The Torture Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_Dawson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter_Dawson

Guest
Now they are going after Condoleezza Rice for approving acts of torture. So, we ask, Is torture sometimes morally correct?

READERS, BEWARE. THIS IS A ROUGH HYPO.

At 2:00 a.m. Israel time a team of Palestinian terrorists sneak quietly into the largest school bus bus barn serving the Jerusalem metropolitan area, cut the transceiver power lines on every one of 200 buses with wire cutters, and carefully attach extremely powerful time bombs to the underside of 2 buses, only.

One member of the team is a 13 year old boy, whose father is training him for future missions.

The next morning, at 7:35 a.m., after the first bomb kills 47 middle school children, at a busy intersection in front of the bus born, the 13 year old Palestinian boy assumes that the Israeli policeman directing traffic a few feet away does not speak Palestinian. So, he brags to his 10 year old brother, out load, “The second bomb on bus number” BEEP – a car beeps its horn just as the boy says the number – “will go off in 9 minutes! So, listen hard!”

The Israeli policeman, whose Palestinian mother taught him Palestinian, heard everything but the bus number. While struggling to remain perfectly calm and directing traffic, he radios-in to headquarters a report about the boy’s statement.

Within 120 seconds, 40 police and army vehicles converge on the intersection. The boys look up, startled. The policeman, watching them to make sure that the did not run away, looks them in the eyes. The boys suddenly know that their conversation was overheard. They turn and run. The 10 year old escapes. The policeman successfully tackles the 13 year old.

Only 7 minutes to go. Police and army officials fluent in Palestinian, in a panic, yell at the boy to reveal the bus number. The boy stands silent. An Israeli Army captain starts weeping and he kneels in front of the boy and says, in Palestinian, “Boy, I have 3 daughters on those buses. Please, please tell us which bus it is. If one of our daughters die, my wife will die of a broken heart. Tell us, and God will be so happy.” But the soldier makes a mistake: He inserts the Hebrew word for God into the Palestinian language sentence. The boy, surprised, looks down at the kneeling soldier, spits in his eye, and laughs.

The ring of soldiers and police freeze. What can they do? They call the bus company and ask them to radio out an alarm to evacuate every single bus, but the company owner said, “We’ve been trying since the first bus exploded, but every single bus transceiver has been sabotaged! And few of the drivers carry cell phones because the transceivers normally always work. So, we can’t reach them!”

There are 4 minutes to go. Suddenly the policeman who had been directing traffic can’t take it any more. He grabs a bayonet from a soldier, puts it in his belt, and says to the Chief of Police, “Sir, let me handle this. I know what to do. Just have police and military ready, right now, at every single school served by the bus company, and had the bus company owner ready with a map of the routes served by each bus.” He calmly walks over to the Palestinian boy, picks him up, and carries him into a police van and closes the door behind him. “Boy,” he gently says in Palestinian, “Tell us the number immediately, or I will cause you pain.” The boy cursed at the policeman in Palestinian. The policeman, seeing that the boy is right handed, grabs his left wrist and kneels on the boy’s arm, and flattens the boy’s hand against the deck. The boy flails wildly and sinks his teeth into the policeman’s side, drawing blood. The policeman, intent on saving the children, feels nothing. He carefully begins cutting open the boy’s pinky with the bayonet. The boy, in pain, screams curses. The policeman moves the blade tip inside the cut on the end of the pinky finger. The boy finally screams, “BUS 167!!! BUS 167!!!”

Immediately army officials tell the company owner, waiting for the information on his cell phone, the bus number. He in turn immediately tells the army officials which school is served by the bus, and where the second half of its route takes it.

Police and army officials follow the route backwards, and find the bus and pull it over. There are 2 minutes to go.

