The United States should limit the CIA's power based on there interrogation technique
Debate Rounds (4)
Round one Introduction
Round Two: Main Round
Round Three: Cross examination/clash
Round Four: conclusion
I have a few questions for clarification though. They are the following:
1. Which interrogation techniques are you reffering to?
2. What limits are you suggesting?
3. Can I run a K?
Resolutional analysis may occur if I find that your interpretation of resolution is unbalanced. I kow that there were concerns in the comments section, and they were adressed. I just ask that you not be too limting when defining the resolution.
I look forward to a fun and educational debate!
flamebreath forfeited this round.
Contention one: interrogation technique
when looking into the limitation of the CIA's power, we must look into the fact that the interrogation technique used by the CIA is rather inhuman and should be banned however; rather than reducing the amount of cruelty implied within the interrogation techniques, the CIA has been reported to be authorized by the CIA. A new report issued in August by human Rights First and Physicians for Human Rights, two influential and prominent rights organization, gives us the first comprehensive look at the legality of ten so-called “enhanced” interrogation techniques used by the CIA in light of the medical evidence on their mental and physical impact. This was also illustrated in the book “little brother” by Cory Doctorow in which Marcus’s right was deliberately taken away from him simply for been at the wrong place at the wrong time.
“In a 51 – 45 vote, the U.S. Senate passed this year’s authorization for intelligence activities. One of the most important provisions of the law this year was Section 327, which states:
SEC. 327. LIMITATION ON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.
(a) Limitation- No individual in the custody or under the effective control of an element of the intelligence community or instrumentality thereof, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.”
Contention two: constitution
The CIA for many years has gone against the constitution, the very foundation of our country. Although the CIA is a respected intelligence agency, we must find that it is still under the United states and therefore must fall under the constitution and other laws. The CIA has been reported to have gone against the fourth, fifth, sixth, eight and the fourteenth amendment as well as the constitutions habeas corpus in which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The CIA has also been reported of sending its victim to besare prisons around the world without letting them speak to there friends, family or even lawyers. We must find that this leaves the defendant/victim defenseless and subject to the CIA’s interrogation techniques.
“According to Jeffery H. Smith, partner at Arnold & Porter, LLP and former General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the answer is an overall failure to maintain the integrity of the intelligence process. On Tuesday, December 7, 2010, the ACS Washington, D.C. Lawyer Chapter held a brown bag lunch discussion on the challenges and responsibilities of lawyers at national security agencies, featuring Smith. Peter Schildkraut, partner at Arnold & Porter and former Chair of the ACS D.C. Lawyer Chapter, provided opening remarks.”
RougeFox forfeited this round.
The affirmative's constructive is not sufficient to vote aff. In an aff world, there is a risk that all of the CIA's interrogation techniques would be limited, because he doesn't define which techniques would not be limited because of the subjective nature of his arguments. The mere threat of this outweighs any impact of voting neg. Also, he didn't answer the questions I posed in round 1, so the aff's plan cannot be looked to. The resolution and arguments by pro were riddled with grammar and spelling mistakes. The resolved is negated.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.