Point

If authorities have good reason to believe that there is a realistic threat of a nuclear explosion in
downtown Manhattan or Tel Aviv then it is vital that as much information as possible can be gathered as
quickly as possible.
If that requires pain to be inflicted on an individual to save the lives of millions then it is simply
practical to do so. The harm represented by the pain caused to a single individual is outweighed by the
possibility that information gathered from a forceful interrogation might save thousands of lives

Counterpoint
What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a
village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution
must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must
information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and
coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?
If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual
is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be
considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either
be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

Point
Terrorist networks use fear, pain and suffering as their stock in trade. By definition, terror organisations
are not bound by legal due process or rights of appeal and review. Instead they deal out death to innocent
members of society who have no power to alter the events and policies that motivate terrorists atrocities.
By contrast, the first role of governments is to protect their citizens safety and they should use all tools
possible to ensure that innocents are not threatened with random death and destruction.
In the light of these two realities, it is appropriate for governments to take extreme measure, such as
torture, to protect their citizens.

Counterpoint
When battling those who would seek to replace the rule of law and democratic governance with
religious decree, it is more important than ever to demonstrate that the principles of a civilised society
are paramount.
In the light of that reality, for the state to use the very tools of fear and violence that they are fighting
against sends out the wrong message. It means, in effect, that nations have put themselves on the same
moral level as the terrorist organisations they are fighting.
Instead it is important to demonstrate that actions undertaken quite legally are an effective bulwark
against terror. Moreover, it is necessary to demonstrate that these values are part of a system of rule of
law; that values of justice, fairness and accountability are seen as valuable both by a states leaders, but
also by arbiters (judges) and its people.

Point
The use of force and fear in enhanced interrogation gives quick results. In the event of a bomb hidden
somewhere in Manhattan, its vital to have information quickly. Nobody, even the most diehard
proponents of enhanced interrogation, would suggest that it is pleasant or should be used on a routine
basis; the point is that techniques such as waterboarding are effective and fast.
Responding to terrorist threats is something that needs to be dealt with in minutes or hours.
Unfortunately, it is in the nature of due process and legal procedure that they trials and questioning take
place in a framework of days or weeks.

Counterpoint
The primary difficulty with the use of torture is not one of principle but one of practice it doesnt
work. You simply have no way of checking whether the information is accurate. By using force or the
threat of force, suspects are under pressure to say something- anything- that will stop the pain they are
experiencing. However, information acquired this way will not necessarily be true
In the light of this, the use of torture actually slows things down the process of investigating and
preventing terrorist threats. This is particularly true of terror suspects for whom death has no fear and for
whom it may, in fact be a goal. A much safer approach to rooting out terrorist who seek to martyr
themselves is old fashioned, and perfectly legal, investigation.

Point
The advantage of a complete ban on torture is that it leaves no room for doubt, no possibility for
confusion, no need to apply personal judgement. Under the status quo, it is simply illegal to use force or
the threat of force to solicit information from a suspect, regardless of the charge.
The moment that becomes something other than a complete ban then it puts an intolerable pressure on
security officials to decide when it is justified and when it is not.
The experience of Abu Grahib demonstrates how the use of abusive treatment can become routine, even
trivial, all too quickly. If it is acceptable to use torture to prevent mass-murder, then why not murder? If
for murder than why not rape? And so on.

Counterpoint
It is perfectly possible to put legal structures in place that allow for judicial overview of the interrogation
techniques used. In most Western countries the most common targets of modern terrorism there are
already legal frameworks for judicial approval of the extension of detention periods and so forth on an
emergency basis. The same form of oversight could be used here and exactly the same principle of
retrospective appeal could apply to ensure that the capacity was not misused.

Point
The principle that all people are presumed innocent and, as a result, should not be abused either
physically or mentally by officers of the state is one that took centuries- not to mention a great deal of
blood and sweat- to establish. In the words of British Chief Justice Phillips this respect for human rights

is, in and of itself, a vital part in the fight against terror, as if terrorism is to be defeated states that
ascribe to such principles must show that they remain true to them in order to win the ideological battle.
Using torture on suspected terrorist would be to tear apart that basic principle in response to crimes,
which, it has been noted, are on nothing like the scale of the industrialised warfare of the twentieth
century, would be a massively damaging step. Regardless of the scale of the crime the individual must
have protections against false accusation and punishment, this means that a fair trial is necessary in
order to determine innocence or guilt.

