Torture

[vz71]

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?

 

[ChrisWRIT]

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

Sorry. I was thinking faster than I was typing & completely forgot to point out that the 5th commandment (prohibiting murder) falls under the 2nd great commandment as you point out.

Perhaps I should restate.

Torture displays a lack of respect for bodily integrity, which is a violation of the 5th commandment, which is included in the command to “love your neighbor as yourself.”

From the CCC – para 2196:
”The apostle St. Paul reminds us of this: "He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

Thanks for the note!

Chris

 

[ChrisWRIT]

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:

Sorry if I’m being obtuse somehow, but that was my point. Church teaching already defines specifically what torture is, as noted in the OP:

“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.

Nothing in there saying “… as long as it causes scars or permanent damage".

Did I miss a post somewhere which points out how the Church definition is inadequate and needs to be redefined?


Chris

 

[ChrisWRIT]

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.

I am not equating the two. The CCC defines torture as an act which is composed of two criteria:

1) an act which uses (physical or mental) violence
2) an act which is used for extracting confessions, punishment, eliciting fear, or satisfying hatred.

Violent acts are not necessarily torture, any more than non-violent acts which aim to extract confessions, dispense punishment, elicit fear or satisfy hatred. (Not that those act may not be sinful themselves, but without violence, they are not “torture” as defined by the Church.)

Football might be violent. But is it used for extracting confessions, punishment, eliciting fear, or satisfying hatred? No. It does not meet both criteria.

Leaving aside the issue of physical vs mental violence, no, the Chinese water torture, as typically defined, is not violent, so it does not meet both criteria.

However, the Chinese water torture when used to describe water boarding (the act under consideration in this thread,) is both physically & mentally violent (meeting #1), AND is/was used for prohibited purposes, typically, extracting confessions & eliciting fear (meeting #2).

Besides, even IF one wants to claim there is a difference between “gathering information” and “extracting confessions”, using violent means to elicit the fear needed to obtain the information/confession still causes the act to meet the 2nd required criteria to be defined “torture.”

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.

The only significance to using the term “interrogation” instead of “to extract confessions” is in the savings of time & keystrokes. (Well, apparently not in the long term. Oops.)

I’m not sure I understand the difference between “gathering information” and “extracting confessions” in the context of the current topic is? Would you explain it? Is it being proposed that torture is OK if we simply use the term “gathering information” in place of “extracting a confession”? (Much like I can envision one claiming that it isn’t used to “elicit fear” but “only” to “break their will”.)

These both sound like attempts to justify torture by verbal misrepresentation. In the context of this topic, the term “gathering information” is synonymous with “extracting confessions”, just as the term “breaking their will” is synonymous with “eliciting fear.”

If you use violence on someone in order to:

• …find out where they hid 10 dollars (or 10 billion)…
• …find out where they hid a bomb/kidnapped child…
• …find out what they know about someone else’s criminal/threatening actions…

… how are any of these attempts to “gather information” NOT attempts to “extract confession” (of personal knowledge)?

Chris

 

[vz71]

Church teaching already defines specifically what torture is, as noted in the OP:

“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.

Nothing in there saying “… as long as it causes scars or permanent damage".

I do not see where the quote actually defines torture.
It actually reads as though it is qualifying the torture being spoken of.

 

[vz71]

I’m not sure I understand the difference between “gathering information” and “extracting confessions” in the context of the current topic is? Would you explain it? Is it being proposed that torture is OK if we simply use the term “gathering information” in place of “extracting a confession”? (Much like I can envision one claiming that it isn’t used to “elicit fear” but “only” to “break their will”.)

A confession is an admission of wrongdoing and an acceptance of the responsibility.

Gathering information is an entirely different thing.
Admission of guilt is not the same thing as giving up information.

I believe that is why it was jumped on so hard when "interrogation” was used instead of “to extract confessions”

 

[ChrisWRIT]

I do not see where the quote actually defines torture.
It actually reads as though it is qualifying the torture being spoken of.

Ah, now I understand where y’all are coming from.

I’ll defer to the dictionary.

tor·ture
*–noun

1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

–verb (used with object)
6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We’ll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).*

A confession is an admission of wrongdoing and an acceptance of the responsibility.

A confession may include these things, but neither is necessary.

