The United States should allow the limited use of torture.

===> INTRO <=== I'm eager to address my opponent's arguments, so I'll get straight to the point. ===> NEGATIVE CASE <=== C1 – Torture violates International and Domestic Law The question here is not whether or not at times breaking the law can be morally justified, but whether or not such exceptions should be built into the law itself. The example my opponent gives of martial law is off base – primarily because the authority to temporarily suspend habeas corpus is incorporated into the Constitution itself, and also because it is not the President who has this authority, but Congress.[1] I agree with my opponent that legalism is a terrible foundation on which to build an ethical system, but from this shared premise we draw opposite conclusions. Torture is an extremely dangerous power. Government should not be entrusted with it. It has been outlawed in civilized countries for centuries, and for good reason. Virtually useless for gathering intelligence, in the past, its only purpose has been oppression and extraction of false confessions. The alternative is allowing our leaders to act as they please, regardless of the law. This, I believe, is even more dangerous. The idea that rulers should be held to the same standard as any other citizen is the driving force behind the rule of law, and it is a vitally necessary to maintain a civil society. Moreover, should my opponent choose to interpret the resolution in this manner, it would necessarily invalidate his own position: torture would not be allowed by law, it would be carried out in spite of it, so in reality, the United States would not be enacting any real change in torture policy. C2 – Torture Creates Blowback Risk I agree that the kidnapping case in Germany wouldn't negatively impact foreign policy, however, I have several other objections that I address more fully in my rebuttal to C1. PRO claims that the events at Abu Ghraib were "nothing more than casual sadism." If this is the case, by condemning the proceedings, he has undermined his own position. Alfred McCoy, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, asserts that they were not simple brutality or a breakdown of military discipline. Torturers used CIA techniques developed in the 1950's. In fact, the CIA was in charge of Abu Ghraib! Army intelligence was merely enlisted to support their mission.[2] C3 – In Fourth Generation Warfare, the Moral Battle is Crucial I'm glad we can agree on something. Unfortunately, my opponent's criticism seems to be somewhat misplaced: I never claimed that torture is objectively "wrong" in all cases, however, since this debate is not over the morality of torture, but the much more open ended question of whether or not the United States government should adopt it as official policy, this is unnecessary to uphold the resolution. Moreover, morality has two similar, though slightly different meanings. It can be used in the descriptive or normative sense.[3] Descriptive ethics simply describes a code of conduct put forward by a society or other group, such as religion. Normative ethics refers to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.[3] When my opponent says he does not believe torture is immoral, he means this in the normative sense. When I say the moral battle is crucial, I do so in the descriptive sense. What we have is a case of equivocation.[4] The word "moral" is not necessary for my argument to stand; I could just as easily substitute a different phrase, such as "In fourth generation warfare, gaining popular support is crucial." My claim that torture is immoral (in the descriptive sense) should be uncontroversial; clearly, as I argued in earlier rounds, torture is not conducive to gaining the support of the citizens whose countries we currently occupy! Thus, because my opponent's view of ethics is tied closely to utility, his claim that torture is not immoral begs the question: if it causes America to lose the war on terror, it has undermined its own goal and is therefore unethical. ===> REBUTTALS <=== C1 -- Torture can be a feasible means of gathering information. PRO has seemingly done little to bolster his case. As my opponent himself states, the instance in Germany did not in fact involve torture but merely the threat of torture. Moreover, it is completely inapplicable to the debate unless PRO wishes to refute his own position. He maintains in Round 1 that "torture is…to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives." Clearly, this does not fit the description. I asked in my first round whether my opponent considers it ethical to torture suspects in police custody and I still eagerly await an answer. Regarding the Algerian case, Darius Rejali, professor of political science at Reed College writes: "the French won by applying overwhelming force in an extremely constrained space, not by superior intelligence gathered through torture."[5] Note that the professor is referring only to the Battle of Algiers, not the Franco-Algerian War, which France lost. Additionally, the French had an extremely effective network of Algerian informants. Most of the useful intelligence the French gathered came through public cooperation and informants. According to Rejali, "no rank-and-file soldier has related a tale of how he personally, through timely interrogation, produced decisive information that stopped a ticking bomb."[5] Jean-Pierre Vittori, one of the French torturers, states that victims gave up little more than names of militants who were already dead or on the run and old hiding places where nothing of interest was found.[5] C2 -- Torture can be ethically justified in certain circumstances. While the threat of nuclear terrorism may not be the sole conceivable justification for allowing torture, it is a major one. The article my opponent cites is from ABC news. It claims that enough material from Russia is missing for terrorists to build a nuclear weapon. The article is dated to February of 2005. However, I have more recent evidence (July 2010) from none other than Harvard's Belfer Center. Much of the missing material has been recovered and never existed in a sufficient quantity to build a nuclear weapon.[6] In any case, Dr. William Perry of the Belfer Center argues that torture is not justified under any circumstances. The damage to our international reputation and the danger it exposes our soldiers to make it too great of a risk.[7] In my first round, I followed PRO's moral reasoning to its logical conclusion. Dershowitz may be an expert, however, in light of my argument, his opinion is entirely arbitrary; he merely states that torture *should* only be used in extreme circumstances without answering *why.* It in no way refutes the causal link I established. C3 -- Incurring collateral damage is far worse morally than the torture of certain people. Indeed, I agree with this to a point, so I'll keep my response brief. If the worst possible outcome we could expect from engaging in torture was the collection of useless intelligence, that alone would be sufficient to negate this point. However, it is not only useless intel that comes from torture, but often bad intel of the kind that led to our invasion of Iraq. Obviously, the chances of another tragedy of this scale occurring are slim. However, in the present bombing campaign in northern Pakistan (or any similar situation), it's easy to imagine how faulty intel could lead to loss of innocent life. Mozzam Begg, the British prisoner I referred to earlier, stressed that under duress, he would have said virtually anything. ---> CONCLUSION The substance of PRO's claims regarding the utility of torture remains unchanged. Semantics aside, the very real risks involved in torture far outweigh any dubious perceived benefits. -- SOURCES -- http://tinyurl.com...