To prevent a panic, as a male soldier whispers instructions to the bus driver, a female soldier posing as a school official gently and smilingly tells the children that they are about to engage in a “bus fire drill.” The children listen attentively, as soldiers kick-out every bus window at the bottom, and begin helping the first, second and third grade out of the bus, as fast as possible, through the windows, into the waiting arms of soldiers and police. Nearby homes are evacuated by other soldiers and police. With 5 seconds to go, the last child is being carried away from the bus by an Israeli soldier.

BOOM.

The explosion is enormous. Every window within one square miles is broken by the concussion. Thousands of people too close to the explosion are knocked down and their noses bloodied by the boom. 15 nearby homes are destroyed. But only one person – the soldier carrying the first grader, who used his body to shield the first grader, dies. Israel celebrates the miracle.

Question: Was cutting open the little boy’s pinky finger with the bayonet moral?
 
Sounds like an Isreali Jack Bauer (tv show-24) at work here.

Don’t know… I’m inclined to say moral (and pretty gross I might add), given the circumstances. Here there is clear evidence that the boy knew key information AND the information would directly prevent more loss of life, and was not going to talk otherwise.

IF the scenario were much less clear, I would say torture is not justified.
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
**2297 ***Kidnapping *and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. *Terrorism *threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. *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. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and *sterilizations *performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
 
40.png
Holly3278:
Hi, Holly. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

But are you saying that you think that the Church would say that its better that an entire bus of grade school children be murdered than let the one child’s baby finger be cut?

I doubt that, good friend.
 
The Church approved of torture as part of the justice process in past centuries (as per Roman law). Church courts frequently used torture. There were, however, restrictions. Blood could not be drawn and mutilation was prohibited. So perhaps we need to define “torture”.
 
The Church approved of torture as part of the justice process in past centuries (as per Roman law). Church courts frequently used torture. There were, however, restrictions. Blood could not be drawn and mutilation was prohibited. So perhaps we need to define “torture”.
It sounds like paragraph 2297 of the Catechism as quoted by Holly had your “definition” of torture in mind and the Church Fathers wisely indicated that it is “against the moral law” and is forbidden.

ChadS
 
And yet the Church justifies killing in self-defense in a state of war. We could have killed this boy if in a conventional just war, but not torture him to gain information to save other lives? Please explain this to me…
 
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.

It is interesting to note that nowhere does it mention gaining information to save lives in a state of war.
 
2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. 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. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
The boy was not innocent.
 
Clearly, this is not the world I want to be living in; Jesus, deliver me!
 
I still do not understand what the Church stance is. The Catechism makes it pretty clear that it is not allowed.

I f you read on to 2039 in the Catechism, it gives the conditions for allowing war and exactly what is allowed and for what reason.

*The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
Since we are talking about a war, I guess that it would be okayed. One child compared to so many children. He was not killed, his finger remained intact and many others were saved.

If this had been a full grown adult, would it concern us nearly as much?

God Bless!
 
The problem with the story in the OP is that it’s the perfect story to justify torture. All the elements needed to justify torture are there: there’s an imminent threat that requires immediate action, it is known what information the kid has and what information is needed, and it’s clear that traditional methods of questioning aren’t timely enough and are of no use. Also, in this story, the person being tortured only has his finger cut – hardly something most people couldn’t imagine themselves living through.

However, you would be extremely hard pressed to find one verifiable incident where the perfect storm of events came together to justify torture. Of the people captured and tortured they did not possess information that immediately actionable, indeed as soon as somebody is captured their value as a detainee starts to decline the longer they are out of the loop. It has not been shown anywhere that torture produces more information that can’t be gotten from traditional methods of interrogation.

Just the whole story and the way it sets it up is so clearly meant to lead the reader to draw only one conclusion that torture works and is necessary. This story is nothing but a strawman to prop up that idea too. Torture isn’t provided for in the catechism for ar reason: it’s immoral and sinful. It has no place in civilized society and no place in any just war or military action.

ChadS
 
Torture? Torture?