Counterpoint
The era of battlefield warfare has passed. The war on terror may be a new form of combat, but the
results are no less serious. Were a terrorist flying a military bomber aircraft to deliver a payload of death
and destruction on one of the worlds major cities, nobody would think twice about shooting it down,
killing the crew and preventing the bombing.
There is no meaningful way in which the example above is morally different from leaving a bomb in a
station or on a subway train. Societies have the right to defend themselves by all means necessary. The
combatants involved in this process consider themselves to be at war and revel in the fatalities they
cause. It is only sensible for states to treat these individuals as though that war were a reality in the more
traditional meaning of the word.

Point
If we accept that this is a war, then its focus is not so much political control of territory as the
preservation of a way of life. It is ridiculous to fight to defend principles of equality and decency using
the tool of abandoning them the moment they become inconvenient.
The forces of religious extremism wish to undo 1,400 years of democratic development. We should not
assist them in that process by allowing the major powers of the West throw out the most basic principles
of the rule of law. Such a move, ultimately, has the potential to be vastly more destructive than the
actions of a few fanatics

Counterpoint
No amount of legal niceties would bring any comfort to the families of those slaughtered in terrorist
atrocities around the world. When you are fighting an enemy that has no time for the European
Convention on Human Rights, the US Bill of Rights, English common law or the Geneva Convention it
is simply impractical to apply those standards.
The basic principle of terrorism is to cause as much fear, panic and destruction as possible. Terrorists do
not have a set goal in mind, they are not functioning as rational individuals, and affording them the
luxury of treating them as such ignores what they are likely to do.
The great wars of the twentieth century were fought within the confines of post-Enlightenment thought,
however extreme that may have become. The wars of the 21st seem set to be Mediaeval in nature, with
the promise of paradise rather than provinces as the reward for martyrdom. The defense of the values of
liberty and democracy must reflect that new and chilling reality.

Damon Thibodeaux went out with several of his Jefferson Parish, Louisiana neighbors on the evening of
July 19, 1996, to look for his 14 year old cousin Crystal Champaigne, who hadn't been seen since going
to the supermarket earlier that afternoon. The search continued overnight and into the following
afternoon, when police began interviewing people who had been with Crystal before she disappeared.
An officer was interviewing Damon -- who had been at the Champaigne's home when Crystal left for the
store -- when he was told that her body had been found, partially naked and strangled with a cord. At
that point, a homicide detective took over the questioning.
Damon said he knew nothing about the murder and agreed to a polygraph test, which police said he
failed. After nearly nine hours of interrogation, Damon gave a recorded statement confessing to
consensual and non-consensual sex with the victim and then to beating and murdering her. There were
numerous inconsistencies between his statement and the facts of the crime, including that there was no
evidence of semen in the victim's body and that Damon claimed to have strangled her using a white or
gray speaker wire from his car, not the red electrical cord which had been burned off from a cord
hanging from a tree near the crime scene. Damon was arrested, charged with rape and murder, and
finally allowed to eat and rest, after which he immediately recanted.
Based on his recorded confession, Damon Thibodeaux was sentenced to death and spent 15 years on
death row and 16 years in prison before DNA testing proved his innocence. During the exoneration
procedings that proved his innocence, an expert in false confessions concluded that the combination of
exhaustion from the overnight search and long interrogation, psychological vulnerability and fear of the
death penalty led Damon to falsely confess.
The reasons that people falsely confess are complex and varied, but what they tend to have in common
is a belief that complying with the police by saying that they committed the crime in question will be
more beneficial than continuing to maintain their innocence.
The factors that can contribute to a false confession during a police interrogation include:

duress
coercion
intoxication
diminished capacity
mental impairment
ignorance of the law
fear of violence
the actual infliction of harm
the threat of a harsh sentence
misunderstanding the situation
Confessions obtained from juveniles are often unreliable -- children can be easy to manipulate and are
not always fully aware of their situation.
People with mental disabilities have often falsely confessed because they are tempted to accommodate
and agree with authority figures. Further, many law enforcement interrogators are not given any special
training on questioning suspects with mental disabilities. An impaired mental state due to mental illness,
drugs or alcohol may also elicit false admissions of guilt.

Mentally capable adults also give false confessions due to a variety of factors like the length of
interrogation, exhaustion or a belief that they can be released after confessing and prove their innocence
later.

