Is the United States justified in torturing terrorist suspects.

It has been very interesting and enjoyable. Saying that, some of the avenues in this debate are getting a little stale as we circle around the same points. I will therefore make a final case, and then very briefly defend my previous points. Let's first look at some common ground. My opponent has never argued with my point that under certain circumstances, torture is moral. For example, where not torturing would lead to the death of many people. We also agree that the United States has carried out acts of torture in many abhorrent ways that we both condemn. This splits our points of disagreement into three rough camps: whether the circumstances actually exist in the United States that would make torture moral; whether international law would make such torture unjust; and whether the act of torture would create a slippery slope ending with the habitual torture of every American criminal and prisoner of war. As previously stated, the intelligence services in the United States operate under an impenetrable cloak of secrecy. I think, however, it is possible to say for certain that there are many people in the world who are actively planning acts of mass murder of American citizens. From time to time one is caught. If the only way to prevent these acts of mass murder from taking place is to extract information from the seized person, then, when no other option exists, torture is moral. As I said before, justification arrises from the circumstances - it will not be moral to torture most terrorist suspects, but there will be some where torture is the only moral course. It is fair to say that the burden of proof is on my opponent for showing that torture in the United States is made unjust by international law. This is a burden he has failed to carry. There is a difference between what is legal (be it constitutional, or under international law) and what is just. Laws come and go, but what is just remains. Incidentally, if my opponent is trying to make legal arguments, he should know that the US is not a member of the ICC. The third point, the slippery slope, also places the burden of proof with my opponent. I have given example methods of preventing this from occurring, but he doesn't comment on those and keeps blindly implying it will occur anyway. I am afraid my opponent has employed something of a scatter-gun technique - giving ill-thought through responses to the minutiae of half of my arguments without commenting on the others or confronting my central thrust. He has attempted to support his arguments by referencing a film character and a paper that I suspect he has never read. Vote Pro. ---------------------------------- For those interested, the defense of my previous points: Firstly, let's try to back out of this rabbit hole we've run down over the word "necessary": "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. " The word is not abusive, as there are two courses of action, two different outcomes, and a choice. I have asserted the course which I believe is logical. I made the point "certain things, such as torture and killing people, are in isolation wrong. They can be ethical, however, if the alternative is worse". My opponent asked where we draw the line. Purely logically, the answer is simple: things that are in isolation wrong become ethical at exactly the point when the alternative is worse, for some definition of "worse". "Worse" would need to be pre-defined. Elsewhere in my arguments, I tried to use armed police as an example of this point, but unfortunately my explanation was not clear enough for my opponent to understand the link. For the police to shoot someone they suspect of being criminal, without a fair trial by jury, is in isolation wrong. If the consequences of not shooting them are worse, for example if the suspect is about to kill other people, then it becomes ethical. This is not a slippery slope. My opponent then claims that if there exists a person that the US can justify torturing, it will then torture all prisoners of war. I utterly disagree. Torture is sometimes a necessary evil. It is not something that countries look for excuses to do for the hell of it. Even if it was, a bit of regulation can work wonders. If my opponent really wants me to take points like this seriously, he needs to supply some kind of reasoning or reference. The quote I gave from the judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit spoke of a theoretical situation that obviously has not occurred yet. My opponent asked why the Government would hide a victory in the war against terror. Oh my, there are so many reasons. They do not want to reveal how much they know. They do not to alarm the public. They do not want to jeopardise any other operations. They do not want to betray any secrets given by other governments. I am not sure whether the United States has an equivalent of the British thirty year rule (more formally, Public Records Act 1958), but if my opponent really thinks that governments do not keep this sort of information classified, he should look at the contents of the recently-declassified papers of the 1970s. My opponent then answers his own question about Guantanamo Bay. He also asks about when torture is stopped. If torture is to be used legally, there must be maximum lengths for torture defined under law. My opponent keeps talking about the ICC. The United States has not joined the ICC. Also, I refer back to the distinction between legal and just. My opponent asked whether "we should ignore our responsibilities as a hegemon and those stated by the constitution when it proves easier? ". Of course not - who said anything about "easier"? The reality is that all human rights are moderated by the rights of others. My opponent asks again about where to draw the line - my response is the same. My opponent then accuses me of being lacking in personal knowledge, and then references a very obscure paper which I suspect he has never read (he refers to it but makes no points from it). Since it is not in the university library of my city, nor is it one of the 920,000 journals in the British Library, I have not had a chance to read it. From the little that is freely available online, it seems to be making the point that if the U. S. tortures suspected terrorists, then captured uniformed U. S. soldiers will risk being tortured themselves. Unfortunately, captured U. S. soldiers are already at risk from being tortured - terrorists do not tend to follow the Geneva conventions. -------------------------- [If you've come to the bottom of this argument looking for the summary, please find it at the top. ]