Personal tools

Argument: Enhanced interrogation techniques are unconstitutional

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Philip Zelikow, a former State Department lawyer and adviser to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, stated that he had argued it was unlikely that "any federal court would agree (that the approval of harsh interrogation techniques) ... was a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution."[1]

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits