Torture is sometimes morally permissible.

Thank you for the debate. Torture is never morally permissible. My argument stems from the rationale often used by my side: The ends do not justify the means. I would first like to make a few things clear in response to my opponent's argument. I do not find these views very relevant to the resolution, but I am not a pacifist. I believe war is sometimes necessary, but only as a last resort. I believe in the Just War doctrine as outlined in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I also believe that collateral damage in war is inevitable, though actions should be taken to make sure it occurs as seldom as possible. I want to define two terms. If you would like to correct the definitions, please do so. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Torture: "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure" In this debate, we would obviously be looking at torture with the intention to coerce someone into saying something. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Moral: "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical" The collateral damage analogy is invalid because it's irrelevant. The fact that our country kills innocent civilians during war does not make it morally permissible. It clearly does not make torture morally permissible, especially since the intentions and objectives in combat and torture are often so different. Your argument has a huge flaw in that it asserts that because we do something evil or morally depraved, that makes it morally acceptable. It does not. Given these examples, I will not attack the probability of these situations since they are valid within the resolution. Rather, I will attack the assumptions in each situation. In torturing the suspect allegedly responsible for the ticking time bomb, my opponent not only assumes that torture is the only viable option to receive vital information, but my opponent also assumes that torture will bring about the desired information. The second hyperbolic situation makes the same assumptions. These assumptions are unrealistic, and they do not have much basis. Building rapports with detainees, instead of torturing them, helped the U.S. military track down and kill Abu Masub al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. [1] This is the policy of the U.S. military, and this shows how it can be effective. Matthew Alexander, a former interrogator, said, "When you use coercion, a detainee might tell you the location of a house, but if you use cooperation they will tell you if the house is booby-trapped, and that's a very important difference." Fifteen former United States interrogators and intelligence officers found that torture is ineffective and counterproductive through their experience with it. [2] They found rapport-based interviewing to be the best way to obtain "accurate and complete intelligence". Information obtained by torture is often unreliable because many people will be willing to say anything if it can get the pain to stop. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a paramilitary trainer for al-Qaeda, was captured by Pakistani officials. He was turned over to the FBI, who interrogated him. However, the CIA asked to take him into its own custody, and he was later handed over to Egyptian interrogators. He was water boarded and "left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals". [4] He finally said that Iraq provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. The problem with this statement is he later recanted it. [5] Another example is Senator John McCain. As a prisoner of war in Vietnam, McCain was beaten. One of his arms was broken more than once. One of his ribs was broken. His leg was injured by guards, forcing him to be on crutches for 18 months. He finally reached his breaking point and signed a confession, saying, "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors." [6] After being asked the names of the members of his flight squadron, he gave interrogators the names of the Green Bay Packers' starting linemen so the torture would stop. [7] There are better techniques than torture, and information obtained through torture is often unreliable. I realize my argument will have to work within a great deal of subjectivity, as always when a word like "morally" is in the resolution. I will first address torture from as much of an objectively moral standpoint as possible, with the law. International law is quite clear on the subject. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." This declaration was approved by 48 countries. The Third Geneva Convention says, "To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the [prisoners of war]: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;" Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention restates this. The convention has been ratified by 194 countries. The United Nations Convention against Torture outlaws torture. There are 146 parties to this treaty. International law is very clear on the subject, but I think it's important to address why torture is immoral. One should always uphold the dignity of others. Immanuel Kant said, "Hence morality, and humanity insofar as it is capable of morality, is that which alone has dignity." As rational beings, we can respect the rights of others as we want our own rights to be respected. I think it is clear that torture does not uphold the dignity or rights of others. It degrades one's dignity and violates one's rights. Not only does it cause physical pain, but the psychological pain it causes can often be worse. [8] My opponent's only moral defense seems to be that torture can save lives. In other words, he's using the ends to justify the means. While he can do this to justify torture, he can not do it to morally justify torture. The act of torture is immoral in its nature because it aims to harm others. While some may believe torture is necessary in certain situations, that does not make it morally permissible. As long as the resolution contains the phrase "morally permissible", my opponent cannot just justify torture in certain situations. He has to show that torture is morally permissible. My opponent has important questions to ask himself. Not only does he have to ask himself how torture is ever morally permissible, but he also has to ask himself how a violent act that has been shown to be ineffective in achieving its goals can be justified morally. [1] http://www.npr.org... [2] http://www.humanrightsfirst.org... [3] http://www.newsweek.com... [4] http://abcnews.go.com... [5] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [6] http://www.azcentral.com... [7] http://www.newsweek.com... [8] http://www.cnn.com...