Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, such as waterboarding, enhance the national security of the U.S.

To remind voters and my opponent the resolution is: "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, such as waterboarding, enhance the national security of the U.S." My opponent has to prove that EIT's compromise the national security of the U.S. to win. So far, my opponent has argued that EIT's are torture, illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral, among other things. This may or may not be true but has no significance to the topic of the debate; in which my opponent has to prove that EIT's compromise the national security of the U.S. The points which he has attempted to make regarding national security is: 1) "EIT's compromise the safety and undermine the effectiveness of American troops abroad by providing a recruiting tool that plays into the hands of the terrorists..." -My opponent asserts that EIT's provide a recruiting tool to terrorists. But how could this be true if the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 and the U.S. was not using EIT's before this point? After 9/11, we started using EIT's but there has been no terrorist attacks on the U.S. homeland since. And even if that fact was not true, the use of EIT's as a recruiting tool is ridicilous. I can picture the conversation now: Al-qaeda recruiter: Hey, young boy, would you like to join Al-qaeda? Recruit: I would love to! What's in it for me? Al-qaeda recruiter: Well, if you blow yourself up in the name of Allah you will get 72 virgins in heaven. Recruit: OMG Cool! I will definitely join. Al-qaeda recruiter: BUT... if you get caught you will be subjected to waterboarding, prolonged stress and duress positions, liquid diets, sleep and light deprivation, noise and light bombardment, extreme isolation and other measures. Some people even call it torture. But remember the virgins in heaven, remember that. Recruit: Ehh.. nevermind. I'll pass. 2) "Many of the United States greatest allies are repulsed by the United States' use of EIT's..." My opponent has only cited 2 countries (Canada and Britain) which have condoned the U.S. on EIT's. He says this will us on our "War on Terrorism". Yet, both these countries are still a part of the "War on Terrorism" and have not expressed any efforts to get out anytime soon. My opponent has also cited the U.N. condoning the U.S. on EIT's; and he says that since our allies are in the U.N., all our allies agree with the U.N.'s stance. This is absurd. He is saying that just because a country is in the U.N., they agree with the U.N. (all the time). The U.S. does not agree with the U.N. on every statement they make, and the same goes with every other country in the U.N. 3) "Defenders of aggressive methods claim that the only good question is whether useful intelligence was collected. Just as important, however, is whether bad intelligence has been collected..." My opponent has cited the case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi providing bad intelligence. Yet, al-Libi was TORTURED by EGYPTIANS in EGYPT. al-Libi did not have EIT's used on him by AMERICANS in AMERICA. Other than the al-Libi case, my opponent has not proved another example where bad intelligence has been collected. 4) "There is little reason to believe that subjecting terrorist operatives to cruel, inhuman or degrading practices, yields more or better intelligence than other methods..." -Let me draw up another visualization for the voters. The U.S. has captured Osama Bin-laden, the man that holds the answers to so many questions; a man that holds a goldmine of intelligence. Since the U.S. can not use EIT's, they bring Osama into FBI Heaquarters in Washington D.C. The FBI brings him into a room with 3 chairs, he sits in the one closest to the wall. He gets his choice of iced water, coffee, or a cigarette, or all three. Osama elects the coffee and cigarette. 5 minutes later, two FBI interrogators walk into the room. They ask Osama a few questions, he does not answer, and is growing impatient. So, Osama decides to throw his hot coffee at one of the FBI agents and attempts to attack the other. He is restrained, but refuses to ever talk again. THE END, Osama dies and we get no intelligence because Osama knew he would never get hurt. -A 2005 U.S. DOJ memo notes that, "as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship." (1) 5) "EIT's are ineffective..." -My opponent claims that EIT's are ineffective because it took 183 times waterboard Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and 83 times to waterboard Abu Zubaydh. The same memo as above notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates." The memo notes that "[i]nterrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah -- again, once enhanced techniques were employed -- furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda's 'organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi' and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks." This information helped the intelligence community plan the operation that captured KSM. It went on: "Zubaydah and KSM also supplied important information about al-Zarqawi and his network" in Iraq, which helped our operations against al-Qaeda in that country. Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. (1) I will restate the resolution again, "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, such as waterboarding, enhance the national security of the U.S." -I have proved throughout this debate that EIT's have enhanced the national security of the U.S. I have proved that a wealth of (non-misleading) usefull intelligence/information has been gained from the use of EIT's. I have proved that it is more than likely that it least one American life has been saved from the use of EIT's. If one American life has been saved from pouring a water on a terrorist's head, terrorists that have killed thousands and thousands of Americans, then the use of EIT's have definetely enhanced and will continue to enhance the national security of the U.S. -My opponent has proved absolutely nothing that indicates "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, such as waterboarding ... compromise the national security of the U.S." My opponent needed to prove the quoted statement to be true to win the debate. He has not proved it. -Therefore, VOTE PRO. I thank my opponent for the debate, it has been fun and worthwhile. I urge voters to not vote based on ideological differences, but on who best affirmed or negated the resolution. I give great thanks to voters who have taken the time to read the whole debate and vote, as it is long and complex. VOTE PRO. ---SOURCE--- (1) http://www.washingtonpost.com...