"Harsh Interrogation" should not have secrecy protections

Thank you for taking up this debate with me. Side-comment, I hope to see more current-event type debates if anyone reading is wondering what sort of debate to take up, and I think others will enjoy them as well. Anyhoo ... === PRO'S OPENING ARGUMENTS === National secrecy is a necessary evil to protect ourselves and our soldiers. If we, say, let all technology out into the public regarding the stealth technology in our stealth fighters and bombers, it would not be long before countermeasures were developed, rendering out stealth technology useless and our pilots in danger. Similarly, certain means and methods must also be protected. When it comes to Intelligence, we must be very cautious who gets access to, say, satellite imagery, otherwise techniques will be developed to evade satellite monitoring. However, I assert in this argument that violations of the U.S. constitution, laws and international accords (such as the Geneva convention) are not valid national secrets and to attempt to use secrecy protections to hide such crimes constitutes an abuse of power. The Federal Government deserves protection only to the point that protection is not used to shield administrators (such as the office of the President) or agents of Federal bureaus (CIA, FBI, military branches) from answering for crimes. The United States possesses a great wealth of military might, technology, prowess and capability. We are the only remaining superpower. However, I feel quite adamant that above all of this -- in fact, because of all this -- we are charged with putting honor and grace before we engage in these unmatched tools. If we abided by the ends justifying the means, then perhaps we should have supported the Axis during WWII instead of the Allies, achieve "World Peace" through conquest and genocide -- when non-unified minorities are eliminated, after all, there would be no one left to fight and thus we would have "World Peace." To quote a comic book: "With absolute power comes absolute responsibility." It is, to me, exactly that we are such a mighty nation, that we must be supreme in our honor and not allow absolute power to corrupt us into a nation that bullies anyone we don't like into submission. I do not believe that was the state envisioned by our founders. Regardless of whether or not exposing techniques of torture would offer our enemies a chance to prepare for them, to hide shameful deeds cannot be done without hiding from justice against ourselves being a motive, and that's where the right to secrecy fails -- we aren't protecting ourselves from a terrorist threat, but from taking responsibility for our own actions. If we grant immunity to the shadow agents of our government, then we cease to be a democracy of truth, justice and honor. We become a nation of evil, and in silently accepting torture, we are each tainted by the dishonor and disgrace of it. All of our complaints about human rights abuses fall flat when we ourselves commit them. Totalitarian regimes we espouse not to be operate with impunity and immunity for their leaders and crimes they commit; we must NOT be this way. Regardless of the ends or intentions, wrong is wrong, torture is torture, and when an administration starts using secrecy protections to obstruct justice within the U.S. courts and within the United Nations for human rights abuses, we are no better than China for what it does to its political prisoners. Is rule by hypocricy okay if you carry the biggest stick, and in the end that's all that matters? I say nay! === REBUTTALS TO CON === In response to the "one reason" CON stated for keeping all the harsh interrogation techniques, I actually agree we do not wish our enemies to know our techniques, but its not just because they will adapt against them -- its because our torture takes away our moral high ground and reduces even further our standing in the world's court. That, however, is exactly the reason we need to stop hiding the truth to escape persecution or prosecution. When it comes to dishonor, shame and violations of long-standing agreements, we must task ourselves to leading by example in being open, honest and frank. Think beyond al-Qaeda, for doubtelssly they will never embrace honorable warfare as they continue slaughtering civilians en masse ... think bigger than al-Qaeda. What do you think China thinks of our human rights complaints about them and their political prisoners when there's convincing doubts as to our own integrity in abiding by the Geneva Convention? Will they feel more or less pressured to mend their human rights ways? Or the Islaamist theocracies? Are we setting an example to them on how to run a just, responsible and honorable democracy when we refuse to answer for what we have done? Illegal techniques do not deserve secrecy protections. I rather hope al-Qaeda operatives do become immune to them and they become useless, for I feel the stain of dishonor in them being used is a worse strike than a terrorist's bomb.