The Forensics Files

Resolved: The use of torture by the United States to obtain information vital to preventing terrorist acts by foreign agents is moral.

Part I Introduction

As you have undoubtedly noticed, the resolution, “Resolved: The use of torture by the United States to obtain information vital to preventing terrorist acts by foreign agents is moral.” is not the selected topic for either the NFL or the UIL, nor is it, at least at the time this is being written, a potential topic for either organization. Our company selected this topic primarily because we think it is a good one.
The War on Terror has made the subject of torturing suspected terrorists a common subject for both the print and broadcast media. The Bush administration, while it condemns torture and denies using it as a tool, also admits to using what has been deemed “stress and duress” techniques on some suspects while transferring others to allied countries with, to put it mildly, a more liberal attitude toward the use of torture. Most astute people will recognize that “stress and duress” is merely a euphemism for torture, a kind of “torture light.”

We also selected this topic because it offers an excellent opportunity for clash between two of the major schools of thought on morality, utilitarianism and deontology. A few scholars, most notably Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University, have come out is support of the use of torture. (Professor Dershowitz supports the use of torture warrants to keep the practice legal, open, and limited.) These scholars face great opposition from those who denounce any use of torture as immoral. Those in favor of torture see the potential for saving thousands, possibly millions, of lives. Those opposed to torture see the government sanctioning an immoral act that will hurt innocents and legitimize the practice of torture.

After September 11^th, it became clear that the United States is just as much a target for terrorists as Israel. Israel has been using torture for years to prevent terrorist attacks. Israel has used, what Professor Dershowitz advocates, torture warrants, to keep the practice transparent. While it has practiced torture openly, it has not done so without debate. There have been many legal battles in Israel over this practice with mixed decisions. The US, if it continues the War on Terror, and it seems likely it will, and if it continues to hold detainees without trial and subject them to “stress and duress,” is very likely to parallel the experiences of Israel in this debate. We can already see evidence of this in cases before our higher courts.

We think that as the War on Terror continues, it is a subject that just might be picked by a forensics organization somewhere. We, at The Forensics Files think that if the country is going to engage in torture, it is a policy that certainly merits debate.

Part II The Affirmative

There is one major advantage to debating affirmative on this topic, and there is one major disadvantage. The major advantage is that while most people will profess that torture is not a practice that they want their government engaged in, they would also confess to agreement with Philosopher Michael Levin in the following ‘ticking bomb’ scenario he outlined: "Suppose a terrorist has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan Island which will detonate at noon on July 4 unless ... here follow the usual demands for money and release of his friends from jail. Suppose, further, that he is caught at 10 a.m on the fateful day, but preferring death to failure, won't disclose where the bomb is. What do we do? If we follow due process, wait for his lawyer, arraign him, millions of people will die. If the only way to save those lives is to subject the terrorist to the most excruciating possible pain, what grounds can there be for not doing so? I suggest there are none." Even some of the opponents of torture will begrudgingly admit that torture be warranted in such a scenario.

The major problem with debating this topic on affirmative is that it is just plain difficult to find too many advocates of torture whose last name isn’t Hussein or Bin Laden. On a Google or Lexis search for articles on torture, the vast majority of the articles on the subject will be adamantly opposed to torture at any time for any reason. This is also the case when looking for books on the subject. Even the Bush administration, which to some degree is engaged in at the least, “torture light,” won’t offer the affirmative much assistance with their own condemnation of the practice. There are some individuals who will defend the need for torture, but the affirmative will have to look hard for them.

It is the position of The Forensics Files that the affirmative must take a completely unapologetic approach to the resolution. The affirmative is not defending that torture is a necessary evil. The affirmative is arguing that torture, to prevent terrorist attacks, is moral. This does not allow any room for the affirmative to grant that the practice is an intrinsic evil, that it is bad, or that it is even unfortunate. The affirmative must look at this through the lens of saving thousands or more lives. In our opinion, this gives the affirmative two strong approaches to the resolution.

The first approach is a straight up defense of the utilitarian perspective. This is the argument that the lives of many outweigh the life, or more accurately, the pain of one person. This position is enhanced by the fact that the lives that torturing will save are innocent lives while the person who is being tortured is not an innocent. This is a person who has rejected any peaceful approach to persuading others to his or her cause. The terrorist is one who has embraced the use of violence to achieve political ends. The affirmative must be willing to defend the idea that the lives of the innocent are more important than the comfort of the guilty.