Again from the dictionary:

con·fess·ion
*-noun

1. acknowledgment; avowal; admission: a confession of incompetence.
2. acknowledgment or disclosure of sin or sinfulness, esp. to a priest to obtain absolution.
3. something that is confessed.
4. a formal, usually written, acknowledgment of guilt by a person accused of a crime.
5. Also called confession of faith. a formal profession of belief and acceptance of doctrines, as before being admitted to church membership.

A confession is simply an acknowledgment of something; faith, guilt, private knowledge of whatever,…

Gathering information is an entirely different thing.
Admission of guilt is not the same thing as giving up information.

Which leads me to note, I find definition #10 of “torture” (above) quite ironic.

Chris*

 

[vz71]

Again from the dictionary:

con·fess·ion
*-noun

1. acknowledgment; avowal; admission: a confession of incompetence.
2. acknowledgment or disclosure of sin or sinfulness, esp. to a priest to obtain absolution.
3. something that is confessed.
4. a formal, usually written, acknowledgment of guilt by a person accused of a crime.
5. Also called confession of faith. a formal profession of belief and acceptance of doctrines, as before being admitted to church membership.

A confession is simply an acknowledgment of something; faith, guilt, private knowledge of whatever,…
It is odd that you should quote to us the definition of confession from a dictionary and then tell us something that runs counter to that very definition.

In which of the five definitions offered do you find confession to be “simply an acknowledgement of something?”

 

[ChrisWRIT]

It is odd that you should quote to us the definition of confession from a dictionary and then tell us something that runs counter to that very definition.

In which of the five definitions offered do you find confession to be “simply an acknowledgement of something?”

Sorry, I forgot to note that I include the entire definition to avoid being accused of “hiding the rest” or something.

Nunber 1 - **acknowledgment; avowal; admission/B}

Doesn’t matter what the person is acknowledging, admitting, avowing.

What exactly in my statement that “A confession is simply an acknowledgment of something;” is counter to the provided definition?

Chris**

 

[vz71]

Sorry, I forgot to note that I include the entire definition to avoid being accused of “hiding the rest” or something.

Nunber 1 - acknowledgment; avowal; admission

You left out part of definition #1.
It it seems the part left out alters the context of the preceding words for #1.

What happened to “a confession of incompetence.”

A lot is being made of “include the entire definition” yet every time the word is used, large chunks of the definition are left out and/or ignored.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

You left out part of definition #1.
It it seems the part left out alters the context of the preceding words for #1.

What happened to “a confession of incompetence.”

A lot is being made of “include the entire definition” yet every time the word is used, large chunks of the definition are left out and/or ignored.

Sigh.:ehh: I did include the entire definition. I simply tried to save myself some typing by not including the example supplied with the definition.

Perhaps your confusion is due to not realizing that any given definition in a dictionary may include an example of it, which is typically separated from the provided definition by a colon, just as in the definition you take exception to (& also in 3 of the supplied definitions for torture - 7, 8 & 9.)

confession
“1. acknowledgment; avowal; admission : a confession of incompetence.”

I admit I’m not the sharpest knife on the rack, but it seems apparent that an example provided with a definition is neither the definition itself, nor is it even the only example that could be used to explain the definition.

This can be seen by just using the definition & example provided above:

• “a confession of incompetence” = “an acknowledgment of incompetence”
• “a confession of guilt” = “an admission of guilt”
• “a confession of ignorance” = “an avowal of ignorance”

So how exactly does the example change the definition it explains?

Regards,

Chris

 

[vz71]

It provides a context.

 

[vz71]

… how are any of these attempts to “gather information” NOT attempts to “extract confession” (of personal knowledge)?

It would appear in the quote here even that there is an acknowledgement that “extract confession” is being used out of place. Otherwise there would never have been the need to place the “(of personnal knowledge)” in.

As I have stated before, “extract confession” is not the same thing as obtaining information.
This difference is the difference between coverage by the CCC and silence.

My apologies if it offends anyone’s sensibilities here, but if faced with the death of people against the knowledge contained in the terrorists head, it does not appear that the CCC disallows torture being used to get the knowledge.
Of course, we are then left to ponder the accuracy of said information gathered within the torture…

 

[Ender]

The CCC defines torture as an act which is composed of two criteria:
1) an act which uses (physical or mental) violence
2) an act which is used for extracting confessions, punishment, eliciting fear, or satisfying hatred.

the Chinese water torture, as typically defined, is not violent, so it does not meet both criteria.

This would allow non-violent torture; that’s not a sustainable position.

