17. In matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means.

Thanks to Jokerdude for doing this debate and thanks to the judges for judging. I will now move on to my constructive speech. The idea that my opponent and this resolution try to suggest is just plan wrong. The ideas of consequentialism and utilitarianism are inherently flawed. The reason PRO uses these means is to serve the greater good. However, that does still not justify doing whatever it takes to get the intelligence. For example, if the US found a terrorist hideout, it would not be justified to bomb them. Sure, possibly more people could be saved in the US, but let's think about this. Why does the US want the greater good for its people? Because human life is the greatest gift we have. The US would not bomb its own people, so what makes it different if the US bombs them? It is still killing: something that the US was trying to prevent. Now, instead of Americans being killed, it's terrorists, but they're still dead people. Let's look at this terrorist example again. Say there's a suspected terrorist that the US has. Sure, he could know where the bombs are, but what if he doesn't? Allow me to explain further: the term 'suspected' implies that it isn't confirmed that the person is a terrorist. Therefore, there are numerous cases where the person isn't a terrorist. If you've seen the movie 'Rendition' (. http://www.imdb.com...), it follows the true story of Khalid El-Masri who was tortured for information about a terrorist plot. They had calls from 'his' cell phone to a man that later suicide bombed a town square. While being tortured, he finally gave information because he was in so much pain. We find out Khalid El-Masri is mistaken for Khalid al-Masri, a known al-Qaeda member. This instance clearly shows how it is unjust to torture people and use ends to justify said torture. Think how many people could be in the same situation (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). This would only lead to more terrorists and prolonged war, the opposite of what PRO wants. Clearly, PRO's justification is wrong. Okay, let's take a look at some other examples of 'ends justifying the means'. Wiretapping is a new issue and is broad enough to be brought into this debate. The US government wants to listen to and read everyone's calls, mail, texts, and e-mails. This is unjustified because everyone has some right to privacy. Where do I get this, you say? The United States Constitution. The 4th amendment protects us from searches and seizures without proper warrant. I am not a terrorist, so I see no warrant or reason whatsoever for them to be looking at my mail. In fact, the amendment was put in place by our forefathers so they couldn't do that very thing. This same concept can be applied to numerous things regarding this resolution, so do NOT accept anything that can be applied to this argument. Now I will give you an example of my own. Say a proverbial nation wanted to build another atomic bomb. They would need a team of scientists to do this. So they go out and ask a group of well known nuclear physicists. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the scientists refuse, because they think it's wrong. The government does not accept that answer. They make a deal: either they build the bomb, or they die. This is the most plain-out-and-simple example of how wrong the resolution is. Scientists are doing something against their will for something that will kill millions of people. Otherwise, they will die, and that is in no way justified. I can't make it any clearer. All in all, I negate this resolution on two main premises: 1. The philosophies of consequentialism and utilitarianism do not justify means. 2. The practical examples of the resolution are wrong.