NB: This is yet another debate speech I never got to deliver.
On September 8 2014, AmnestyUSA.org reported the case of Moses Akatugba who was tortured into signing a confession which he pleaded innocent of and was later sentenced to death. So I wonder, what happens when an intended shot at the criminal ends up in the skull of an innocent citizen who was the priority of National Security? Can that be ever justified?
My opponent have come to emblemize the need for torture on one to save million others. Well, I applaud their concern. But I will like them to check out Capstone National Partners top five threat to National Security published in October 2012 and supported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in September 2016. They are biological weapons, nuclear attacks, cyber-attacks, climate change and arms smuggling.
Ladies and gentlemen, the stories of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and the war currently going on in Syria quickly brings to mind that even governments are guilty of what they try to use in justifying torture on others. So should we listen to the claim of the devil to justify the crime he once perpetrated? That is far from being justified.
Let us all for once reflect on what the true purpose of torture is. If it is to get information, let us not be quick to forget that a drowning man can grasp a straw. So, the person being tortured can give a false statement just for the pain to subside. If it is to save lives, it will astound you to note that even the torturer suffer acutely from the whole process as reported by the New York Times in November 1997. And come to think of it, we live in the 21st century where technology is ever growing. Devices such as lie detectors and the likes are available for use. This only shows that the use of torture is primitive and its justification for National Security is hypocrisy from those who preach the gospel of modernization.
Moving on, Amnesty International on August 2015 reported that over 300 protesters were apprehended and tortured in Burundi. The Burundi’s Intelligence saw this protest as a threat to security, so this gave them an obligatory ground to beat these protesters with iron bars and electric wire, deprive them of sleep and burn them in battery acid. Ladies and Gentlemen, this only show to us that an allowance for the use of torture creates avenue for abuse and misuse. So do not be surprised when a poor mallam begging to feed his children is detained by a police officer who feels his Boko Haram-ic look is a threat to National Security. This definitely is far from being justified.
At this juncture, we must all realize that National Security goes beyond just military security. It also encompasses health, food and economic security according to Prabhakaran Paleri, an Indian academician. So if torture is deemed justified, we should be able to beat up microbes into confessing their cures in order to safeguard our health, we should be able to torture plant weeds to provide useful information on how to protect our food crops better, we should also be able to break Mr. Job-In-No-Town for us to improve our economic security. But until the day these concepts are achievable, torture will remain unjustified for a broad concept like National Security.
Soon, my opponent might want to bamboozle us with fallaciously laced statistics. But before they come to confuse us, permit me to give a rundown of the survey conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation on the use of torture for National Security in October 2006. Two in every three Russian said no to the proposition. Four out of every Five gave NO to it in China. Over 70% were against it in Britain. And the barely 20% that said YES to it in France cited that it should be at its minimum.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the figures speak for themselves. And if my opponent truly believe in Democracy, then it is time they bowed to the people’s opinion that torture is not justified for National Security.
Representing the Dynamite Squad, I am Abdul Mujeeb Muhammad Jummah. Thank you.