Torture

[rwoehmke]

The authorities of the U.S. do not torture. Our president has declared it to be the case.

Authorities in the U.S. have used water boarding and certain agencies may continue to do so.

Therefore water boarding is not torture and we do not recognize torture when we see it as we do with obscenity.

Folks you have to trust our elected leaders to do what is right. Particularly those who are not afraid to demonstrate their Christianity in public.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

The authorities of the U.S. do not torture. Our president has declared it to be the case.

Authorities in the U.S. have used water boarding and certain agencies may continue to do so.

Therefore water boarding is not torture and we do not recognize torture when we see it as we do with obscenity.

Folks you have to trust our elected leaders to do what is right. Particularly those who are not afraid to demonstrate their Christianity in public.

What we have here is either one of two things (in spite of my signature):

1. A complete blind faith and trust in the moral rectitude of our (s)elected officials that chills me to the bone, or
2. A skill for irony and sarcasm that warms my heart.

 

[rwoehmke]

What we have here is either one of two things (in spite of my signature):

1. A complete blind faith and trust in the moral rectitude of our (s)elected officials that chills me to the bone, or
2. A skill for irony and sarcasm that warms my heart.

I’ll opt for the second selection. Thanks.

 

[vz71]

It’s actually quite simple, deliberately using violence and terror to break the will of a captive is wrong in and of itself, and no amount of ticking time-bombs, or kids-with-twelve-hours-to-live scenarios can make it right. No exceptions.

Of course.
I would think there is a motivation here that makes a big difference. We are not talking about a purpose of ‘break the will’ we are talking about obtaining life-saving information.

One of my favorite articles is by a martial artist called What-if Monkeys in which people who don’t want to accept the message come up with scenarios tailored in such a way that the only choice is what the scenario maker wants to be true. The article notes that these scenarios have to gloss over a lot of reality to work. I blog it here: Torture, What-If Monkeys, and 27 Ninjas

It is a sad commentary of the world we live in, but the scenario of a terrorist having knowledge that we need to prevent loss of lives is much more common.

Now that all being said, I am surprised no one has addressed the concept that information obtained under duress may not be accurate at all.
What of the idea that I’ll say whatever I think you want to here to keep from being punched (kicked, shocked, etc…) again?

 

[Ender]

Now that all being said, I am surprised no one has addressed the concept that information obtained under duress may not be accurate at all.
What of the idea that I’ll say whatever I think you want to here to keep from being punched (kicked, shocked, etc…) again?

The suggestion that torture won’t work to elicit valid information is a relatively new one, pretty much coinciding with the argument that we shouldn’t use it. Up until recently it was essentially conceded that people would break; now, and probably to counter the “buried child” scenario, it is claimed not to be effective. People who are unalterably opposed to any form of enhanced interrogation had better stay with the moral argument because, as a practical matter, I suspect that torture is often quite effective.

We know that three people have been waterboarded. One, who had held out against all other forms of questioning, gave up what was apparently very valuable information under this form of duress. Read about the US POW experiences in Vietnam. One colonel, who had been a POW for years, tried to commit suicide because he was afraid that, under torture, his captors would learn that he had flown missions during the Tonkin Gulf incident. Read how they learned to deal with their own sense of failure when they gave up information under torture. Read about the behavior of the sailors of the USS Pueblo when they were captured by the North Koreans, or about the intelligence officer in WWII who went out on a submarine mission and chose to go down with the ship rather than escape the sub with the other men and be captured by the Japanese. There are some people who can withstand incredible torture. But most of us can’t.

Ender

 

[vz71]

I have a suspicion that incidences of torture illiciting totally bogus information are not often reported.

Think about it…
A terrorist giving up information is much more news worthy then a terrorist keeping his mouth shut.
It also seems logical given the lies I see people tell to ‘avoid getting into trouble’ or to ‘avoid hurting’ someone else.

Of course there are any number of criminal trials where a full confession had been obtained under duress, and genetic evidence later proves the person completely innocent.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Some people think that the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation … also known as “CONFESSION” … is torture.

[Actually, a LOT of people think that … based on their comments to me …]

 

[Hastrman]

2297
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.90

You’ll notice “to extract intelligence” is nowhere on the list.

There, that was quick. I’d love to see the “every word of the CCC is literal Dei Verbum” crowd weasel out of this. By their usual “logic,” since it’s not mentioned in the Final Authority That’s Supposed to Trump God-Given Reason and Two Millennia of Christian Tradition, we can use torture to find out what our friends are buying us for Christmas, let alone the details of terrorist plots that could kill thousands.

Or maybe it’s time you savages admitted the CCC’s not itself infallible, but is a fallible communication of infallible teachings.

See, I oppose torture (but I define it very narrowly–waterboarding is on the margin, sleep deprivation isn’t even the same page). But emotionally, I wouldn’t mind subjecting the Sola Catecismus crowd to every torment the Apache, Romans, and Chinese could think up on a bad day, for the stupidity they inflict on the debate. Look at the utterly lobotomite things they say about the death penalty, for instance–not a single coherent, logical thought in their whole heads; not a single syllable of the definition of prudential judgment do they grasp, even to the most rudimentary degree. Still less do they grasp that the Pope’s authority exists solely on faith and morals, not on matters of fact like criminology and corrections.

