Torture

[vz71]

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

So we would arrive at torture being unbearable mental or physical anguish that may or may not involve injury.

I’m having a hard time believing water-boarding could be considered torture under the current definition here.

 

[vz71]

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.

How can we believe that simply breaking someone’s will is inhumane?

 

[Scottgun]

How can we believe that simply breaking someone’s will is inhumane?

Because it reduces a human to a mere object, a lockbox full of intel (supposedly) in which I have the right to break open through force. Really now, is the wrongness of breaking wills that alien for Catholics? Sometimes I hear the excuse that we train military in waterboarding in the SERE problem. Putting aside for a moment the obvious question, “If it isn’t torture, why is it in the program?”, when an actual SERE trainer Malcolm Nance says it’s torture, it’s time to give it up man.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Please keep in mind that we’re not dealing with kids shooting spit balls here.

We, most likely, could have prevented 9/11 in my opinion ] simply by looking in Zacharias Moussaoui’s computer hard drive.

wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/mous-j05.shtml

But that would have violated his Constitutional rights.

So, what happened, instead?

We got a smoking crater of 16 square blocks in lower Manhattan where six very large office buildings and a hotel used to be, the Pentagon building nearly totaled, four airliners destroyed, and 3000 people killed. Many of us saw it live on television. But some of the most gory photographs were not shown in the United States, lest they inflame delicate sensibilities.
The gang that pulled that off had previously put a huge hole in a U.S. destroyer, killing 30+ crew. They demolished a barracks building killing dozens; and demolished two U.S. embassies killing hundreds.

Subsequently, they blew up British and Spanish subway trains and a night club in Bali and many other places.

And the gang is vowing to do worse using nuclear, chemical, biological and explosive weapons.

We know, publicly, that other plots have been interrupted. And the government has said that they have thwarted other plots to commit mass murder.

And what some people are saying is that we mustn’t speak harshly to these “individuals” or listen in on their phone calls and emails … unless we use due process of the type that originated in the age of the Pony Express and also take a vote on it.

So we are dealing in genteel discussions of one person’s alleged civil rights versus turning our cities into butcher shops. Because that’s what REALLY happened on September 11, 2001. Lower Manhattan became a human butcher shop.

When those planes plunged into those buildings on September 11, 2001, we were plunged into war.

War.

As bad as Pearl Harbor.

To be fought until one side, or the other, gives up.

And in war, the kid gloves come off.

Not a polite discussion over the name God calls Himself.*

 

[vz71]

? and what does “bin Laden” desire? the fact they fight only against invaders. First the russians which we helped them with. Then we invaded and now they fight us.
I do not see your support could you post it?

Are you really so naive as to believe that if we pulled out of the various countries we are in these terrorists would suddenly be friends?

 

[vz71]

Because it reduces a human to a mere object, a lockbox full of intel (supposedly) in which I have the right to break open through force. Really now, is the wrongness of breaking wills that alien for Catholics? Sometimes I hear the excuse that we train military in waterboarding in the SERE problem. Putting aside for a moment the obvious question, “If it isn’t torture, why is it in the program?”, when an actual SERE trainer Malcolm Nance says it’s torture, it’s time to give it up man.

If we have no right to the intel, perhaps it is wrong.
But if we have every right to the information…

 

[vz71]

Because it reduces a human to a mere object, a lockbox full of intel (supposedly) in which I have the right to break open through force. Really now, is the wrongness of breaking wills that alien for Catholics? Sometimes I hear the excuse that we train military in waterboarding in the SERE problem. Putting aside for a moment the obvious question, “If it isn’t torture, why is it in the program?”, when an actual SERE trainer Malcolm Nance says it’s torture, it’s time to give it up man.

Having read through the article, one thing stands out to me…

…He told his interrogators everything they wanted to know including the truth. They rarely stopped. In torture, he confessed to being a hermaphrodite, a CIA spy, a Buddhist Monk, a Catholic Bishop and the son of the king of Cambodia. He was actually just a school teacher whose crime was that he once spoke French.

So what are we to believe of the accuracy of information gathered from torture?

 

[RWMorris]

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.)…

Let me clarify:

Any treatment

• to extract confession
• to punish
• to frighten political/military opponents
• to satisfy hatred
  that results in permanent physical or mental destruction or incapacity.

Is that a little better definition?

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Let me clarify:
Any treatment

• to extract confession
• to punish
• to frighten political/military opponents
• to satisfy hatred
  that results in permanent physical or mental destruction or incapacity.

Is that a little better definition?

I think the Catechism defines it satisfactorily, noting 2 criteria need to be met for an action to be considered both “torture” & sinful:

1) Physical or moral violence (not destruction or incapacitation)There is no qualifier about whether temporary, or lasting scars, or either must result.
2) For the reasons or intentions of interrogation, punishment, eliciting fear, or satisfying hatred.

Additions like “permanent physical or mental destruction or incapacity” allows “wiggle-room” that not only is used as justification for forms of torture that don’t cause these things, but such “wiggle-room” isn’t afforded in Church teaching.

Chris

 

[ChrisWRIT]

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.

Makes one cringe to see that, doesn’t it? However, simply doing something that causes pain is not torture when it is medically and therapeutically necessary, as it is/was in the situations you describe.

… 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?

Torture is an objective evil which violates the 5th commandment, as it “*is contrary to respect for the human person and for human dignity. *”

So we would arrive at torture being unbearable mental or physical anguish that may or may not involve injury.

I’m having a hard time believing water-boarding could be considered torture under the current definition here.

Back to the Catechism:

“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.”

The form of torture known variously as “Chinese Water Torture”, “the Barrel”, “the Waterfall”, or “waterboarding”; is controlled drowning (physical violence) - whether one dies or is maimed or not. Using it to “extract confessions”, or “frighten opponents” (into telling us what we want to hear), is “contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

So again, it is a grave violation of the 5th commandment that "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Chris

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Makes one cringe to see that, doesn’t it? However, simply doing something that causes pain is not torture when it is medically and therapeutically necessary, as it is/was in the situations you describe.

Torture is an objective evil which violates the 5th commandment, as it “*is contrary to respect for the human person and for human dignity. *”

Back to the Catechism:

“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.”

The form of torture known variously as “Chinese Water Torture”, “the Barrel”, “the Waterfall”, or “waterboarding”; is controlled drowning (physical violence) - whether one dies or is maimed or not. Using it to “extract confessions”, or “frighten opponents” (into telling us what we want to hear), is “contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

So again, it is a grave violation of the 5th commandment that "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Chris

Isn’t Chinese water torture where the subject is tied down and water is dripped onto the forehead at a random pattern until the person is driven bonkers by it?

 

[ChrisWRIT]

When those planes plunged into those buildings on September 11, 2001, we were plunged into war.
War.
As bad as Pearl Harbor.
To be fought until one side, or the other, gives up.
And in war, the kid gloves come off.
Not a polite discussion over the name God calls Himself.

Your entire post seems to boil down to an emotional plea followed by the exclamation that “we are at war!”

Waterboarding has been known to be a form of torture for the last 800+ years. It is hardly the same as “speaking harshly” to someone.

If by saying “the kid gloves come off", you mean “anything goes”, then that is only true for UNJUST war, which is gravely sinful, and if done intentionally becomes mortal sin.

Are you arguing that pursuing war justly doesn’t matter?

War, if embarked on unjustly or prosecuted improperly is unjust, & therefore gravely sinful. (I am not claiming that we are currently waging an unjust war, but noting that the manner in which we pursue this war determines whether we are waging it justly or not.)

It’s not about societal mores, or “delicate sensibilities”, but about God’s commands.

Personally, I’d rather temporally die by being blown up by some murderous thug than live in fear & place myself in danger of eternal death because I encouraged gravely sinful actions that were contrary to the commands of God.

Chris

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Isn’t Chinese water torture where the subject is tied down and water is dripped onto the forehead at a random pattern until the person is driven bonkers by it?

I believe you’re correct.

After the Spanish American War, the US Army called waterboarding both the “water cure” or “Chinese water torture", which is where I got it from.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Chris

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Are you really so naive as to believe that if we pulled out of the various countries we are in these terrorists would suddenly be friends?

I can only judge his words and actions, I notice you imply things about him yet avoid saying anything specific. What do you judge him on? Why do you think the others fight against us, against Isreal?

 

[Ender]

I think the Catechism defines it satisfactorily, noting 2 criteria need to be met for an action to be considered both “torture” & sinful:

1) Physical or moral violence (not destruction or incapacitation)There is no qualifier about whether temporary, or lasting scars, or either must result.
2) For the reasons or intentions of interrogation, punishment, eliciting fear, or satisfying hatred.

You have made a subtle but very significant change to the wording that is in the Catechism. The four forbidden reasons given do not include interrogation but rather “to extract confession.” This is no small distinction as the debate has been about the morality of using torture to gather information, not confessions. As has been pointed out, the UN wording excludes both; the Catechism only excludes torture to extract confessions and is silent on gathering information.

Regarding violence, there is no good indication as to how that should be defined. Violence is a long way from torture for most people and I think it does us no good to equate the two. Football is violent but not torture; the Chinese water torture is not violent.

Ender

 

[RWMorris]

I think the Catechism defines it satisfactorily, noting 2 criteria need to be met for an action to be considered both “torture” & sinful:

1) Physical or moral violence (not destruction or incapacitation)There is no qualifier about whether temporary, or lasting scars, or either must result.
2) For the reasons or intentions of interrogation, punishment, eliciting fear, or satisfying hatred.

Additions like “permanent physical or mental destruction or incapacity” allows “wiggle-room” that not only is used as justification for forms of torture that don’t cause these things, but such “wiggle-room” isn’t afforded in Church teaching.

Chris

Chris, there is plenty of wiggle room in Church teaching; that is what this discussion is all about. Go back and re-read the earlier posts. What some of us are trying to do is define specifically what torture is. It is probably an impossible task, especially when we get to the “borderline” situations. But it may be a worthy exercise, maybe we will learn something.

Tell me what you think of our first definition:

Any treatment

• to extract confession
• to punish
• to frighten political/military opponents
• to satisfy hatred
  that results in permanent physical or mental destruction or incapacity.

I was trying to define torture in its most gross form, without being gross. Then we can work our way toward the gray areas.

 

[vz71]

So again, it is a grave violation of the 5th commandment that "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Chris

The fifth commandment involves murder.
What you are quoting is the 2nd great commandment spoken by Jesus.

 

[vz71]

I can only judge his words and actions, I notice you imply things about him yet avoid saying anything specific.

I figured 9/11 was loud enough.
Weren’t you listening that day?

 

[Al_Masetti]

How would you all define “war”?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I figured 9/11 was loud enough.
Weren’t you listening that day?

Yes I was, I did not hear anything that backed your theories, can you rectify the two? Any ideas how “World Trade Center” links to your Islam or died theory?