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

"Senator John McCain said: "And most importantly, [enhanced interrogation] serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us. And I've seen concrete examples of that talking to former high-ranking al-Qaeda individuals in Iraq."" -My opponent should not have put "enhanced interrogation" in the brackets as that is misleading. He should have put waterboarding. McCain said "...[waterboarding] serves as a great propaganda tool..." only because he believes that waterboarding is torture. Waterboarding is not torture, and my opponent has failed to prove that waterboarding is torture. "American allies are represented in the UN, which has condemned EIT's as torture. If asked whether these allies will stand behind the UN or Bush, they will be more inclined to support the UN." -Once again, my opponent fails to back up this assertion with a source. He backed up the British and Canadian points, but not this one. "The issue of whether EIT's are legal or not according to the Federal government has nothing to do with whether EIT's are torture. The Federal government can just as easily rule that torture is legal, as it seemed to do with these unsourced memos and legal documents." -EIT's are not torture because: 1) The same techniques are being used on our own American serviceman in Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE). America does not torture it's own servicemen. 2) EIT's leave no lasting physical or psychological effects. 3) Former President George W. Bush has said that the "the U.S. does not torture." (1) Please prove to me how EIT's are torture. "...customary international law is not federal law and that the President is free to override it at his discretion." -"The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution states that the Constitution itself "and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby." Take most notice at "under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land", federal law clearly trumps international law. "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld states that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the "war on terrorism". The Court ruled that torture of detainees violates both United States and international law." -That is all true. It does not prove that EIT's are torture though. So this statement holds no value to my opponent's argument. "Why would Vessey state, "Through those years, we held our own values. We should continue to do so"? In this context, his statement would make absolutely no sense. If the only thing Vessey is referring to here is "that terrorists are just as smart and tactful as organized armies", why would he say that we need to hold our values?" -I am not arguing the morals of EIT's. I am arguing that EIT's enhance the national security of the U.S. Maybe, I do believe that EIT's are in fact immoral. But that would not change the fact that EIT's enhance the national security of the U.S. "I said the morality of torture will not be discussed. I said nothing about the moral basis of the fight against terrorism." -I will say it again. Morals do not matter when it comes to national security. EIT's and the fight against terrorism may in fact be immoral, but that does not change the fact the EIT's enhance the national security of the U.S. "Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi (debate)" -Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's Counter Terrorism Center, [said], "[Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi is] carried off to Egypt, who (referring to the Egyptians) torture him." The Egyptians may or may not have used EIT's or torture against him, but the fact is, is that no part of the American government did this. If American military forces did to this to al-Libi, then I would probably have a different opinion, but this is not the case, as the Egyptians did it. (2) "Interrogator Ali Soufan attested to the superiority of traditional methods over EIT's in 2009: "Under traditional interrogation methods, [Zubaydah] provided us with important actionable intelligence."" -I call this hearsay. There are no documents that agree with this statement. Cheney (paraphrasing) said, "EIT's worked". But that does not hold up in this debate as well. Also, Zubaydah gave valuable information that led to the capture of Binalshibh whose information led authorities to Mohammed, the confessed mastermind behind the September 11 attacks and the man who personally cut-off the head of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. (3) "It's a bit strange that we can say for certain that EIT's were the only interrogation techniques that could have possibly worked, when others weren't utilized." -Of course other interrogation techniques were used. The interrogators do not go right into the room and use EIT's against the prisoners right away. The interrogators use standard, FBI-like interrogations before the EIT's. But the interrogators realized that standard interrogations will not work against some of the most ruthless people on the face of the Earth and are forced to turn to EIT's. "Aside from the fact that "ticking time bomb scenarios" should not happen the in the first place (if our national security is competent), they are rare. It is not wise to make policy decisions in a lifeboat." -Of course they are rare, but it is important to keep them on the table. If we knew an attack was going to happen on U.S. soil in a very short amount of time, we need to be able to get information quickly. Standard interrogations are not quick. They are long, drawn out processes that take time. "In addition, what keeps the terrorist (in the rare event of a ticking time bomb) from giving the wrong information repeatedly, over and over again? This wastes the time of the investigators who could be seeking actionable intelligence. Knowing the investigators will not resort to even more extreme forms of torture, the terrorist can fool the investigators until the time bomb explodes." -Nothing keeps the terrorist from giving the wrong information, but there is a chance that he will give accurate information. But if EIT's were taken off the table, the terrorist would know there is no threat to him so he can just sit on his comfy chair and say nothing instead. I said earlier, "Three former CIA Directors and the current CIA direcor have testified before congress that EIT's work and they need to be left on the table." And you responded, "The CIA may be nonpartisan, but it always acts in its own self-interest. If the Directors knowingly approved of EIT's, they have no choice but to testify they work. Otherwise, they would be seen as incompetent. It is these Directors' responsibilities to themselves and to the CIA as an organization to give that testimony, even if they have to stretch the truth." -You never disproved my point that they said "they need to be left on the table". So that point stands. It is that kind of thinking that the Founding Fathers feared more than anything. But don't take my word for it: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine" (Thomas Jefferson). A majority vote of the populace does not legitimize any action. -I am not saying it "legitimize[s] any action" but what I am saying is that the American people know that morals and foreign policy do not intersect, and that is why the majority supports EIT's. "EIT's that are used in training American forces are not torture. They are not used to obtain the truth." -Correct. Just like EIT's against terrorists are not torture. EIT's used in SERE are to train forces to resist revealing the truth in situations where EIT's are being used against them. EIT's gain valuable information. Will add to this in round 4. *Sources in Comments section