 

[vz71]

…I wouldn’t mind subjecting the Sola Catecismus crowd to every torment the Apache, Romans, and Chinese could think up on a bad day, for the stupidity they inflict on the debate. Look at the utterly lobotomite things they say about the death penalty, for instance–not a single coherent, logical thought in their whole heads; not a single syllable of the definition of prudential judgment do they grasp, even to the most rudimentary degree.

Even were you to sumble upon something I could agree with, I could not get past all of the ad hominem you pollute your post with.

 

[Hastrman]

Even were you to sumble upon something I could agree with, I could not get past all of the ad hominem you pollute your post with.

Or in other words, “You’re not being charitable.”

Yes, I am. I’m just not being nice. Combining ignorance and self-righteousness offends me, and if I fail a little in courtesy, well, too bad.

I get the feeling you’re just trying to use “charity” to silence opposition–the “olive branch in the eye” maneuver.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…there may be times when torture actually is licit.

no

The situation involves a kidnapped child, who is in grave danger of being murdered. A policeman investigating the case discovers the brother of the person he knows for sure has kidnapped the child. The policeman also knows for sure through his investigations - that the brother he has found knows the location of the missing child. Finally, the policeman knows for sure that the child will be dead in a few hours…

this means the policeman is not human, could the policeman not use the same nonhuman superpowers to simple rescue the child? And thus the problem to use torture properly you must be nonhuman. Humans ASSUME the one being tortured knows

It’s a hypothetical. He knows for sure.

a condition which never exists in the real world
Atreyu;3410103:

…Hmmm. Let’s further qualify my scenario. Let’s say that the “torture” involved is simply a few punches. That’s what I had in mind before, but I probably should have spelled it out a little further. Anyway, it seems to me that punching someone in order to discover the whereabouts of a child, would qualify as torture. However, I think that this would be licit.

How do you propose we limit all torture to punches only?

… It is a sad commentary of the world we live in, but the scenario of a terrorist having knowledge that we need to prevent loss of lives is much more common…

??? It is probably more accurate the other way around. Do you know the goals of the terrorist you speak of? usually it is to get others to leave their country, it seems most terrorist want peace at their home - ironic?

 

[RWMorris]

Even were you to sumble upon something I could agree with, I could not get past all of the ad hominem you pollute your post with.

What’s wrong with a little “ad hominem”? Even though Hastrman’s post was a little over the top he brought up some good points. I thought it was a pretty “righteous” post. I especially liked his statement about the Pope:

Still less do they grasp that the Pope’s authority exists solely on faith and morals, not on matters of fact like criminology and corrections.

While we should honor and respect the Pope, many times he is just giving us an opinion as a fellow Christian.

 

[Pondero]

I don’t think torture is ever necessary under any circumstances. The means does not justify the end.

 

[Ender]

You’ll notice “to extract intelligence” is nowhere on the list.

I pointed out this distinction as well - minus all the humorous banter of course - and I’d like to hear a response that deals with it. The UN forbids torture to extract intelligence, the Catechism does not. If that is an oversight on the part of the Catechism then let’s hear the case for it. I’m actually surprised by the strength of some of the arguments in favor of torture. I did not believe that torture could have any favorable argument and while I still don’t accept its use I am less convinced than I was that it is always wrong.

Responding to the question “is torture sometimes acceptable” with “no” is simply not enough.

(Apaches, Romans, and Chinese on a bad day … that’s funny.)

Ender

 

[vz71]

??? It is probably more accurate the other way around. Do you know the goals of the terrorist you speak of? usually it is to get others to leave their country, it seems most terrorist want peace at their home - ironic?

Which terrorists are you listening to?
The majority want death to anyone that does not carry their own brand of religion.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Which terrorists are you listening to?
The majority want death to anyone that does not carry their own brand of religion.

I do not know any which use that as their base of motivation, I listen to them all. Which ones did you listen to?

 

[vz71]

I get the feeling you’re just trying to use “charity” to silence opposition–the “olive branch in the eye” maneuver.

Hardly.
Just a commentary on the uncivil way others are addressed.

If you cannot defend your agument without criticizing the character of others then it is apparent that you have no real argument at all.

 

[Hastrman]

Hardly.
Just a commentary on the uncivil way others are addressed.

If you cannot defend your agument without criticizing the character of others then it is apparent that you have no real argument at all.

Feh, you might want to tell that to, among other people, St. Paul, Samuel Johnson, GK Chesterton…in fact, it’s probably quicker to list the people you don’t need to tell that to.

John Paul II
Francis of Assisi
…and I think that’s it.

We humans use sarcasm when we’re irritated; get used to it. Christ Himself is not only sarcastic in the Gospels, he actually kvetches!

 

[BlaineTog]

The crucial point, in my mind, is the bit in bold. By specifying in which situations torture is illicit, the Catechism does not therefore forbid torture in all situations.

But in the very next sentence, it spells out which methods used in torture would sometimes be OK.

I guess the question that clarifies things for me is: could you imagine Mary the Mother of God torturing someone, or any of the saints? If such an image is unimaginable or absurd, then torture is wrong, and is something is wrong, you don’t do it.

 

[vz71]

We humans use sarcasm when we’re irritated; get used to it. Christ Himself is not only sarcastic in the Gospels, he actually kvetches!

There is a fairly large distance between sarcasm and ad hominem attacks.

If you do not mind the off hand dismissal of your argument caused by the ad hominem, that is your business.
I have always considered the ad hominem argument to be the argument of those with no case.