of foreign governments, such a diplomatic failure is an intolerable result of the use of EIT's. This is because "enhanced interrogation" is torture. On May 19, 2006, the UN Committee against Torture issued a report stating the U.S. should stop, what it concludes, is "ill-treatment" of detainees, since such treatment violates international law(2). Not only do EIT's, as a form of torture, go against international law, but they violate United States constitutional law. Cruel and unusual punishment is a statement implying that governments shall not inflict such treatment for crimes, regardless of their degree of severity. In the case of suspected terrorists, the presumption inherent prior to the implementation of aggressive interrogation tactics is that the suspect is guilty of a kind of a "crime" (terrorism). This is used to justify the use of aggressive tactics. But, these tactics certainly constitute "cruel and unusual" techniques for the "crime" of terrorism (although due process in convicting a suspected for this "crime" is lacking). EIT's violate due process. The assumption in interrogations is a suspected terrorist is guilty of committing terrorism. If not guilty, the practice of interrogation of any kind would be extremely grevious. But no trial and judicial process for this takes place, and the prisoner usually remains unaccussed of any particular crime. So there is no certainty that they are guilty, even while the practice of aggressive interrogations may move forward regardless. For this reason, EIT's violate due process and worse, implement punishment against a suspect before any due process has been had. Suspected terrorists are not simply imprisoned without due process, but they are interrogated, tortured, or punished. Terrorists are not a "different kind" of enemy. Letter from General John Vessey, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Senator McCain opposing a proposed redefinition of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, September 12, 2006(3): "I continue to read and hear that we are facing a ‘different enemy' in the war on terror; no matter how true that may be, inhumanity and cruelty are not new to warfare nor to enemies we have faced in the past. In my short 46 years in the armed forces Americans confronted the horrors of prison camps of the Japanese in World War II, the North Koreans in 1950-53, and the North Vietnamese in the long years of the Vietnam War, as well as knowledge of the Nazi's holocaust depredations during World War II. Through those years, we held our own values. We should continue to do so." A September 13, 2006 Letter from General Colin Powell to Senator McCain on the subject of enhanced interrogations(4): "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore it would put our own troops at risk." Those who have served in Iraq experienced these costs in blood, as the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay scandals prompted droves of angry young men to take up arms and join the anti-American resistance. Defenders of aggressive methods claim that the only good question is whether useful intelligence was collected. Just as important, however, is whether bad intelligence has been collected. If these interrogations produced bad intelligence, leading the U.S. astray and diverting resources, then these methods are worse than inefficient; they undermine our national security. In the case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who described to his Egyptian captors a false link between Saddam and al-Qaeda in order to avoid torture. Torture arguably contributed to the creation of a false premise that led to an unnecessary war, which distracted Americans from locating and destroying the real threat in Afghanistan(5). In the eyes of terrorists, this was a victory. There is little reason to believe that subjecting terrorist operatives to cruel, inhuman or degrading practices, yields more or better intelligence than other methods. EIT's compromise American troops by potentially misdirecting intelligence resources along false paths. EIT's are less effective than non-coercive techniques because claims about their effectiveness are questionable at best, and even if they were more effective, they are not justified. They are not justified because they, as forms of torture, are in violation of American and international law, according to the UN. Claims about EIT's effectiveness are questionable. The CIA used waterboarding 183 times against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in 2003 and 83 times in 2002 against Abu Zubaydah. This is in contrast to the claim that "Abu Zubaydah... broke in less than a minute"(6). This suggests that claims of their effectiveness are questionable and exaggerated by a government that supported their use. EIT's are ineffective. The Washington Post published on January 11, 2007(7): "There is almost no scientific evidence to back up the U.S. intelligence community's use of controversial interrogation techniques in the fight against terrorism, and experts believe some painful and coercive approaches could hinder the ability to get good information, according to a new report from an intelligence advisory group." EIT's are one more example of the Right's tendency towards anti-intellectualism, the rejection of science, and the treatment of intuitions as superior to actual scientific evidence. Ultimately, enhanced interrogation techniques are a betrayal of our national security objectives. They are self-defeating, lead to the growth of the terrorist ranks, undermine the moral standing of America in the world, waste resources in the intelligence community, and thus make the nation less secure, more open to attack, and leave us unable to rebuild a tarnished image in the world community. -------- (1) = http://blogs.usatoday.com... (2) = http://news.bbc.co.uk... (3) = http://www.humanrightsfirst.org... (4) = http://www.humanrightsfirst.org... (5) = http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (6) = http://www.washingtonpost.com... (7) = http://www.washingtonpost.com... -------