The use of torture is justified in ticking time bomb situations.

Overview I will start with condensing this debate. Pro agreed that torture is not guaranteed; he claims, “Interrogation must be tried without knowing how useful the outcome will be”. This concession alters the scope of this debate to if we should use torture on the chance that it might allow us to obtain useful information; the moral arguments are now the crux of our determination of justification. Pro’s stance is the possible outcome of saving many lives outweighs harming the individuals involved. My stance is that there isn’t enough assurance that we will save lives to justify torture. Now to address his attacks. As our first points directly clash, I will affirm my first 3 subpoints to address his point. Water boarding is effective a) My opponent states that acceptance of my ineffectiveness argument also negates the use of friendly interrogation, as it is flawed. This ignores the burden of torture’s unique moral harms, not present in the alternative. Also, friendly interrogation methods aren’t static – they’re constantly evolving, hence the new psychological research being done to enhance non-violent interrogation techniques.7 My opponent discusses how a detainee may be caught in a lie encouraging them to share the truth; he then uses Rodriquez to show nonviolent techniques are ineffective. Yet, the first option doesn’t require torture - both are non-violent interrogation techniques being investigated by HIG.7 Furthermore, a study investigated how bad “torture interrogators” are at detecting lies, and sometimes they were worse than civilians.11 Torture interrogation doesn’t teach the skills needed in ticking time bomb situations; emphasizing friendly interrogation promotes researching effective ways to obtain information. b) My opponent argues that the struggles of a terrorist organization can be overcome; while this is true in a few specific cases, my goal wasn’t to prove that under every circumstance this will hinder us. However, this point does add to why interrogation is likely to yield inaccurate information, further weakening the justification of its use. c) My opponent failed to attack my sources, or the idea (seen above in a) that HIG is improving nonviolent torture through research. As my second point clashes with Pro’s, I shall first rebuild my case and then attack the argumentation that supports his. Water boarding is non-lethal a) My opponent attacks this with two arguments – first, that the terrorists already commit horrendous acts; second, that torture can be only a face slap. 1- The fact that someone has already committed horrendous acts, and/or may plan to in the future doesn’t give us the right to strip them of their human dignity. Logic like this shapes torture as an act of revenge where we punish the detainee for their decisions, thus shifting the focus away from the desire to obtain useful information. 2- While torture, as defined by the CIA, can simply consist of a face slap, the majority of my opponent’s case is justifying water boarding. Looking at the potential benefit of the information water boarding may yield requires accepting its consequences. Furthermore, since the debate is if the use of all of these methods would be justified in a ticking time bomb situation, we must consider the most extreme options this includes. b) The Milgram Experiment reveals how an individual will perform horrendous acts on another if instructed to.10 Applying this our debate, people would follow orders to torture an individual and their harm isn’t considered or felt until afterward. His Case: My opponent responded to my logical critique (that reporters and other people willingly underwent this procedure, but the effects they felt don’t apply to someone who was tortured without consent) by simply claiming they would have sued if harmed. This doesn’t address how these cases are un-relatable. My opponent then claims that risks are part of the job, but his fireman entering the Twin Towers metaphor is flawed. First, alternatives exist to achieve reasonably similar means, without burdening a torturer. Second, the firemen’s reaction was a direct response – in the moment they decided to risk their lives to save others. In the instance we are discussing, torturing another would happen after much forethought, both by the torturer and everyone who participated in acquiring a “torture warrant”. Finally, as the Milgram Experiment backs, the torturer doesn’t consider their own psychological harm, they simply follow instructions. The alternative is rendition In this point Pro stated that if we don’t allow ourselves to conduct torture, we will simply render criminals when we need information. This was countered by my rendition example. This was an attack on my opponent’s claim that the Bush administration pushed for more “enhanced interrogation techniques” to prevent rendition - it still occurred with al-Libi. c Also, my opponent claims that even Obama recognizes the need for torture, however, Obama is a supporter of the HIG group that promotes nonviolent interrogation.7 8 There is a slippery slope My opponent claims that not allowing torture would have long-term ramifications, stating, “the slippery slope is to eliminating interrogation entirely”. This is actually the current status quo, as dictated by numerous international laws, including some set forward by the UN.12 Sources 1 I included Deshowitz because he concedes that reliability can’t be guaranteed, “Torture, it turns out, can sometimes produce truthful information. ” Only sometimes. As stated in the opening, this greatly shifts the debate. 2 This links to the abstract of a paper I was able to obtain in full and directly quoted in my case, so I was not “generalizing” the support as my opponent claims. 3 This opinion comes from the Center for Victims of Torture, as I stated, and the opinion is qualified as they work with people who have been subjected to torture. 4 unattacked 5 unattacked 6 This was a testimony about someone with 14 years of experience who authored a book on this subject, who attests to the inefficiency of torture interrogation and advocates for friendly methods under all circumstances. 7 Unattacked 8 Unattacked 9 links to the source for Xenakis’ paper that directly outlines the harms of torture. I found it available at the following source: . http://tinyurl.com... 10 links to a summary of the Milgram Experiment a Pro misconstrues this as it is directly said, “There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. ” b this article said, “Abu Zubaida was not even an official member of al-Qaeda” c unattacked Summary Given the moral repercussions of torture and the unlikelihood of its success, we can’t justify its use. New Sources 11 . http://tinyurl.com... 12 . http://www.un-documents.net...