The affirmative can look at this as being similar to both criminal justice and national defense. Ignoring the idea of torture for the moment, the US recognizes the fact that those who engage in criminal behavior forfeit the majority of the rights, imprisonment, if not all of them, capital punishment. When someone engages in criminal behavior, society can lock them up in a small cell, force them to do manual labor, inspect their mail, search their bodies and possessions, and force them to make restitution for their crimes. Some might eve describe this as torture. The affirmative can easily draw parallels between the criminal who forfeits his or her rights and the terrorist, for the exact same reason. The affirmative can also, as we do in the affirmative case we offer, explain that in times of war, the military has the right, even the obligation, to kill in defense of the population. If the military can kill enemy combatants, it seems logical that it can torture them as well. The affirmative does not have to defend indiscriminate torture of those in custody. Just as soldiers have the right to kill as long as the battle is ongoing, it would seem that the battle is still ongoing for detainees who have knowledge that places many citizens in peril.

Another approach the affirmative can take is a pragmatic one. The affirmative can argue from the perspective that there is no such thing as an absolute morality. The affirmative can be prepared to attack the negative for advocating an absolutist approach, if the negative does, with many implications such as the denial of reason, etc. The affirmative can simply argue that in certain cases, such as the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario, some action must be taken. The affirmative can argue that once the war is over, since morality is conditional, we may elect to condemn the use of torture, but to prevent its use now would jeopardize too many people. The affirmative can also argue that in emergencies, the rules of morality change as support for the argument for conditional ethics.

Both of these approaches will require the affirmative to do some work to prove that torture actually works. There is some evidence out there that supports this claim. It is hard to find, but we have provided some both in the affirmative case and in the extensions. There are many arguments, from credible sources, that argue torture does not work. The affirmative must be prepared to answer these. In addition to finding evidence that supports the idea that it does work, the affirmative can offer ways to improve the accuracy of information given under torture, such as the verification method suggested by Professor Dershowitz.

Finally, the affirmative must be prepared to answer a large number of negative arguments. These arguments include the idea that once torture is condoned, it is impossible to contain. Another is the idea that torture actually causes more terrorism and backlash against the country using it. A third argument the negative is likely to make is that torture violates domestic and international law. Finally, the affirmative must be able to defend the moral perspective of utilitarianism or pragmatism against the deontological, or absolutist approach. We have provided blocks to help affirmatives defend against these arguments. We highly recommend doing some independent research and reading, especially to become more familiar with the criticism of the various moral approaches.

Part III The Negative

Because there are a wider variety of articles and advocates of not using torture, a larger variety of arguments exist for the negative. This gives the negative more flexibility in regards to different arguments when constructing cases. Since fewer arguments exist for the affirmative side, they will be more predictable and thus the negative will have to be prepared for fewer arguments. However, the affirmative arguments to most of the negative’s contentions will be very strong.

There are two main ways that the negative can approach the topic. The first is the deontological perspective. In the sample negative case provided below, we chose to use part of Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative that humans should never be used as a means, but always as an end in themselves. Kant argues that certain absolute moral rules exist and that each person should follow those rules regardless of the consequences. Treating a person as a means, such as torture to obtain information, would be using a human to achieve another end and thus would be immoral. This point of view is a strong weapon for the negative because, even if the affirmative wins that torture works and has positive results, all the negative has to do is win that torture is immoral and, thus, not morally justified.

The negative will have to go beyond saying that torture uses people as a means to end and thus is immoral. Other ways in which the negative can prove that the use of torture is immoral is because it denies the dignity of humans. In order for a human being to treat another human in such a way that inflicts pain on them to achieve some end, a mental process takes place. In this process, the torturer strips those tortured of their humanity so that the use of violence can be justified towards them, which they wouldn’t necessarily inflict upon other people. David Berube, a professor of speech communications at the University of South Carolina writes in Nanotechnology Magazine, “When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensible, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable…” This violates Kant’s Categorical Imperative because torture, obviously, dehumanizes individuals and allows them to be treated as a means to an end.

Secondly, the use of torture violates fundamental human rights and allows the government to define what is moral or immoral. This would allow the government to use torture or any other form of violating rights that it deemed moral. Once these acts are justified, as Berube argues, they become inevitable. This might be more applicable in a governmental realm where officials of the government now have more techniques to use to obtain information. Mark Twain once wrote, "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Similarly, once it is justified for the government to have the tool of torture, its use might spillover into other situations that don't involve obtaining information about terrorist attacks.

Finally, the United States government condemns the use of torture to obtain information, but often uses "stress and duress" techniques to obtain information from detainees at Guantanimo Bay and, oftentimes, sends them to other countries to be tortured. However, the United States currently denies torturing captives in the War on Terror and condemns the use of torture internationally. Whenever the United States justifies using torture, for whatever means, it hurts its leverage to have other countries stop using torture. The negative can argue that the United States has a moral duty to condemn torture both at home and abroad.

We chose to take this first approach to the topic to allow the negative to engage the affirmative on both criterions: utilitarianism and deontology. However, if the negative wishes to avoid a Kantian debate, there are many strong arguments against torture on the utilitarian level. These arguments are that torture won't work, the information obtained from torture isn't credible, using torture in some circumstances allows it to be used in others, torture violates both international and domestic law and that alternate methods to torture exist.

If the negative wins that torture won't work, then the affirmative can claim little to no benefits to using torture. There are many persuasive arguments as to why torture won't work. First of all, when someone is tortured, they will say anything and everything to end the physical and/or psychological pain. This could lead interrogators to investigate that information and lose valuable time trying to verify the information and have to start over again. Torture methods might also cause someone to confess to being knowing about terrorist activities when they really don't, to just stop the pain. An important argument for the negative to make is that intelligence officials can never be sure if they have the right person. If torture is justified, then there is no limit to the number of people can be tortured to find a person that knows about terrorist attacks. For example, do we torture just the one person suspected of knowing about a terrorist attack, or can we torture everyone that terrorist knows to get more information, or do we torture everyone that knows someone who knows the person suspected of having information about a terrorist attack? There's no line to be drawn when torture is justified. Finally, a person may be in such a state of shock that the information they give, even if intended to be accurate, is articulated as something that might be remotely true.

Additionally, there are many international laws and treaties that the United States is a signatory to that prohibit the use of torture. The negative can argue that the United States has a moral obligation to uphold its international agreements not to use torture. It can also be argued that torture violates the fundamental principles of the United States constitution specifically the use of "cruel and unusual punishment" and lack of due process rights. There also might be some moral implications that the negative can articulate as to why the United States has a moral obligation to uphold the constitution.

Finally, other methods exist to decrease the threats of terrorist attacks that aren't morally reprehensible. For example, increasing security checkpoints in various areas are a less intrusive way to go about solving terrorism. If the negative can win that terrorism won't work and/or that there are alternate ways to go about decreasing the threat of terrorism, then the negative only needs to win a risk that torture is bad in order to win that it is not morally justified in a utilitarian calculus. The other arguments from the deontological calculus can be used to prove that torture is bad in order to win that it isn't justified in utilitarianism either.

	Philosopher Michael Levin asks the questions, “If you caught the terrorists could you sleep nights knowing that millions died

because you couldn’t bring yourself to apply the electrodes?” It is because I know I couldn’t sleep that I must affirm the resolution that reads,

“Resolved: The use of torture by the United States to obtain information vital to preventing terrorist acts by foreign agents is moral.”

	Affirming achieves the value of a legitimate government defined as a government that fulfills the mandate for which it was created.

The purpose of the US government is stated most clearly in the preamble to the Constitution that reads, in part, “We the people of the United States,

in order to form a more perfect union…provide for the common defense…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Clearly, one of the most primary responsibilities of the US government is to defend the nation from foreign attack.  Securing the nation protects

 individual rights, fosters domestic tranquility, and creates an environment where the citizens of the nation can pursue personal values such as love,

enlightenment, and prosperity.  Therefore, the criterion I offer to gauge the legitimacy of a government is the maintenance of national security.

