The United States should allow the limited use of torture.

===> INTRO <=== I thank Freeman for an interesting and well thought out response. This round seems to have brought out the key differences that form the basis of our disagreement. I would like to go into much greater depth on political philosophy, but unfortunately the limitations of the format make it impossible to do them justice. PRO has also introduced a new argument in an attempt to salvage his primary claim that torture is a feasible means of gathering information. However, far from helping his case, the brain scanning technology he claims can be used to make torture more effective ultimately renders it wholly unnecessary. As one final note before entering the body of my case, I will not be specifically addressing PRO's Third Contention regarding collateral damage. I have made my case about the efficacy of torture and agree with my opponent that the question ought to be viewed in this light. ===> NEGATIVE CASE <=== C1 - Torture Violates International and Domestic Law Before going into detail on philosophy of government, I want to respond to my opponent's flawed comparison of war and torture. I pointed out that, historically, torture has led to massive rights violations and unnecessary human suffering; it is a dangerous power government should not be trusted with. Shockingly, PRO responds that the same could be said of war, and if war is allowed, why not torture? This reasoning is fallacious – three rights may indeed make a left, but two wrongs do not make a right![1] War is immoral and tragic. Unfortunately, there is no way to outlaw it. The best we can do is make sure never to engage in any war of aggression, and, when attacked, adhere to some form of Just War philosophy. My opponent has largely avoided the key issue here. Of the two possibilities I mentioned – either legalizing torture or doing it in spite of the law – he has apparently chosen the latter. This positively Orwellian notion amounts to a reversal of more than two millennia of progress in western jurisprudence. Rule of Law dictates that leaders must, by moral necessity, be held to the same standards as any other citizen. No one is above the law. This is the key to any civil society. Besides torturing terror suspects, Presidents Bush and Obama have allowed the CIA to wiretap American citizens without a warrant, imprison them without due process, and in one case, even ordered an assassination.[2] Does the president really have that kind of power? If he does, then under the theory that these actions are considered permissible, are there *any* actions that can on their face be prohibited? It is naï¿½ve and dangerous to allow our leaders' wisdom and restraint to be the sole check on their own worst impulses. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "in questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." C2 – Torture Creates Blowback Risk PRO seems to want to dismiss this argument without actually addressing it. He has failed to show how my source is "irrelevant." Regardless of how one attempts to justify it, prisoner abuse has created and will continue to create animosity and hatred toward America. Even if one ticking time bomb is defused (a very unlikely scenario), it makes it much more likely that more attempts will be made. My opponent also claims that many instances where torture could be acceptable exist outside the context of war. While this seems hypothetically plausible, it is nonetheless an extremely remote possibility. A hostile foreign government or terrorist organization is infinitely more likely to develop or acquire a weapon of mass destruction. Fortunately, psychotic billionaires of the Bond villain variety are, at least for now, confined to the realm of fiction. C3 - In Fourth Generation Warfare, the Moral Battle is Crucial While it may have been an honest mistake, my opponent's response was nonetheless a strawman built on equivocation. Clarifying the definition of the word "moral" has done absolutely nothing to change the substance of my argument. Given the context, my meaning was perfectly clear from the start. I summarized the core of my contention by quoting William S. Lind: "don't do anything to someone else that, if it were done to you, would make you fight." I further expanded on this by citing the example of the French experience in Algiers as a classic case of winning the battle but losing the war due to their ruthless policies. My opponent's attempt to label my defense as petty and semantic belies the fact that he has not adequately refuted this point. ===> REBUTTALS <=== C1 – Torture Can Be a Feasible Means of Gathering Information PRO claims that neuroimaging lie detectors could increase the effectiveness of torture. This technology already exists, though serious questions remain regarding its reliability. In fact, it was recently deemed inadmissible as evidence in court.[3] So far, it has only been tested under controlled lab conditions with healthy, cooperative individuals. Similar to the way a polygraph measures physiological changes to detect deception, fMRI scanners must establish a neural baseline.[4] This can be extremely difficult to do with an uncooperative terror suspect, especially while being subjected to torture. Much more importantly, brain scanning technology puts the final nail in the coffin of my opponent's case. If it proves effective, torture would be rendered obsolete. Brain fingerprinting, as it is called, can detect patterns in oxygen flow to specific areas of the brain when subjected to a visual stimulus. Detainees can be shown images of suspected terrorists, locations, or equipment and the scanner can determine if they recognize them.[5] Even the most unwilling, uncooperative suspects would have no way of resisting. C2 – Torture Can Be Ethically Justified in Certain Situations As much as my opponent would like you to believe, the consensus opinion is not that a nuclear attack is inevitable. The UN article he cites is merely a long list of protocols for preventing nuclear proliferation. It only makes a brief mention of the actually thread in the preamble. According to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, "NATO's nuclear weapons are stored under highly secure conditions. They have been well-tested and meet the highest safety standards. The U.S. PAL devices ensure an additional safeguard against accidental or unauthorized use. Allies are confident in the safety and security of their nuclear weapons."[6] While I'm glad PRO agrees that torture is inappropriate in situations where enormous numbers of lives aren't at stake, he has still avoided a crucial ethical question. Is it ethically justifiable to torture the innocent family members of a suspected terrorist? As per my opponent's own reasoning, if many lives are at stake, I can only conclude that he believes this is indeed allowable. I on the other, hand, believe that the torture of any innocent person, regardless of any outcome that can attained by it, is always prima facie morally wrong. The ends simply do not justify the means. ---> CONCLUSION The risk of potentially catastrophic scenario that can only be prevented through torture is utterly detached from reality. This sort of alarmism ultimately poses a greater threat to both liberty and security than any terrorist organization ever could. Even if such cases existed, torture is ineffective. Even if technology were developed to make torture effective, it would render it unnecessary. I thank Freeman for a stimulating debate. I would also like to thank the audience for reading and voting. The resolution has been strongly NEGATED. -- SOURCES -- http://tinyurl.com...