Torture

[vz71]

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

bin Laden is the first to come to mind.

I am curious…what exactly in the terrorists behavior and words makes you believe their cause is strictly to change something within the borders of their country??
What evidence do you have.

My case is supported by the words and deeds of the terrorists.
What supports yours?

 

[Hastrman]

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.

But I wasn’t putting them down as my argument; I insulted them, and then still made my argument. Ad hominem is a fallacy when it’s the argument; when it accompanies the argument, it is merely a question of style.

 

[vz71]

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.

I guess the next thing that needs to be done is to define precisely what is torture.

 

[vz71]

But I wasn’t putting them down as my argument; I insulted them, and then still made my argument. Ad hominem is a fallacy when it’s the argument; when it accompanies the argument, it is merely a question of style.

You sure of that?

The wikipedia says:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

I read plenty of attacks and insult, but your post lacked any actual case.

 

[Hastrman]

You sure of that?

The wikipedia says:

Oh, yes, of course, because wikipedia is the font of all knowledge.

I read plenty of attacks and insult, but your post lacked any actual case.

Hmmm…interesting. Have you seen a doctor about this strange effasia of yours? The whole first half of my original post was an argument–specifically a reductio ad absurdam.

Sheesh.

 

[vz71]

The whole first half of my original post was an argument–specifically a reductio ad absurdam.

Sheesh.

Maybe…Maybe not.
I didn’t bother looking beyond the insults that were hurled about.

 

[RWMorris]

I guess the next thing that needs to be done is to define precisely what is torture.

That is the really tough part. Right off, I’ll go out on a limb and state that any mental or physical duress, other than the minimum restraint necessary for arrest and trial, used for the following reasons is immoral:

• to extract confession
• punishment
• frighten opponents
• satisfy hatred
  Now once the arrested has been tried and found guilty of a crime then, of course, punishment can begin. Punishment should be the minimum restraint necessary to correct the offenders behavior and protect society. (Let’s us not get into a discussion on the morality of capital punishment, at least not yet.)

Now, what is torture? I’ll start with the obvious. Any treatment that results in permanent physical or mental destruction or incapacity is most definitely torture. Do you agree so far?

(Everyone one feel free to jump in!)

 

[Al_Masetti]

On the basis of some of the definitions, then ANY discussion of a crime or investigation by law enforcement might be considered to be torture.

Some folks just can’t deal with any kind of stress.

Where do you draw the line?

[semi-sarcasm follows]

You’re not going to get much information from a terrorist (or a terrorist suspect) from a whispered request by a grammar school teacher to an adult member of the community preceded by “mother may I ask a question, please pretty please”?

 

[RWMorris]

On the basis of some of the definitions, then ANY discussion of a crime or investigation by law enforcement might be considered to be torture.

Some folks just can’t deal with any kind of stress.

Where do you draw the line?

[semi-sarcasm follows]

You’re not going to get much information from a terrorist (or a terrorist suspect) from a whispered request by a grammar school teacher to an adult member of the community preceded by “mother may I ask a question, please pretty please”?

Al, we are trying to come up with a passable definition of torture. What do you think so far?

 

[vz71]

It would appear that this is going to break down into degrees.
Is sleep deprivation torture? How about loud music?

 

[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.

Having given this response from yesterday more thought, I thought some clarification to be in order.
I question the ability of torture to yield accurate information.

Torture does work…in the sense that is causes fear in a population, and can keep a great number of people in line.
But I have doubts that works as any intelligence gathering tool.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

bin Laden is the first to come to mind.

? and what does “bin Laden” desire?

I am curious…what exactly in the terrorists behavior and words makes you believe their cause is strictly to change something within the borders of their country??
What evidence do you have.

the fact they fight only against invaders. First the russians which we helped them with. Then we invaded and now they fight us.

My case is supported by the words and deeds of the terrorists.
What supports yours?

I do not see your support could you post it?

 

[RWMorris]

It would appear that this is going to break down into degrees.
Is sleep deprivation torture? How about loud music?

Just think of the terrible pain suffered via medical and dental care before the use of pain killers. Some people would call that torture even though it undoubtedly saved lives.

When I was in the field while in the military, we routinely went three, and sometimes four, days without sleep. We were exhausted, but I didn’t feel tortured.

Some music is torturous when played loud, then again I’m not young anymore.

You are correct it is a matter of degrees. One man’s torture is another man’s defining moment. More than one martyr went to their death with a song in their heart, if not on their lips.

But I believe we can define what torture definitely is. There will be gray areas, but that’s no reason not to try. Besides, I learn a lot from these discussions, and I’ve changed my mind on a couple of issues as a direct result of participating and reading these posts.

 

[RWMorris]

…I question the ability of torture to yield accurate information…

Did you read the post by Ender?

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 water boarded. 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

He makes some good, and I think, valid points. And water boarding is one of those gray areas I mentioned earlier.

 

[zerocrossing]

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

[/indent]
The crucial point, in my mind, is the bit in bold.

Actually, the crucial point is the point cited immediately above. Torture is an evil, even when the state believes it is justified in committing it.

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 if he cannot find him, and there are no other avenues of investigation to follow. The brother steadfastly refuses to reveal the location of the missing child.

In this situation, I believe that it would be licit - possibly even necessary - for the policeman to use corporal punishment to extract the whereabouts of the missing child.

Thoughts?

The Catechism explicitly states elsewhere in Part 3 that the ends do not justify the means, and that doing evil can NEVER be justified in order to make good come of it.

 

[Ghoti]

I must make one interjection here.

I have been looking at this thread and one other…

I find it a bit unsettling that there are times when it is not immoral to kill someone, that (as is argued here) it may be licit to torture someone, but NEVER, NEVER, NEVER FIB!!! (not even to save a life)

Just seems a bit…counter-intuitive.

So, in a conflict with (insert evil enemy here)…

• you can shoot him
• you can water-board or sleep-dep him till he tells you where the invasions going to be
• but don’t dare lie about where the refugees are holed up!

 

[Atreyu]

Actually, the crucial point is the point cited immediately above. Torture is an evil, even when the state believes it is justified in committing it.

Torture qualified is an evil, yes. But not torture in and of itself. My point is that if torture is objectively evil (as you seem to be saying), then what is it about it that makes it objectively evil? Which Commandment does it come under?

The Catechism explicitly states elsewhere in Part 3 that the ends do not justify the means, and that doing evil can NEVER be justified in order to make good come of it.

Quite correct. But if torture is not objectively evil, which is what I understand, then that means that theoretically at least, it is permissible to torture someone. And my example in the OP is an attempt to explain a situation where that might be practiced.

I can’t remember who mentioned it, but yes, I can imagine a saint torturing someone. Not Mary, but a military saint, perhaps. I can certainly imagine a saint bashing someone to discover the whereabouts of an abducted child. If this is licit, then is it not torture?

 

[Ender]

Now, what is torture? I’ll start with the obvious. Any treatment that results in permanent physical or mental destruction or incapacity is most definitely torture.

Sure. (Except this would also include medical amputations, lobotomies, probably shock treatment, and maybe even some kinds of emotional counseling , otherwise it’s pretty good.)

vz71:

Is sleep deprivation torture? How about loud music?

The fact that this is not an unreasonable question indicates just how far we are from even approaching a definition for what constitutes torture.

I think we have a pretty good mental picture of torture: we’ve seen it in movies since the days of the silent films. The thought that loud music may constitute torture is a political statement; if anything is being tortured it is the definition of the term. What comes to mind for most of us when asked about torture is the infliction of unbearable mental or physical anguish. Let’s not diminish the term so much that it includes fraternity hazing.

Ender

 

[vz71]

Did you read the post by Ender?
He makes some good, and I think, valid points. And water boarding is one of those gray areas I mentioned earlier.

Correct, there are some good points there.
But there is also the fact of false confessions that some suspects give to police under questioning…
And the propensity of people to lie for trivial reasons…

 

[Scottgun]

I must make one interjection here.

I have been looking at this thread and one other…

I find it a bit unsettling that there are times when it is not immoral to kill someone, that (as is argued here) it may be licit to torture someone, but NEVER, NEVER, NEVER FIB!!! (not even to save a life)

Just seems a bit…counter-intuitive.

So, in a conflict with (insert evil enemy here)…

• you can shoot him
• you can water-board or sleep-dep him till he tells you where the invasions going to be
• but don’t dare lie about where the refugees are holed up!

True. Ain’t no way around it. While people fog the issue over what torture is, there is reality staring us in the face: breaking someone’s will through the terror of waterboarding, etc violates the Church’s injunction to treat prisoners humanely.