The United States should allow the limited use of torture.

Thanks, Freeman, for your patience. Good luck, this should be a good one! ===> INTRO <=== "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny" – Thomas Jefferson, 1806 Torture is an ineffective, immoral, and dangerous practice. It degrades and devalues the humanity of both torturer and victim. It violates international law as well as the United States constitution. By engaging in torture, the United States gambles with its diplomatic relationships and creates enemies around the world. Additionally, information obtained through torture is unreliable; it can give false leads and damage subsequent collection efforts. ===> NEGATIVE CASE <=== C1 – Torture Violates International and Domestic Law Torture violates multiple international statutes and agreements, including the Geneva Conventions.[1] of which the US is a signatory. Torture also violates the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states that "[n]o person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"[2] while the Eighth Amendment explicitly disallows the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.[3] In the past, the United States has tried and executed foreign combatants who engaged in torture.[4] This extreme hypocrisy will further destroy our marred international reputation. It will weaken our diplomatic position and destroy our ability to use soft power effectively. C2 – Torture Creates Blowback Risk Matthew Alexander, an Air Force counterintelligence agent who personally conducted or oversaw more than 1,300 interrogations found in Iraq that "the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda."[5] Mozzam Begg, a British inmate released in 2005 states that "Guantanamo Bay is the most notorious prison on earth," and believes it is a radicalizing force for militants around the world.[6] Additionally, torturing terror suspects (especially with public knowledge, as my opponent proposes) puts our troops at risk. In 2004, Al-Qaeda beheaded 26-year-old Nick Berg in retaliation for the prisoner abuse that took place in Abu Ghraib.[7] C3 – In Fourth Generation Warfare, the Moral Battle is Crucial Fourth generation wars are fought by non-state forces against states.[8] Military expert William S. Lind describes the moral level of war as "the most powerful level, the decisive level, the dominant level, and the all-important level."[8] Lind summarizes the idea "don't do anything to someone else that, if it were done to you, would make you fight."[8]Like the French did in the Battle of Algiers, we can level Fallujah, but if the policies that brought it about are a disaster at the moral level, they will prove disastrous in terms of the war's ultimate outcome. ===> REBUTTALS <=== C1 – Torture can be a feasible means of gathering information This is the most crucial element of the debate. Torture is not an feasible means of obtaining information. The 2006 US Army Field Manual on Interrogation states that "use of torture is not only illegal but also it is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the HUMINT (Human Intelligence) collector wants to hear."[9] Acting on intelligence gathered through torture is risky at best; dangerous and irresponsible at worst. People under duress can be made to say anything. For a prime example, look no further than Al-Shaykh Al-Libi. False confessions extracted through torture established the non-existent link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda that lead directly to American involvement in the region.[10] Most counter-terrorism experts, including Alexander, agree that non-torture methods are superior; Alexander was tremendously successful using them in Iraq. On detainee went so far as to tell him "I thought you would torture me; when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."[11] The example of the Franco-Algerian war that my opponent uses is incorrect and only serves to highlight my earlier points about blowback and the crucial role morality plays in fourth generation warfare. Lt. Colonel Kenneth Detreux writes "As the stories of brutal acts and torture became revealed, the vehement public outcry and disgust would contribute to turning the tide of both French support and the international community."[12] The 2007 U.S. Army/U.S. Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual specifically cites the French experience in Algeria as the ultimate cautionary tale. It is a straightforward matter: lose moral legitimacy, lose the war.[13] C2: Torture can be ethically justified in certain circumstances. I want to first point out that this contention rests on the C1 assumption that torture is an effective means of gathering information, a claim I have fully refuted. Second, experts agree that the possibility of terrorists carrying out a nuclear attack against the United States is virtually nonexistent. Scott Stewart, vice president of tactical intelligence at global intelligence company Stratfor, points out that many countries have multi-billion dollar budgets, universities, research facilities, and teams of scientists working towards developing nuclear weapons and are still unable to do so. Purchasing one would be even more difficult, since a number of nations would immediately attempt to acquire it themselves. In addition to this, the United States currently spends roughly $1 billion per year tracking and purchasing nuclear materials to keep them off the market.[14] More importantly, this utilitarian line of thinking leads down a slippery slope toward disregard for basic rights and human dignity. If getting information out of terrorists is our top priority, why stop at torture? Most terrorists are willing to sacrifice their own lives and wellbeing for their cause. In a ticking time bomb scenario, a much easier way to extract information would be to kidnap his family and place them in front of him. Interrogators would proceed to brutally beat, rape, and disfigure his wife or daughter and crush his son's testicles. If he's still unwilling to talk, the interrogators would execute them one by one. If my opponent is truly morally consistent, he should have no reason to object. Moreover, why limit our use of torture to extreme circumstances? If it can save lives, it's negligent not to use it in other, less extreme cases. Is it immoral to torture someone in police custody who may have information that can save lives? If so, why? What about torturing women? Or children? There is no reason to make such arbitrary distinctions. C3 – Incurring collateral damage is worse morally than the torture of certain people While I agree with my opponent's sentiments, like C2, C3 again pre-supposes the efficacy of torture, which I addressed in C1. Unless my opponent can give a more compelling reason why this is necessarily the case, his point is utterly without merit. Even granting this, he has failed to take into account the collateral damage torture itself incurs. As I pointed out earlier, torture is extremely helpful -- to terrorist organizations looking to boost recruitment. As the French case illustrates, where conflict exists, torture worsens it. ---> CONCLUSION Torture is the outmoded tool of oppressive institutions useful for extracting false confessions and little else. Respect for basic human rights forbids its use and the practical scenarios existing in the real world effectively illustrate that it is not necessary for America to sacrifice her soul to win the war on terror. Thank you, the resolution is NEGATED. With that, I turn it over to my opponent. -- SOURCES -- http://tinyurl.com...