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

"It is foolish to believe that EIT's are used as a recruiting tool..." It is certainly the case that those four reasons you list are causes for anti-Americanism in radical Islam. For that reason, I am not claiming that EIT's are necessary and sufficient causes for attacks on the Western world. What I am claiming, however, is that EIT's are being used as propaganda tools that fuel anti-American sentiments. Senator John McCain said(1): "And most importantly, [enhanced interrogation] serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us. And I've seen concrete examples of that talking to former high-ranking al-Qaeda individuals in Iraq." "Unless my opponent backs this up with a source, this point is void." American allies are represented in the UN, which has condemned EIT's as torture. If asked whether these allies will stand behind the UN or Bush, they will be more inclined to support the UN. No American allies use "enhanced interrogation" because that term refers only to American policies. Enhanced interrogation has been condemned by America's greatest ally, Britain, in the British House of Commons(2). Canada listed the United States as a country that employs torture for using enhanced interrogation on a Canadian citizen(3). "The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel has released numerous memos and legal documents saying that the EIT's being used are completely legal." The issue of whether EIT's are legal or not according to the Federal government has nothing to do with whether EIT's are torture. The Federal government can just as easily rule that torture is legal, as it seemed to do with these unsourced memos and legal documents. UN's definition of torture(4): "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." By the UN's standards, enhanced interrogation is "legal" torture. "...customary international law is not federal law and that the President is free to override it at his discretion." This is true: international law is not federal law, but that does not mean federal law trumps international law. The President may be able to override international law at his discretion, but that does not mean he is not violating that law in the process. International law may not be able to impose a standard, but that does not mean international law is meaningless. A law is not something that can be violated or respected at one's convenience. "we conclude that the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, do not extend to alien enemy combatants held abroad..." It may be so that these rights apply only to United States citizens (although denying rights to due process and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment to international citizens sets an incredibly bad example for the rest of the world). However, it is the case that the Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners, including prisoners of war and terrorists. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld states that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the "war on terrorism". The Court ruled that torture of detainees violates both United States and international law(5). "The only argument [John Vessey] is trying to make is that terrorists are just as smart and tactful as organized armies." Why would Vessey state, "Through those years, we held our own values. We should continue to do so"? In this context, his statement would make absolutely no sense. If the only thing Vessey is referring to here is "that terrorists are just as smart and tactful as organized armies", why would he say that we need to hold our values? "I am not debating with you on the moral basis of our fight against terrorism (as you stated yourself at the beginning of the debate), so the first two sentences are void." I said the morality of torture will not be discussed. I said nothing about the moral basis of the fight against terrorism. "As for your case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, he was tortured in Egypt by Egyptians and gave the bad intelligence there. He was not interrogated by EIT's." ABC News reported(6): "According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals." The CIA recognized these tortures as "enhanced interrogation", and from the description, it sounds very much like the EIT techniques recognized by the Bush administration. "Isn't it more important that we get the information out of the suspect at one point than no point at all?" It is a quantum leap going from "no information" in traditional methods to "the information" in EIT's, and is not justified. Interrogator Ali Soufan attested to the superiority of traditional methods over EIT's in 2009: "Under traditional interrogation methods, [Zubaydah] provided us with important actionable intelligence." "The interrogations of Khalid Sheik Mohammad... The national security of the U.S. is being protected by these interrogations." It's a bit strange that we can say for certain that EIT's were the only interrogation techniques that could have possibly worked, when others weren't utilized. "It is absurd to take EIT's off the table in case of ticking time bomb scenarios..." Aside from the fact that "ticking time bomb scenarios" should not happen the in the first place (if our national security is competent), they are rare. It is not wise to make policy decisions in a lifeboat. In addition, what keeps the terrorist (in the rare event of a ticking time bomb) from giving the wrong information repeatedly, over and over again? This wastes the time of the investigators who could be seeking actionable intelligence. Knowing the investigators will not resort to even more extreme forms of torture, the terrorist can fool the investigators until the time bomb explodes. "Three former CIA Directors and the current CIA direcor have testified before congress that EIT's work and they need to be left on the table. CIA Directors are non-partisan government officals whose only interest is the national security of the U.S." The CIA may be nonpartisan, but it always acts in its own self-interest. If the Directors knowingly approved of EIT's, they have no choice but to testify they work. Otherwise, they would be seen as incompetent. It is these Directors' responsibilities to themselves and to the CIA as an organization to give that testimony, even if they have to stretch the truth. "...55% of Americans believe that EIT's are justified, while 36% are not. This is a government for the people, by the people." It is that kind of thinking that the Founding Fathers feared more than anything. But don't take my word for it: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine" (Thomas Jefferson). A majority vote of the populace does not legitimize any action. "If EIT's are so heinous and disgusting, why would the U.S. military subject it's own people to them?" EIT's that are used in training American forces are not torture. They are not used to obtain the truth. *Sources in Comments section.