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

"So far, my opponent has argued that EIT's are torture, illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral, among other things. This may or may not be true but has no significance to the topic of the debate; in which my opponent has to prove that EIT's compromise the national security of the U.S." In what way is legality and torture not significant to the question of national security? Torture became a legal issue when the United States signed the Geneva Conventions. Your point boils down to the question of "what does national security have to do with laws?" By forming a habit of not respecting laws, national security becomes compromised: it becomes a sloppy mess of government agents torturing suspects and mismanaging intelligence. Treaty agreements are violated, the US is isolated from the international community, troops are put at risk, and anti-American sentiments grow, which is what happened during the Bush presidency(6). "My opponent asserts that EIT's provide a recruiting tool to terrorists. But how could this be true if the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 and the U.S. was not using EIT's before this point?" Clearly, Islamic radicalism did not begin with EIT's. A recruiting tool is about as different from a terrorist attack as a wrench is from an automobile. One needs the wrench to keep the automobile functioning, but the wrench is not the same as the automobile. And quite an entertaining conversation. But I hope the voter is keen enough to see through a straw man. "My opponent has cited the case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi providing bad intelligence. Yet, al-Libi was TORTURED by EGYPTIANS in EGYPT." That's an interesting claim (that the Egyptians TORTURED al-Libi), considering al-Libi was TORTURED with the exact same tactics (namely, EIT's like waterboarding and isolation) as American forces use to interrogate detainees(1). As for other bad intelligence brought on by EIT's, there is the case of Abu Faraj al-Libbi. al-Libbi confessed under conditions of EIT, and provided the "link" between al-Qaeda and Iraq, when there obviously was none(2), leading national security in a wrong direction. "Let me draw up another visualization for the voters..." Your imaginary "visualizations" and "conversations" are at best highly implausible and at worst insults to others' intelligence or experienced FBI interrogators. The FBI does not offer highly valuable suspects a choice in beverage nor do they allow themselves to be manipulated. Eric Maddox, an Army staff sergeant, said(3): "There is nothing intelligent about torture. If you have to inflict pain, then you've lost control of the situation, the subject and yourself." You seriously underestimate the ability of interrogators trained in legitimate tactics. I blame television and Jack Bauer for this grave misunderstanding. "A 2005 U.S. DOJ memo notes that..." This not a very serious argument. When a Jihadist has reached the limit of his ability to withhold information, he is absolved of all his Jihadist duties (according to Allah, at least). It is pretty safe to say that a member of al-Qaeda who does not want continue fighting and who would prefer not to see more innocent people slaughtered has effectively given up his membership in al-Qaeda. The idea that such a person, having already abandoned the key tenets of al-Qaeda's jihad, would then continue to hold out simply in order to be able to check the "resist torture" box is weak(4). "... the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001." How could the CIA possibly know this? Do they have sources within the al-Qaeda organization telling them that al-Qaeda is incapable of terrorist attacks now that these two men are gone? This is an extraordinary claim: thinking that the interrogation of two men has prevented an organization of several thousand members worldwide from committing acts of violence in the West(7). "In particular, the CIA believes that…" This, of course, directly contradicts the testimony of Ali Soufan, who questioned Zubaydah from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August, and "under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence" about Khalid Mohammed and Jose Padilla(5). "The memo notes that "[i]nterrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah…" According to Soufan, Zubaydah revealed this information in June 2002 under traditional interrogation methods(5), not in August as the CIA memo claims. ----- Conclusions. Nowhere in this discussion is there evidence that the use of EIT's have prevented future attacks on the United States. By violating international laws, the only purpose EIT's serve is to undermine the rule of law and the United States' commitments to international treaties that disallow the use of torture. My opponent has not made the claim that EIT's are not torture because that claim is untenable according to the UN's definition. But torture is not merely as a moral issue as my opponent is claiming: it became a legal issue when the United States agreed to the Geneva Conventions. And violating laws is a bad habit for a government to have. For national security to succeed, it must be constrained by a legal framework ensuring the process of acquiring, analyzing, and acting upon intelligence is carried out effectively. Honoring treaties and being loyal to allies is also an extremely important but overlooked part of national security. Given our Western allies do not use EIT's, it is a point of disagreement, and certainly a point of condemnation by the UN. My opponent has generated a weak argument based on intuitions and the assumption that pain will drive a detainee to give accurate information more quickly. However, this is unsupported. Not only do EIT's not give good information quickly, but they display a general lack of skill on the part of the interrogator. They also give the terrorist an opportunity to give bad intelligence, as with al-Libi's confession. My opponent says that he wins if EIT's have saved at least one American life. But unless my opponent uses a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (that "since X didn't follow Y, Y must have caused X not to happen"), there is no way to prove that they have with any significance. Vote CON. *Sources in Comments section.