Unthinkable - Is torture justfied?

[ronnie_bonigli]

Should the police torture a serial killer who knows the location of an underground air tight container with 10 people suffocating in it? You are trying your very hardest to make it as if the context some how removes the problem. An emotional desire to save millions does not add up to the moral right to torture people.

I wonder how you’d feel if someone you love is in that box. It’s easy to do the navel gazing when it’s some hypothetical stranger dying in there.

btw, your scenario sounds like the one Alan Dershowitz discussed a few years back;

“Everybody says they’re opposed to torture. But everyone would do it personally if they knew it could save the life of a kidnapped child who had only two hours of oxygen left before death. And it would be the right thing to do,” said Dershowitz

 

[JohnDamian]

I wonder how you’d feel if someone you love is in that box. It’s easy to do the navel gazing when it’s some hypothetical stranger dying in there.

btw, your scenario sounds like the one Alan Dershowitz discussed a few years back;

“Everybody says they’re opposed to torture. But everyone would do it personally if they knew it could save the life of a kidnapped child who had only two hours of oxygen left before death. And it would be the right thing to do,” said Dershowitz

That quote is almost obscene.

I would never lower myself to the level of a murderer or a kidnapper by brutalising another human being - even if everyone I loved was going to be saved by this act. Even if the whole universe were at risk, including myself.

The seeds of moral relitivism and utilitarianism start off small, but the minute one starts justifying grave brutalities against other humans, one has lost the plot.

 

[verum_peto_1]

That quote is almost obscene.

I would never lower myself to the level of a murderer or a kidnapper by brutalising another human being - even if everyone I loved was going to be saved by this act. Even if the whole universe were at risk, including myself.

The seeds of moral relitivism and utilitarianism start off small, but the minute one starts justifying grave brutalities against other humans, one has lost the plot.

That was my point in bringing up the notion of a “just war.” If ever there was a case or moral relativism, it is contained in that doctrine.

Many people engage in moral relativism daily. As far as I am concerned, I do it whenever I vote. There has yet to be a candidate which I agreed with. It is always choosing the lesser of the bad options.

 

[RWMorris]

The Compendium of Social Doctrine (see here) also contains a discussion of torture:

404 … In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim”.[830] International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.

I’ll take the international legal system seriously when they demand all members of Iran’s, North Korea’s, China’s government, HAMAS,and Hezbollah be arrested and tried for torturing people with drills, electric prods, vice-grips, hammers, steel balls, and piano wire. I’m talking real torture, the kind carried out for the sole purpose of causing as much misery for as long as possible.

 

[Shin]

Excuse me, mispost.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I wonder how you’d feel if someone you love is in that box.

I would want to save them. My emotions, if expressed without rationality, would probably compel me to harm the person.

However, my emotions, free from rationality, do not define the will of God or reflect the image of true Love; even though the devil is telling me that it does.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I’m talking real torture, the kind carried out for the sole purpose of causing as much misery for as long as possible.

You mean the kind of torture that the U.S. outsources to other countries via “extraordinary rendition”.

 

[RWMorris]

You mean the kind of torture that the U.S. outsources to other countries via “extraordinary rendition”.

While I have no doubt that the US intelligence services may turn a blind eye to techniques used by other countries to extract intelligence, and that those techniques may be more brutal than should be allowed, I do not think we allow torture for the sake of torture. When have we ever allowed Iran, North Korea, China, HAMAS, or Hezbollah to interrogate one of our prisoners?

 

[RWMorris]

I am a former Marine, and I have been in combat a number of times. So, I know what the UCMJ has to say on the topic, and what ROE are.

My point, or really my question, was where is the moral line between torture and warfare, under Church doctrine. We know that in earlier times, the Church viewed torture as permissible and sometimes desirable, but tends not to have that view today.

The reason for my question was that statements were being made regarding the soul of the torturer, and sinning against the supposed terrorist in the hypothetical situations presented.

In the case of the Bush administration, “the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good” stated that acts which would normally be considered torture magically became “not torture” and were therefore desirable. Yet, the current administration has changed that policy. So, does this mean that a torturer did not sin under the previous Commander in Chief, but does sin committing the same acts now?

