Torture Should be Able to be Used on Suspected Terrorists

Well appearing that you've thrown niceties out the window, and tried to use my own courtesy against me. I will follow suit. Pro clearly didn't read his own link... "Key findings The study"s 20 findings and conclusions can be grouped into four central themes, each of which is supported extensively in the Executive Summary: 1.The CIA"s "enhanced interrogation techniques were not effective. 2.The CIA provided extensive inaccurate information about the operation of the program and its effectiveness to policymakers and the public. 3.The CIA"s management of the program was inadequate and deeply flawed. 4.The CIA program was far more brutal than the CIA represented to policymakers and the American public." These are just the key findings, go to the link to see more, but this is a brief summery. So, I will admit I hadn't kept up with 2014 American politics but by the look of this... I'm sorry, I'm shocked to see this in YOUR argument. Numerous times, the CIA's "enhanced interrogation methods/techniques" aka torture, are referred to as inadequate, deeply flawed and ineffective showing that torture is clearly not the way to go, instead we should spend more time and money on things like surveillance and more peaceful methods of interrogation, for America, negotiating life imprisonment vs the death penalty, or in countries w/o the death penalty, more luxuries in prison, such as television. In this article you have linked (man, really thanks!), it also mentions once or twice the catch 22 moment of torturers being unable to tell the difference between false information, so you've blown another one of your own points out of the water. Pro's third rebuttal wasn't as easy to shut down, but still, a country shouldn't betray its own word. I agree, this debate isn't can we, it's should we and it's simply immoral to say one thing and then do another, especially on a subject as touchy as torture. And finally, Pro seems to think that my example of discontent among public was hot air. Then surely there should be no protests against torture. Right? "On April 30, 2009, 62 members of Witness Against Torture, led by Carmen Trotta[84] were arrested at the gates of the White House demanding that the Obama administration support a criminal inquiry into torture under the Bush administration and release innocent detainees still held at Guantanamo" (www.theguardian.com) "Donning orange jumpsuits and black hoods, dozens of demonstrators in San Francisco today urged the immediate closure of the American detention and interrogation camp at Cuba's Guantanamo Bay. Joined by peace activist Cindy Sheehan, the protesters also called for an end to torture of detainees in U.S. custody. "It's important that the U.S. not engage in acts of terror," said Joe McAleese of Pleasant Hill. "To me, it is immoral."" (www.worldcantwait.net) "Nationwide Protests Against Torture Planned For Jan 31 In The US #EndTorture" (www.trueactivist.com) Just to name a few. My opponent also stated that one individual rights do not outweigh that of a nation/city/town/community/etc. "frankly terrorists don't deserve to be protected over civilians or personnel working for a given government". Potentially, although you must consider... 1. You are innocent until proven guilty and 2. " torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies" (Human Rights) So, in conclusion, I think that it is clear the torture is not the way to go in terms of getting intelligence on terrorists. Protests are getting stronger, it has been proven ineffective, it's extremely immoral, it's showing that America's word means nothing, and simply out-dated. We should instead, invest our time and money of the CIA, DIA, Secret Service, whatever, into surveillance, maybe into spying (that's a debate for another day), into more effective, less cruel interrogation methods. Thank you for this debate