The USFG should disallow torture and forgo using it as an interrogation technique.

To your first argument: 1. Torture differs from the rest of the interrogation methods you list because it is specifically designed to cause physical and psychological harm to the subject. Not only that, torture is against the 8th Amendment, against the Geniva Convention, and against the United States principle of upholding human rights. Your argument here is flawed in two ways: 1. You don't answer my argument about the arbitrary nature of torture, something I'll elaborate on with the moral argument. 2. You don't answer the fact that if torturing *suspected* terrorists is legitimate, why is it not legitimate to torture American citizens who are withholding valuable information. Next, the point of building strong ties within communities is something which occurs before the 'ticking bomb' scenario takes place. My argument is that torture erodes the possibility of cooperation with Muslim communities, so when/if the scenario occurs, cooperation will not be a possibility. To your next argument, I make the claim that the American mindset is exactly the one you hold: Perceived security is more valuable than upholding human rights. I never said our intelligence agencies aren't intelligent, nor that they are sadists. I find it sad that you and the American government seems to forget our promise to uphold a 'democratic' Middle East and our notion that we want to promote human rights across the Earth. How can we uphold democracy elsewhere when we ignore the very tenets of democracy at home (that all persons should be free and equal). Maybe we should change it to 'Some American citizens are free and equal, everyone else is subject to torture and violence'. I'll address the next two arguments before going into the moral argument. 2. The examples you provide are misleading for two reasons. 1. The mongols/chinese engaged in full blown suppression. I.E. A town would rebel against the Mongols and the Mongols would raze the entire town to the ground. I suppose we could start nuking Middle Eastern cities to accomplish this tactic? 2. Terrorists fight a guerrilla war. It is not the case of the Tibetans or the subjects of the Mongols because those persons didn't have the capacity to strap a bomb to themselves, run into a Church and blow it up, or pick up an AK-47 and blaze away at American troops. I could go into detail here on the nature of an occupying force trying to hold a country that is infiltrated by guerrilla combatants. I won't unless it proves necessary by your next argument, as you don't want me writing too much. Torture will only incite more violence, and bring more people to their cause. Have terrorist attacks in Iraq slowed at all since Guantanamo? And I ask you this-if terrorists captured and tortured Americans, would your first reaction be fear or anger. I think the latter. 3. What about the duty of the American government to uphold human rights? To spread democracy and freedom? Isn't that what we're doing in the Middle East? Have you forgotten the 8th Amendment? The Bill of Rights? The concepts of Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, freedom of the individual. My question to you, is why, if we don't deprive American criminals of these rights, should we deprive foreign nationals of them. If an American were convicted of aiding terrorists, they'd (presumably) get a trial and be afforded all of their rights, but yet we revoke these rights to anyone not American. What about a hostage situation? Someone who takes 10 hostages and threatens to kill them if police don't let them go. Do we strip them of their rights as an American? No, we don't-and yet this is the same scenario as with a terrorist.. someone looking to kill innocent Americans. The other point I made is that international cooperation is critical to helping stop terrorism. Its the nature of hypocrisy. A country that says 'We support human rights' and then engages in torture will not be believed to be a supporter of human rights. Sure, maybe the US can do it alone. But wouldn't it be better to have the aid of the rest of the world behind us in fighting terrorism? More money, more manpower, more technology, less safe havens for terrorists. How are we to do this when we engage in actions that are destructive to the very principles which we hold to be 'American'? To the moral argument: "The simple truth is, from the perspective of most Americans, and the perspective of the American government, our fathers and brothers, mothers and sisters, their lives and their happiness is worth more than the suffering of foreign nationals trying to destroy the United States. " Are you serious? Your basis for this argument is 'The majority of Americans care more about themselves than others, so torture is morally legitimate'? "And don't even try to claim all lives are worth the same. If America believed all lives are worth the same, we would be spending trillions trying to help the people of Sudan" I would contend that all lives *should* be the same, the fact that Americans choose to look at it otherwise is a disgrace. What America *believes* and what is *right* are two very different things. The moral argument rests upon the fact that the very act of torture is wrong. Are you saying we're justified in ignoring genocide because Americans simply don't care about it? Brief summation of the moral argument: 1. The only possible justification for torture comes after you apply torture (You torture someone and evaluate the results). 2. When you engage in torture, you don't know what the outcome will be-the information you gain might be useless. 3. This means you devalue the inherent harm involved in torture-"It's okay to torture someone as long as there is a *slim* chance of gaining useful information" 4. Therefore, unless you can provide external justification for torture, you legitimate using torture in any circumstance where information *may* be gained that saves lives. This is what I mean when I critique the arbitrary nature of torture. Americans seem to be fine with torture as long as its not done to 'Americans', but they ignore the fact that there is no restriction on the government from applying torture to any person they claim holds information. What's the point of having rights if the government can arbitrarily strip them away? Rights should either universally apply, or not apply at all. You don't answer the scenario I provided: If a close family member, or even yourself, was involved in a 'ticking bomb' scenario, would the government be legitimated in torturing you to get information? As long as you continue to say "The government should not torture Americans', you continue to agree that torture in itself is bad. There can be no other reason-if torture is so useful, why should it not be done to everyone and anyone who is withholding useful information? Provide me a justification for why torture should not be used against Americans, but should be used against foreign nationals. All you say is 'the government won't torture Americans', but you don't say why they shouldn't.