Flying an plane into the twin towers, killing three thousand plus innocent Americans and these sob’s want to keep doing it. I say do what is necessary to keep us safe. Those people behead American Soldiers and drag their bodies through the streets of some city in Somalia and Baghdad, hang them from bridges. Kill the SOB’S. Defend us at any cost to them. So be it.
 
Torture has been declared by the Church to be an intrinsic evil, and as such can’t be justified unless the Church is going to provide stipulations for situations in which torture is regrettable but permissable (as she does for defining a just war).

Although paragraph 2297 of the CCC does explicitly state in the last sentence that …directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law, it also states that 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.

In the hypothetical example given, the pain inflicted on the boy was most definitely done to frighten him. It was also done, in a way, to extract a confession. Although the policeman heard him make a statement of apparent guilt, the truth of which was unverifiable at the time, there was no certainty in that policeman’s mind that the boy was actually guilty of any act of terror. He could have just been bragging to his friend, lying to make himself sound important. Kids and adults alike will do that, all too often.

And that’s the chief problem with hypothetical situations. We as the reader possess foreknowledge that, in the real world, would only belong to God. We don’t know in advance what the result of the situation will be if a certain action is or is not taken. We don’t know guilt or innocence. We don’t know who will or will not die. We can’t condemn a possible innocent on the chance that it will save the lives of others or generate some kind of greater good. Only God is allowed to permit evil in the course of achieving a greater future good, because only God knows enough to determine what the greater good is.

In reality, if “backup” appeared in under two minutes, it would NOT be 40 police and army vehicles. It might be one or two people in that short of a time. They would have all the doubts that go along with lack of foreknowledge. Did the boy run when the police showed up because he really knew about the terror plot, or did he run because he had shoplifted the day before, or was skipping out of school, or some other infraction not related to the bus bombing at all? Will this torture be inflicted on someone who honestly has no information to impart, or possibly false information (a staged event to distract the authorities and eventually point them to the wrong bus)? If he was truly involved in the plot and helped set it up, as indicated at the start, why would he crack after having his finger cut a bit? He was willing to ensure the deaths of dozens of innocent children and only had a few minutes to wait to see it through. Much more believable that he would keep quiet and let the “infidels” die, especially knowing there would be no reason for the torture to continue once the bomb went off. This kid has already spat in the eye of a soldier while surrounded by armed people not inclined to show him any mercy whatsoever.

As is the case in almost every hypothetical situation presented for/against a given argument, there are just too many problems with the “setup” for it to be plausible.
 
Sounds like an Isreali Jack Bauer (tv show-24) at work here.

Don’t know… I’m inclined to say moral (and pretty gross I might add), given the circumstances. Here there is clear evidence that the boy knew key information AND the information would directly prevent more loss of life, and was not going to talk otherwise.

IF the scenario were much less clear, I would say torture is not justified.
I’ll tell you true story. An army Lt. stands beside his Hummer in a Baghdad neighborhood. As he turns, he sees a boy coming out of alley. Too laste he realizes that that boy is holding an rpg. The boy fires the RPG at the soldier. Fortunately, the projectile passed between his legs and lands under the Hummer but does not explode.
The boy drops the launcher, turns and runs. Two other soldiers fire from Hummer and kill the boy as he runs away. The boy was 10-12 years old. For the question of torture.
Were the soldiers right to kill then now disarmed
 
I’ll tell you true story. An army Lt. stands beside his Hummer in a Baghdad neighborhood. As he turns, he sees a boy coming out of alley. Too laste he realizes that that boy is holding an rpg. The boy fires the RPG at the soldier. Fortunately, the projectile passed between his legs and lands under the Hummer but does not explode.
The boy drops the launcher, turns and runs. Two other soldiers fire from Hummer and kill the boy as he runs away. The boy was 10-12 years old. For the question of torture.
Were the soldiers right to kill then now disarmed
The question of torture has no bearing whatsoever on this situation. In combat, any enemy who is not a casualty or in custody (and even sometimes when in custody) is a threat, regardless of appearances. The kid’s actions were directly witnessed by the soldiers in question, so there was no doubt that he was an enemy who had just tried to kill them. He did not stand and surrender but ran. For all they knew he was running back to the alley to get another weapon, or had three friends there all ready to open fire the second anyone pursuing him turned the corner. Situations which happen all too frequently in combat.

