J
JimmyG88
Guest
If you need an instruction manual God help us
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is perhaps a better reference. CCC 2297 doesn’t actually disallow torture for the purpose of obtaining information.*Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, **punish **the guilty, **frighten **opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.
*This prohibits its use for extracting confessions, punishing, frightening, or out of hatred. It was perhaps an oversight that it didn’t include the purpose that is actually being discussed here.
Ender
D
dmar198
Guest
Occasionally the Church states a general principle and then leaves it to states to apply the principle, and steps in to point out abuses as necessary. I think the Church may end up taking a similar stance on torture. They will probably end up stating the general principle that torture is not okay but inflicting limited physical pain Is okay. Then they will probably take up specific cases and say No to some of them. The website of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has a draft document with the following words:
“In some cases torture is easily recognizable and condemnable.” And: “Torture is not easy to define, but…common sense usually knows torture when one sees it.”
Also: “chaplains [should] act to stop such cases of torture, but should be called upon as well, in individual cases, to judge…licit interrogation techniques [such as] standing at attention for one hour…from torturous methods [such as] sleep deprivation for 24 hours… To do this objectively and fairly not only should the chaplains be prudent and experienced in matters of ethical treatment of captives but should have developed guidelines and principles to turn to a field that now, more than ever, needs development.”
source << that’s a Word document. The url is http [colon slash slash] www [dot] iustitiaetpax [dot] va/content/dam/giustiziaepace/image/Francais/pdf/o_brien.doc
That document is a draft by Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien from Baltimore Maryland. It is not yet an official statement of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. In my opinion, it has the ring of truth on the issue of defining and condemning torture while permitting legitimate interrogation techniques. I could see it being adapted by the Magisterium at some point in the future. We’ll have to wait and see.
In my opinion, a good definition of torture would leave room for two things: individual government authorities should be able to use their own best judgment, and the Church should be able to condemn abuses. Therefore, I think a definition such as this would work: torture is forcing a captive person to endure prolonged and/or repeated bodily or mental pain, beyond anything merited by a crime. << That definition leaves a qualifier in it that could allow government authorities some room to say “We inflicted This pain because he was committing That crime,” with the crime sometimes being “withholding needed information that could stop terrorists.” The qualifier also is a kind of open door invitation for debate about such things, and the Church could always step in and issue a judgment in individual cases: “No, that goes beyond what is merited by the crime.”
I hope that helps. Please let me know. God bless!
G
GEddie
Guest
In waterboarding, the issue is not of course the “water in the face,” but the disruption of breathing caused by water in the air passages.
This causes fear and distress, which is why some consider it to be torture, although no physical harm is done.
But the inclusion of psychological distress in “torture” is extremely recent. Even in the Korean War, such factors were not considered to involve torture.
ICXC NIKA
A
AlphaFoxtrotNW
Guest
This is another good point. I watched an interview with a retired interrogator and he showed that you have to be able to find a leverage point for that person, saying like “If you tell us the information, I can get your family to a safe place” and similar things.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
If recent history tells us anything it’s that nations tend to keep their intelligence-gathering secretive, especially when the desired results are not produced. The futility of waterboarding, for example, was revealed not willfully by the U.S. government, but by leaked documents.
I suspect that nations which unsuccessfully employed torture but vanquished their enemies either never mentioned that failure or rewrote history since their enemies were not around to contradict them. Nations that fail to vanquish their foes often don’t survive to share their own successes or failures. So frankly I don’t trust old sources on this matter. If torture were so successful then there should be numerous modern examples by now.
G
GEddie
Guest
That assumes that even when used successfully by a victorious power, that torture is something they would want to talk about. Why would it be?
W
WT1
Guest
Very tricky question:
If you 100% knew someone had information like the location of an active bomb that was 100% intended to kill innocent people then torture could be considered the moral alternative.
Note I’m not stating this is the view of the Church only my own opinion.
If you 100% knew someone had information like the location of an active bomb that was 100% intended to kill innocent people then torture could be considered the moral alternative.
Note I’m not stating this is the view of the Church only my own opinion.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
There is still only a subjective definition of what constitutes torture.
Waterboarding is questionable, since there is no permanent damage. Merely some momentary mental distress. Short term discomfort.
You can lock someone up in a spacious well lit cell and for that person, those conditions might be “torture”.
There is a Swiss pharmaceutical firm makes a fortune selling medications that relieve mental torture. But is that really “torture”?
We subject our own people to waterboarding as a part of their training.
Can’t be all that bad.
Certainly, administration of hot pokers and burning splints under the fingernails would be torture.
In that case, there is a physical damage.
But waterboarding, not so much.
And then there is the khazouk:
wnd.com/2015/01/muslim-woman-calls-for-torture-worse-than-crucifixion/
There is also a distinction that needs to be made between interrogation … to extract information … and punishment.
Waterboarding is questionable, since there is no permanent damage. Merely some momentary mental distress. Short term discomfort.