From threats to torture

Sometimes law enforcement use harsh interrogation tactics with uncooperative suspects. But some
police officers, convinced of a suspects guilt, occasionally use tactics so persuasive that an innocent
person feels compelled to confess. For instance, it is perfectly legal for law enforcement to employ
deception or trickery in the interrogation room. Some suspects are untruthfully told that there is already
evidence pointing to their guilt, such as a forensic test that links the suspect to the crime. Some suspects
have confessed to avoid physical harm or discomfort. Others are told they will be convicted with or
without a confession and that their sentence will be more lenient if they confess. Some are told a
confession is the only way to avoid the death penalty. These tactics can be persuasive in eliciting a false
confession.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who was tortured during his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has
proposed an amendment outlawing all forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment
for U.S.-held detainees. The amendment, attached to a defense-spending bill, passed the Senate by
ninety votes to nine, but faces a veto by the White House over objections the bill may hinder the CIAs
ability to gather intelligence from detainees. When asked about the torture amendment during his recent
visit to Latin America, President George Bush replied, We do not torture, but added that our
government has the obligation to protect the American people. Supporters of the amendment say laws
prohibiting torture mirror those already found in the U.S. Armys field manuals. Opponents, including
Vice President Dick Cheney, say the amendment should not apply to detainees held by CIA agents who
might have invaluable information about an imminent terrorist attack.
Torture is universally condemned, and whatever its actual practice, no country publicly supports torture
or opposes its eradication. The prohibition against torture is well established under customary
international law as jus cogens; that is, it has the highest standing in customary law and is so
fundamental as to supercede all other treaties and customary laws (except laws that are also jus cogens).
Criminal acts that are jus cogens are subject to universal jurisdiction, meaning that any state can exercise
its jurisdiction, regardless of where the crime took place, the nationality of the perpetrator or the
nationality of the victim.
In 1948, following the horrific abuses of World War II, the General Assembly of the United Nations
inserted the prohibition against torture in the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article
5 states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment." This ban on torture and other ill-treatment has subsequently been incorporated into the
extensive network of international and regional human rights treaties. It is contained in Article 7 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by 153 countries, including the
United States in 1992, and in the Convention against Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (the Convention against Torture), ratified by 136 countries, including the
United States in 1994. It is also codified in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and the American
Convention on Human Rights.
The prohibition against torture is also fundamental to humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war),
which governs the conduct of parties during armed conflict. An important element of international

humanitarian law is the duty to protect the life, health and safety of civilians and other noncombatants,
including soldiers who are captured or who have laid down their arms. Torture of such protected persons
is absolutely forbidden. Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, for example, bans "violence of
life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" as well as
"outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." The use of force to
obtain information is specifically prohibited in Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: "No
physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain
information from them or from third parties."
According to the 1999 Initial Report of the United States to the U.N. Committee against Torture, in the
United States, the use of torture "is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state
authorityNo official of the government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to
commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in
any formEvery act of torture within the meaning of the [Convention against Torture] is illegal under
existing federal and state law, and any individual who commits such an act is subject to penal sanctions
as specified in criminal statutes."
Although no single provision of the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits torture as a means to extract
information, secure a confession, punish for an act committed, intimidate or coerce, or for any reason
based on discrimination, there is no question that torture violates rights established by the Bill of Rights.
The U.S. courts have located constitutional protections against interrogations under torture in the Fourth
Amendment's right to be free of unreasonable search or seizure (which encompasses the right not be
abused by the police), the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination (which encompasses the
right to remain silent during interrogations), the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of
due process (ensuring fundamental fairness in criminal justice system), and the Eighth Amendment's
right to be free of cruel or unusual punishment. In numerous cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has
condemned the use of force amounting to torture or other forms of ill treatment during interrogations,
including such practices as whipping, slapping, depriving a victim of food, water, or sleep, keeping him
naked or in a small cell for prolonged periods, holding a gun to his head, or threatening him with mob
violence. Torture would also violate state constitutions, whose provisions generally parallel the
protections set forth in the federal Bill of Rights.
Article 4 of the Convention against Torture obligates state parties to ensure that all acts of torture are
criminal offenses under domestic legislation. Although there is no single federal law specifically
criminalizing torture, the United States has insisted that existing federal and state laws render illegal any
act falling with the Convention against Torture's definition of torture. In the United States, most criminal
laws are state rather than federal. Although a few states have laws addressing torture as such, each state
has laws that criminalize violence against persons (e.g. assault, rape), regardless of whether committed
by public officials or private individuals. In addition, states typically have specific laws that criminalize
acts by public officials that constitute abuses of authority, "official oppression," or the unlawful
infliction of bodily injury. The principal federal law that would apply to torture against detainees is 18
U.S.C. 242, which makes it a criminal offense for any public official to willfully to deprive a person of
any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
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
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 (CAT, 1984: Art. 1).

Torture was addressed in the U.S. Constitution in 1791, with the ratification of the Eighth Amendment.
It consists of one sentence:
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.