However, the Chinese water torture when used to describe water boarding (the act under consideration in this thread,) is both physically & mentally violent (meeting #1), AND is/was used for prohibited purposes, typically, extracting confessions & eliciting fear (meeting #2).

Waterboarding is not the Chinese water torture; they are completely different. The term “mentally violent” is a nice touch, not to mention indescribably vague. Is chess mentally violent?

Besides, even IF one wants to claim there is a difference between “gathering information” and “extracting confessions”, using violent means to elicit the fear needed to obtain the information/confession still causes the act to meet the 2nd required criteria to be defined “torture.”

You’re playing with words again. The catechism distinguishes between extracting confessions and eliciting fear. They understand the distinction.

The only significance to using the term “interrogation” instead of “to extract confessions” is in the savings of time & keystrokes.

The UN definition of torture recognizes the distinction: “purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession”. It is more reasonable to argue that the catechism didn’t attempt to cover all situations than to argue there is no distinction between getting a confession and gathering information It is much more reasonable to argue that the list of intentions prohibited in the catechism is simply incomplete. It doesn’t, for example, expressly prohibit torture for sadistic reasons although no one can doubt that it is surely condemned.

Ender

 

[vz71]

It doesn’t, for example, expressly prohibit torture for sadistic reasons although no one can doubt that it is surely condemned.

Ender

I would think that would fall under “satisfying hatred.”

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Ender;3446448:

It doesn’t, for example, expressly prohibit torture for sadistic reasons although no one can doubt that it is surely condemned.
Ender

I would think that would fall under “satisfying hatred.”

I would certainly agree, vz.

Chris

 

[ChrisWRIT]

This would allow non-violent torture; that’s not a sustainable position.

The commonly known “Chinese water torture” (of randomly dripping water on the forehead) is neither violent, nor torture.

Waterboarding is not the Chinese water torture; they are completely different.

I didn’t say they were. I said “the Chinese water torture when used to describe water boarding…”.

After the Spanish American War of 1898 in the Philippines, the US Army used waterboarding which was called the “water cure” or “Chinese water torture.”

You’re playing with words again. The catechism distinguishes between extracting confessions and eliciting fear. They understand the distinction.

No, I am not “playing with words”, nor am I equating the two items.

Waterboarding elicits fear in the victim. The purpose of eliciting such fear may be to “extract confessions”, or “gather information”, or force the revelation of a new angel food cake recipe.

Whether one is using torturous means to elicit fear for a valid reason or an invalid one, one is still using torture to elicit fear.

The UN definition of torture recognizes the distinction: “purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession”.

The UN prohibits torture. The definition you provide doesn’t allow allow it for either purpose, nor does it even claim whether they are the same or not. In fact it seems to recognize that some will attempt to rationalize torture by attempting to redefine terms by claiming that “getting information” is different than “extracting confessions.”

The Catholic Church has recognized for over 500 years that waterboarding is torture, & Church teaching over the years states that torture is an intrinsically evil act, which is not to be tolerated REGARDLESS of the justification used to rationalize it, just like abortion.

Pope Benedict XVI (“The prohibition against torture cannot be contravened under any circumstance.”) & the USCCB agree. The USCCB published an action alert on Feb. 28, 2008 urging Bush’s signature on the Intelligence Authorization Act, which would have expanded the prohibition on torture.

usccb.org/sdwp/international/action_alert_on_hr_2082_2-28-08_with_op-ed_on_veto.pdf

The ends do not justify the means.

Chris

 

[vz71]

The purpose of eliciting such fear may be to “extract confessions”, or “gather information”, or force the revelation of a new angel food cake recipe.
Whether one is using torturous means to elicit fear for a valid reason or an invalid one, one is still using torture to elicit fear.

Let’s not confuse the process with the purpose.
If you are illiciting fear to gain information, the purpose is not illiciting fear, the purpose is gaining information.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Let’s not confuse the process with the purpose.
If you are illiciting fear to gain information, the purpose is not illiciting fear, the purpose is gaining information.

Sorry, the purpose is irrelevant.

Again, the church teaches that torture is intrinsically evil, regardless of the claimed purpose, and “can never be justified."

Trying to rationalize it by nitpicking won’t change that.

One of the most recent statements is from the USCCB, in the document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

Chris

 

[vz71]

Again, the church teaches that torture is intrinsically evil, regardless of the claimed purpose, and “can never be justified."

Please cite the appropriate CCC paragraphs indicating such as an “intrinsic evil” and I’ll not bother you in this thread again.