You can lock someone up in a spacious well lit cell and for that person, those conditions might be “torture”.
There is a Swiss pharmaceutical firm makes a fortune selling medications that relieve mental torture. But is that really “torture”?
We subject our own people to waterboarding as a part of their training.
Can’t be all that bad.
Certainly, administration of hot pokers and burning splints under the fingernails would be torture.
In that case, there is a physical damage.
But waterboarding, not so much.
And then there is the khazouk:
wnd.com/2015/01/muslim-woman-calls-for-torture-worse-than-crucifixion/
There is also a distinction that needs to be made between interrogation … to extract information … and punishment.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
What we have done is to shorten our vocabularies.
If you read books like “1984”, you can see how our descriptions of various things have shortened and so we no longer are able to debate much of anything.
By use of incomplete thoughs and statements, we corrupt our ability to describe thoroughly and completely, leaving much up to the imagination.
E
Ender
Guest
There are…(French in Algeria)* some members of the Algerian nationalist resistance who were subjected to the French mix of water torture, electric shock, and beatings did provide information *
(WWII - Philippines) *While traveling, the two sick colonels hooched up in a village, and sent a trusted Filipino to get them food and other supplies. He was caught by a Japanese patrol, brought to the local garrison in Bontoc, Mountain Province, and then tortured into revealing the whereabouts of the guerrilla leaders.
(WWII - Russia) …yesterday I met and talked at length to someone who many years ago in WW2 was tortured by the Soviet secret police. After four days and nights of sustained rubber-hose beatings he finally confessed to them the truth: that he was indeed as they suspected a member of the patriotic underground Polish National Army.
(Vietnam) Col Jeremiah Denton “warned the other POWs never to allow their captors to advance the indoctrination process to the point that the POWs were giving up without torture any information that was useful to North Vietnam’s cause.”
(Vietnam) Each of the men would break, and each of the men understood.
*(WWII - Pacific) **(Capt JP Cromwell) *possessed secret intelligence information of our submarine strategy and tactics, scheduled Fleet movements and specific attack plans… Determined to sacrifice himself rather than risk capture and subsequent danger of reveling plans under Japanese torture or use of drugs, he stoically remained aboard the mortally wounded vessel as she plunged to her death.
*There may well be practical problems with the use of torture, but the blanket assertion that “it doesn’t work” is simply wrong.
Ender
No. Torture is never morally justified. It is a violation of the dignity of the human person. It is also not an effective means of interrogation. Torture an innocent person enough and they’ll tell you anything to stop the torture.
E
Ender
Guest
We do indeed, and it’s reasonable to ask…why? If torture doesn’t work, why would we bother to inflict such treatment on our own military? It would appear the military believes it works (on at least some people), and they are trying to prepare their forces to withstand such treatment as best they can. It appears that those with direct experience of torture see it differently than those who are only speculating about it.
Ender
That doesn’t change the morality of it.
I think there’s a moral difference between torturing a “suspect” or even a guilty party, and military training to withstand torture. The training it consented to by those undertaking it who are preparing themselves to defend their country.
B
Bookcat
Guest
No.
But the question does arise as to “is this …torture”?
But the question does arise as to “is this …torture”?
E
Ender
Guest
I made no argument about whether it was moral, only about whether it was effective. Some people can withstand torture better than others, but for most people torture will extract whatever information they have.
Ender
G
GEddie
Guest
Nice and Aquinian sounding.
Still, there is no greater human indignity than being dead, yet the Church accepts the death penalty.
The issue is a mess, no matter how you try to philosophize it.
ICXC NIKA
O
Oreoracle
Guest
(WWII - Russia)* …yesterday I met and talked at length to someone who many years ago in WW2 was tortured by the Soviet secret police. After four days and nights of sustained rubber-hose beatings he finally confessed to them the truth: that he was indeed as they suspected a member of the patriotic underground Polish National Army.*
This example highlights my practical concerns with torture. They suspected the nature of the information they were supposedly given. They already had a yes-or-no question in mind, and the torture continued until a “yes” was given. That’s hardly information-extraction, it’s more like a game of Uncle.
Ask yourself honestly: Would interrogators ever accept information that is contrary to their expectations? Do they take in prisoners without expectations of the sort of information they should get? This isn’t rocket science. They aren’t just going to say, “Gee, you aren’t allied with our enemies? Guess we were wrong, boys. Let him go.” I would confess to being a unicorn if the alternative is being beaten with a hose and I knew my captors would be satisfied with no other answer.
D
dmar198
Guest
Yes there is, being a sinner. That’s also worse than torture.
The Church accepts the death penalty in just limits for reason that do not apply to torture.
X
xNoOnex
Guest
We also subjected our own people to Agent Orange. We’ve also admitted to testing biological and chemical weapons on our own servicemen. The argument “we do it to our own soldiers, so it can’t be that bad” is a very poor arguement.
- Status