"Enhanced interrogation" and other "techniques" are ok in cases of national security

Torture is: (a) the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenceless person; (b) the intentional, substantial curtailment of the exercise of the person's autonomy (achieved by means of (a)); (c) in general, undertaken for the purpose of breaking the victim's will.[1]Reasons not to legalize torture:1. Erosion of civilian rightsIn order to legalize torture, then much human rights legislation must be repealed, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (henceforth referred to as "the UDHR") and the right to remain silent.2. Human rights cannot be surrendered, repudiated, or overridden.The UDHR preamble states that "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." [1] inalienable adj. Not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated. [2]Dignity is inherent.inherent adj. existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute. [3]The UDHR affirms then that both human rights and human dignity are permanent and cannot be surrendered.In order to make his case, my opponent has to establish that the UDHR is a flawed document, and that human rights can be surrendered, repudiated, and overridden.It is my contention that these rights safeguard individuals against abuse of power and as such are essential to ensuring well-being, and thus should be considered inalienable. These inalienable rights help protect what every human being should be allowed to retain at minimum: their humanity. By according these rights to all, we also help safeguard our own humanity from the dangers of falling prey to tyranny.2a. Someone who harms non-combatants does not surrender their human rights.My opponent says that someone who harms non-combatants surrenders their human rights.In war, non-combatants are harmed. If harming non-combatants is a criterion for the surrendering of human rights, then soldiers in war are liable to surrender their human rights, thus negating the UDHR and the Geneva Conventions. Does my opponent think that soldiers in a war should surrender their human rights? Is he also advocating that all accused of harming civilians surrender their human rights? 3. Torture tilts an already asymmetric power relation even further against individuals and small groups.The power relations between state and individual are asymmetric. Thus the individual is exposed to potential domination. Any extra power given to the state needs to be weighed against potential harm to the individual. Studies such as The Stanford Prison Experiment, where ordinary students became sadistic when given the role of guard in a mock prison, show that merely making power relations asymetric is often sufficient for extreme abuse of the less powerful individual to take place.[4] The psychologist responsible for the Stanford Prison Experiment, Professor Phillip Zimbardo, said"The study is the classic demonstration of the power of situations and systems to overwhelm good intentions of participants and transform ordinary, normal young men into sadistic guards."[5]Torture allows an act which deprives the individual of autonomy, dignity, and self-determination. Their acceptance of their powerlessness is implicit to the act. Allowing the state the right to torture individuals places extreme power into the hands of the state. This power is apt to be abused, and has been abused many times, as I will demonstrate if necessary. There are many examples of a state using torture as a means of repression. Legitimizing torture can only lead to abuses of power.3a. It is in the interests of all except the most powerful that the balance of power not be tipped further in favour of the stateLabelling non-state aggressors "terrorists" allows the state to make their own determination of "good" v "evil".Having illegitimized their opponents, there is a danger that the state can then use their power to do what they want against their opponents.This is not to say that all aggressors labelled "terrorists" have a moral case, but to make the important point that the aggressor may have the moral case. Think of the French Resistance in WWII, or the ANC under apartheid.Furthermore, you are less secure than you think. History shows that circumstances change unforseeably. It could be you and yours who have to oppose a state.It is then important to protect the interests of groups and individuals against state power.3b. The state defines what is "National Security", so such a limit on its remit is subject to abuse and is not enforceable.Any threat to the status quo can be defined as an issue of "National security", so such a limitation is in effect useless. Particularly as "in the interests of National Security" the state does not have to be overt with evidence or justify to the public that an issue is indeed a grave threat.4. It is not a case of one set of rights in conflict with others."you can"t protect the rights of both groups"This statement is incorrect. My opponent assumes here that torture and only torture is efficacious at protecting the rights of non-combatants. This assumption is unwarranted. I will show in later rounds that torture is in fact ineffective. Other methods produce far better results. 5. Torture is immoral5a. Torture is an immoral act perpetrated against its victims.Each individual occupies their own universe of thoughts and feelings. The universe of an individual is a fully realized place with the potential for great joy or great suffering. The suffering inflicted by the terror of torture is so great that it should be absolutely avoided. We should not want to have any human being experience the terrors of torture at the hands of another. During torture, all autonomy is stripped away, the victim is like an all too conscious horrified puppet, who must be a witness to their powerlessness, their reactions against their own will, without prospect of relief. They may want to die rather than live with the pain and degradation. It is an absolute disintegration of their humanity. It is a window on Hell. The prospect of any internal universe being so deliberately disturbed should, on empathic grounds, be something we never wish to happen. Therefore, the moral proscription against torture should be absolute, and not even subject to a cost/benefits analysis. 5b. Torture harms the torturerPerpetrators of serious harm are liable to suffer from trauma. A study found that 46% of respondents reported distressing intrusive memories, with 6% diagnosed with PTSD. In this study, dissociation during the trauma also occurred for some perpetrators.[6]The act of torture dehumanises the torturer, necessarily robbing them of empathy."When the state itself beats and extorts, it can no longer be said to rest on foundations of morality and justice, but rather on force."[7]6. Torture is ineffectiveI will demonstrate this in later rounds.[1] http://www.un.org...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] http://www.prisonexp.org...[5] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[6] Intrusive memories in perpetrators of violent crime: Emotions and cognitions. Evans, Ceri; Ehlers, Anke; Mezey, Gillian; Clark, David M. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 75(1), Feb 2007, 134-144. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.1.134 http://psycnet.apa.org...[7] Mordecai Kremnitzer quoted in Marcy Strauss, Torture, New York Law School Law Review, 2004