	In order to clarify the round, I offer the following definitions: Torture is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as The infliction of severe

bodily pain, as punishment or a means of persuasion; spec. judicial torture, ‘inflicted by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority, for the purpose of forcing

an accused or suspected person to confess, or an unwilling witness to give evidence or information.’  Vital is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary

 as, ‘Necessary to continued existence or effectiveness; essential.’ Prevent is defined from the same source as, ‘To keep from happening.’  Terrorist act

is defined by TheFreeDictionary.com as, ‘the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or

 religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.’  And foreign is defined from The American Heritage

Dictionary as, ‘Subject to the jurisdiction of another political unit.’

	My first observation is that the American people have a moral right to exist and therefore to self-defense.  Most every moral system

recognizes the inherent right to life of every individual human being.  From this right come other rights and liberties such as the right of an individual to

sustain his or her life, the idea of protecting the innocent, and the right, and some say duty, to self-defense.  In an article for Capitalism Magazine entitled

 “No Permission Needed,” Brett Schaefer writes, “The right to self-defense is a long-standing principle in international law, and the United Nations

 charter reflects this. “Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against

a member of the United Nations,” the 54-year-old U.N. charter states.”

	My second observation is that the US has the moral right to take all actions necessary in self-defense up to and including killing.  This is

because individuals forfeit their right to life when they use or attempt to use force to deprive people of their own right to life.  If the US has the moral

right to kill those who have forfeited this right, it has the right to use torture on them as well.

	My only contention is that torture is an effective method to maintain the national defense.

	A) Torture has successfully stopped terrorist attacks in the past.  Dana Priest and Barton Gellman wrote in The Washington Post, “Those

who refuse to cooperate inside this secret CIA interrogation center are…subject to what are known as "stress and duress" techniques.  In a speech on

Dec. 11, CIA director George J. Tenet said that interrogations overseas have yielded significant returns recently. He calculated that worldwide efforts to

capture or kill terrorists had eliminated about one-third of the al Qaeda leadership. "Almost half of our successes against senior al Qaeda members has

come in recent months," he said.  Many of these successes have come as a result of information gained during interrogations.”

	B) Torture techniques work due to the hierarchy of loyalty.  Mark Bowden writing for The Observer Magazine explains, “Every large part

of who a man is depends on his circumstances. No matter who he is before his arrest, his sense of self will blur in custody. Isolation, fear and deprivation

 force a man to retreat, to reorient himself and to reorder his priorities. For most men, Koubi says, the hierarchy of loyalty under stress is 1) self, 2) group,

3) family, 4) friends. In other words, even the most dedicated terrorist (with very rare exceptions), when pushed hard enough, will act to preserve and

protect himself at the expense of anyone or anything else. 'There's an old Arab saying,' Koubi says. '"Let one hundred mothers cry, but not my mother -

but better my mother than me".”

                C) Successful interrogations lead to more valuable information and reduce the need for further torture.  Mark Bowden, writing for The

Observer Magazine explains, “There are many ways that scraps of information - gathered by old-fashioned legwork or the interrogation of a subject's

 associates - can be leveraged by a clever interrogator into something new. Those scraps might be as simple as knowing the names of a man's siblings or

key associates, the name of his girlfriend, or a word or phrase that has special meaning to his group. Uncovering privileged details diminishes the aura of a

secret society, whether it is a social club, a terrorist cell or a military unit. Joining such a group makes an individual feel distinct, important and superior,

and invests even the most mundane of his activities with meaning. An interrogator who penetrates that secret society, unravelling its shared language,

culture, history, customs, plans and pecking order, can diminish its hold on even the staunchest believer. Suspicion that a trusted comrade has betrayed

the group - or the subject himself - undermines the sense of a secretly shared purpose and destiny. Armed with a few critical details, a skilled interrogator

can make a subject doubt the value of information he has been determined to withhold. It is one thing to suffer in order to protect a secret, quite another

to cling to a secret that is already out. This is how a well-briefed interrogator breaches a group's defences.”

	D) Time considerations could leave no other options but to torture.  Philosopher Michael Levin explains a real possibility, “Suppose a terrorist

has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan Island which will detonate at noon on July 4 unless ... here follow the usual demands for money and release

of his friends from jail. Suppose, further, that he is caught at 10 a.m on the fateful day, but preferring death to failure, won't disclose where the bomb is.

What do we do? If we follow due process, wait for his lawyer, arraign him, millions of people will die… There is little danger that the Western

democracies will lose their way if they choose to inflict pain as one way of preserving order. Paralysis in the face of evil is the greater danger.”