Waterboarding should be legal in the United States.

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS Re: 1: Waterboarding is used to collect life-saving information The opponent states that there is a potential for saving innocent lives, and "the worst case for the detainee is that he is terrorized temporarily, but not permanently harmed." a. This, however, represents an unrealistically hypothetical situation. Here are the things that the scenario implies knowledge of: 1. Lives at stake: Are there lives at risk? Without knowing the type of bomb and location of the bomb (among other details), it is not possible to know. Without knowing with certainty that lives are at risk, is it right to submit someone to torture. 2. Terrorist's knowledge: There is no way of knowing, with certainty, that the terrorist who is being tortured actually knows the critical details about the bomb that investigators are looking for. Hence, the terrorist could be tortured to find information that he, in fact, does not know. Without certainty that the terrorist actually knows information about the bomb's details, one cannot justify the use of waterboarding. 3. Type of bomb: The scenario implies that investigators know, with certainty, what kind of bomb is being used. However, the knowledge of the type of bomb is typically not known with certainty. Hence, this unproven knowledge cannot be used to justify the use of torture (e.g., waterboarding) to find further information. 4: Location: The scenario implies that investigators know, with certainty, where the bomb is planted. And based off of that, the torture would be justified. In real life, the knowledge of the location is not known with certainty, in all cases. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the knowledge of the location can justify the use of torture (e.g., waterboarding.) The "ticking time bomb" scenario implicitly includes an invalid presumption that the decision-maker can know, in advance, the outcome of torture. However, this is never the case. Due to a substantial number of omitted uncertainties, the hypothetical ticking time bomb argument fails to justify the legalization of waterboarding. b. The opponent provides an example of a success story resulting from the use of waterboarding. Indeed, waterboarding CAN lead to positive results, but this does not prove its effectiveness. Perhaps an investigator can force a terrorist to release valid information by playing Justin Bieber songs to him; nonetheless, the Bieber approach still cannot be deemed effective based on the aforementioned example. c. The opponent states that the detainee would be "not permanently harmed." This will be disputed in my later argument. Re: 2: Safeguards prevent indiscriminate use b. a physician determine the mental trauma that is sustained by the victim after the incident and whether or not the trauma would be permanent. c. But it is impossible to know that the terrorist knows the information, that lives will be saved, or if there is even any information to be sought. The objective is founded on hypotheticals. d. There is a chance that known information that justifies the use of torture and suggests that there is "probable cause" will later be proven invalid. There is much uncertainty and "probable cause" is arbitrary, especially due to this lack of definite knowledge of the matter at hand. The quoted statement by Alan Dershowitz does not pose an argument; it is an appeal to authority. Re: 3: Waterboarding is effective This argument is founded on specific instances in which waterboarding was used and success came out of it. In addition, cherry-picked figures are quoted in support of waterboarding. However, the statements form no factual indication that waterboarding is, all in all, effective. For example, Jose Rodriquez's statement is solely based on how he felt about the situation, that information could not have been acquired if waterboarding were not used; this, however, is not a proveable statement. As I will later show, waterboarding is not effective, overall. Re: 4: This basis for this argument is that waterboarding is not harmful. This will be contradicted later on. ARGUMENTS: 1: Waterboarding has a long-term negative psychological impact The effects of waterboarding include significant long-term post traumatic stress, anxiety, and depression. Submission to asphyxiation torture, such as waterboarding, can have many serious effects on one's life. Some subjected people fear showering and exercising. [1] A number of waterboarding survivors have a long-lasting inability to develop close and intimate relationships, and this profoundly affects marriage, families, and the ability to raise kids, but also long-lasting relationships are a key part in the success of working, so this form of withdrawal and non-trust seen in torture survivors is extremely disabling. [2] Waterboarding, as evaluated by those who underwent it, is described as painful; most of those who disagree have not experienced, and therefore, a so-called "empathy gap" exists. [3] The implementation of waterboarding in governmental affairs was designed and assured to be safe by two well-paid psychologists who had no interrogation experience and the CIA later announced that their "expertise" was probably "misrepresented." [4] It is supported by a very large number of health professionals and mental health clinicians/researchers that waterboarding leads to seriously adverse psychological effects. 2. Waterboarding is ineffective "And all too often, [torture] does not work. After John McCain was bound, kicked and exposed to the elements, beaten every few hours by a different guard, he signed a document confessing to war crimes. Because when you're tortured, you'll say anything. Anything. Anything. Anything." [5] Indeed, false information is often acquired from the use of waterboarding. People are willing to say anything to avoid the torture. Bad information fuels improper decisions and would, in a society that upholds waterboarding, lead to further waterboarding without justifiable cause. According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, released information that the CIA was looking for. As a direct result of this information, the Bush administration formed the conclusion that biochemical weapons were present in Iraq, and this (faulty) concept was used as the initial justification for waging war with Al Qaida in Iraq. [6] This came about because Libbi wanted to avoid the torment of waterboarding and was willing to appease the investigators with whatever they were looking for, true or not. 3. Consequences By torturing enemies, the enemy is more likely to react more harshly, escalating violence. By using torture in order to avoid violence, further violence is enabled, because opponents begin to feel as though, in vengeance, US soldiers may also be brutally tortured. This forms an international justification for torture, and in this way, it is counterintuitive, promoting violence through an attempt to prevent violence. "The interrogations, torture and socialization of prison turned most of the men rounded up by Mubarak into hardened militants, thirsty for revenge: they would become the foot soldiers of terrorism." [7] "Not only will torture create a dedicated core of anti-American jihadists, their stories will lose us the "hearts and minds" campaign with the larger Muslim population." [8] The resolution is deemed null. [1] http://www.time.com... [2] http://news.nurse.com... [3] http://www.cnn.com... [4] http://abcnews.go.com... [5] http://voices.yahoo.com... [6] http://abcnews.go.com... [7] Book: http://www.hup.harvard.edu... [8] http://www.au.af.mil...