The US should allow the limited use of torture

1. What is my advocacy? The resolution states "The US should allow the limited use of torture." The Oxford Dictionary defines "limited" as meaning "restricted in size, amount or extent." This means I can defend any extent of limitation to affirm insofar as I can prove that torture should be allowed in some circumstance. So the resolution does not require me to show that torture is justifiable in all circumstances, or even most circumstances where it is currently applied. My sole burden is to show that there is at least one circumstance in which torture is justified. Con's burden is to show that torture should never be used by the United States. I'm not in favor of torture in almost any circumstance. I don't like the usage of torture, and would like legislation that severely restricts the use of torture to be passed. But I believe that, in the rare scenario where torture is the lesser of two evils, it can be used. Thus, necessity is the only defense under which torture is justifiable. The US already recognizes that necessity is a defense for many actions being taken. Torture is one of those actions. I firmly believe that "conduct which an actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable, provided that . . . the evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged." [1] That is a utilitarian standard of measurement. The topic uses the word "should," which implies an analysis of net benefits. So the lesser of two evils must be preferred. Thus, the affirmative model follows: legislation should prevent torture with an exception granted for the case of necessity (e.g. ticking nuclear time bomb scenarios). 2. Torture is necessary in some circumstances There are some cases in which the use of torture is necessary to prevent greater evils. As I've already clarified, I usually oppose torture. But there are some cases where the consequence of not torturing someone is worse than the consequence of torturing that person. The truth is that torture does work. In most scenarios, even though it works, it shouldn't be exercised. But in some, sadly, there is no other route to approach the issue that is as effective. Humans have an intrinsic desire to avoid pain. Pain is inherently undesirable, just as pleasure is desirable in itself. Philosophers agree that pleasure is intrinsically valuable, while pain is "bad" in itself. Because of this, people will do anything to avoid pain - this includes providing accurate information when tortured. Torture is, thus, effective. History has multiple examples to prove that this is true. One such case is the Israeli interrogation in an attempt to save the nineteen-year-old Sergeant Nachson Wachsman. In 1994, he was abducted by Hamas. They threatened to kill him. Israeli forces managed to organize a raid and arrest the Hamas members responsible. [2] Similarly, John McCain "mentions in his autobiography that he gave up more information than he intended to his . . . torturers." [2] Note that I wouldn't support torture in such an instance, since the pain felt by Hamas members easily outweighs the life of a single person. But if it does work in such an instance, it obviously does work in instances where there is a greater evil present than torture. What scenarios do I support torture in? I support torture in scenarios where torture is the only way to solve a major problem: specifically, a kind of problem called a "ticking nuclear time bomb" scenario. For a scenario to qualify as such, there are two conditions. First, the resultant harm must outweigh harm caused by torture. Second, there must be a sense of urgency to this harm. Note that it isn't meant to be interpreted literally - that's just based on an analogy where there's a nuclear bomb that will explode in 24 hours and there's a terrorist who probably has knowledge of the whereabouts of the bomb. If the bomb is found, it can be deactivated. In such a case, I'd argue that torture of the terrorist is justified because of its effectiveness. Let me clarify my position once more, for clarity. I dislike torture and want legislation limiting the use of it significantly - except in the event that such a scenario arises. This puts the burden on the torturer. If there isn't sufficient justification that such a scenario arose, the person could face life imprisonment. So this is going to mean no abuse of torture or use of torture for most scenarios. The law is just in case such a scenario occurs. Note that it isn't a purely speculative scenario. Terrorists responsible for placing bombs in cars have been captured. And there have been actual examples of such a scenario occurring. "Al Qaeda terrorist Jamal Beghal was arrested at the Dubai airport in October 2001. After some weeks in captivity, during which his lawyer claimed Beghal was beaten, he gave up a wealth of information that was said to have thwarted a planned bombing of the United States Embassy in Paris." [2] Torture is a form of extreme duress. And other application of extreme duress has also given critical information. In a case in Sri Lanka, a security unit apprehended three terrorists following intelligence suggesting that a ticking bomb had been placed somewhere in Colombo. The terrorists refused to give information. One of them was shot dead, and the other two -- under that stress -- gave the required information. [3] While this isn't an instance of torture, it's an example that stress, including torture, can provide information. I'm sure that people will claim there are "alternatives" to torture that are more effective in such instances. The primary alternative used is establishing a rapport with the terrorist and providing incentives to help efforts. I agree with using this method when there is a long-term threat. But establishing a rapport takes time. Experts say it takes weeks, or maybe even months, to develop - which isn't enough time to solve a ticking time bomb scenario. [4] [5] Thus, in a ticking time bomb scenario, torture is the only option. Conclusion: Through my case, I've proven that: (1) torture is effective and could be used to save hundreds of lives in a ticking bomb scenario, and (2) ticking bomb scenarios have some level of probability of happening, while Con's position requires that torture never be used. My impact has a huge magnitude and is more powerful on probability than Con. If Con contests magnitude, he has to prove that torture doesn't work in ticking bomb scenarios in any situation. If Con contests probability, he has to show that such a ticking bomb scenario is impossible, because his position requires him to defend that torture should never be used. Since I've defended both probability and magnitude, vote Pro. [1] http://law.jrank.org... [2] http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au... [3] http://www.theatlantic.com... [4] Mathew Alexander and John Bruning, "How To Break A Terrorist" [5] http://www.terrorismanalysts.com...