A sad and regrettable action, but 100% justified.
 
Now they are going after Condoleezza Rice for approving acts of torture.
If by “going after” you mean that the Senate Intelligence Committee reported that Rice approved the use of torture by the CIA on Abu Zubaydah, then you’re correct. If you mean that the Justice department is actively prosecuting Rice, then at this time you’d be wrong. No such prosecution has happened so far.
So, we ask, Is torture sometimes morally correct?
As someone who does not believe in an objective moral lawgiver, I have a perspective that might be interesting. The question of torture is a dicey issue, but here’s how I think about it.

Most importantly, it’s quite clear that torture is just plain ineffective at gaining reliable information. It might be nice to back this claim up with scientific psychological studies looking at the reliability of torture - but obviously such experiments would be gravely unethical, so all we have to go on is past experience. So, let’s look into the past. The fact is that torture has been primarily used in the past *not *to learn the truth, but rather to elicit false confessions, such as in the Vietnam war and witch trials of the medieval centuries (among countless other examples). The plain fact is that torture is almost completely useless at gaining reliable information.

So, the common dilemma that’s purposed this: We torture someone and gain reliable information to save others, or we don’t torture someone, resulting in the deaths of those other people. But this is a false dilemma. Torture is virtually useless and a terrible way to gain reliable information. The ethical question, therefore, doesn’t even come into play.
Question: Was cutting open the little boy’s pinky finger with the bayonet moral?
In the imaginary story, it led to the discovery of bombs on the bus. But the kid could have just as easily have shouted another bus number and the bombs wouldn’t have been there. Torture, of course, is an unreliable way to extract information. The torturer just got lucky. Furthermore, the torturer pretty much completely sealed the fate of the child - that child has most likely been taught all his life that Israelis are oppressors and monsters, and the torturer just proved it.

A world where torture is commonplace is a world where good people just throw fuel on the already raging fires of hatred and bitterness. We may occasionally get some good, reliable information - but we tarnish our image and just prove that we are, in fact, brutes when pressed against the ropes. When we condone torture, we demonstrate that our great moral convictions aren’t really that strong, and when pressed we won’t hold them. When it comes down to it, we should always support a world that reflects our convictions about terror. You may be able to win a few battles using torture in this War on Terror, but it’s not a way to win the war.

Besides, torture isn’t even a reliable means of extracting information, so the moral dilemma isn’t even applicable.
 
Torture has been declared by the Church to be an intrinsic evil, and as such can’t be justified unless the Church is going to provide stipulations for situations in which torture is regrettable but permissable (as she does for defining a just war).
And I find this contradiction regrettable. The Church has situations when killing others is justified, but not for torture in a state of war. I’m sorry, but that does not compute.
 
Yes! Because he is going to get another weapon and do it again. You have a right and an obligation to defend yourself and those that you love or are obligated to protect, i.e. your fellow soldiers and fellow countrymen.
 
Let me tell you about the new rules on here…
  1. If you support any sort of view that is different than what the mods believe, you will be banned. Discussion is not open for different and new ideas. Even if Catholicism is making a mistake, we support tradition.
  2. Everything the Catholic Church has ever done has been infallible. Therefore, there is no need for you to question anything about Catholicism, the Church is perfect. If the Church told you to kill someone, you should do it, no questions asked.
  3. Any rude and ignorant comments to others stating “You are not a true Catholic if you voted for Obama” will be accepted and is encouraged.
  4. God didn’t give you this conscience to use for yourself. You must substitute other peoples judgment for your own, and never question them, because their judgment is better.
  5. If you child someday asks you if they should use a condom, you should tell them “No, let yourself get HIV instead.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top