Further, even though ROE are specific as to whom to engage, they are often not specific as to how to engage. I intentionally brought up the use of phosphorous because it is controversial. It is agreed by most to be prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, but is used for “non weapon” uses in combat. Specifically to illuminate an area. However, the result is fairly horrific for anyone which the burning phosphorous comes into contact with. How is this any different than torture?

Finally, I assume that the theory of a “just war” is predicated on some sort of moral relativism. Specifically, that the end justifies the means, because the achieving of the defeat of the enemy through death and destruction will result in less death and destruction in final end. Does this not challenge the notion that any torture is bad, sui generis, if it could in fact be shown to save lives?

As for me, in retrospect I wish that I had applied for conscientious objector status, and if declined then stood for court martial rather than my last deployment. But that is another story…

 

[RWMorris]

First of all allow me to say thank you for your service to our country. It is greatly appreciated.

… In the case of the Bush administration, “the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good” stated that acts which would normally be considered torture magically became “not torture” and were therefore desirable. Yet, the current administration has changed that policy. So, does this mean that a torturer did not sin under the previous Commander in Chief, but does sin committing the same acts now?

I believe the Bush Administration allowed water boarding to be used because they were convinced that what was done would not cross the line between enhanced interrogation and torture. Bush may have erred in judgment, I don’t know for sure, I wasn’t there. The way it has been described by the press just doesn’t meet a clear definition of torture to me. Whether it was a sin or not will be between Bush and God.

The men who did the deed under orders did not sin unless they did it believing it was a sin.

Obama has stated he would have done things differently. So if those same men use water boarding again, without Presidential authority, they are not following orders and are guilty of a violation of their oath. I believe they would be guilty of lying, a mortal sin.

Further, even though ROE are specific as to whom to engage, they are often not specific as to how to engage. I intentionally brought up the use of phosphorous because it is controversial. It is agreed by most to be prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, but is used for “non weapon” uses in combat. Specifically to illuminate an area. However, the result is fairly horrific for anyone which the burning phosphorous comes into contact with. How is this any different than torture?

The intent to torture is not there.

Finally, I assume that the theory of a “just war” is predicated on some sort of moral relativism. Specifically, that the end justifies the means, because the achieving of the defeat of the enemy through death and destruction will result in less death and destruction in final end. Does this not challenge the notion that any torture is bad, sui generis, if it could in fact be shown to save lives? …

No it doesn’t. Any act that violates Para 2297 of the CCC would be a sin. If I were trying to extract information from a terrorist, but failed, and the victims of his diabolical scheme perish, if I continue to torture him to punish him for his deed, or because I hate him for his beliefs, then I have crossed the line and have committed a mortal sin.

Just war is an act of self-defense, and is sanctioned by the CCC. The intent is defending one’s life, family, property, community, etc. Such acts are allowed by natural law. I don’t believe anyone is called to non-violence except possibly in defense of his faith. One may choose true non-violence because of his faith, I believe that is honorable. But one who refuses to serve his nation as a non-combatant is not deserving of the fruits of liberty.

 

[Just_Lurking]

While I have no doubt that the US intelligence services may turn a blind eye to techniques used by other countries to extract intelligence, and that those techniques may be more brutal than should be allowed, I do not think we allow torture for the sake of torture. When have we ever allowed Iran, North Korea, China, HAMAS, or Hezbollah to interrogate one of our prisoners?

I’ve already linked to a story about Mamdouh Habib in post 33. Here are some excerpts:

At one point, he was forced to hang by the arms above a drum-like mechanism that administered an electric shock when touched. Pakistani police asked him repeatedly if he was with al-Qaeda, and if he trained in Afghanistan. Habib responded “No” over and over until he passed out.

When he arrived, Omar Solaimon, chief of Egyptian security, informed him that Egypt receives $10 million for every confessed terrorist they hand over to the United States. Habib stated that during his five months in Egypt, "there was no interrogation, only torture."

Three British detainees who have since been released from the prison described Habib as being in a “catastrophic state” when he arrived. Most of his fingernails were missing, and he regularly bled from the nose, mouth, and ears while he slept.

Unfortunately, Habib’s case isn’t unusual. There’s substantial evidence that the United States routinely and knowingly “outsources” the application of torture by transferring terrorism suspects to countries that frequently violate international human rights norms.

 

[RWMorris]

I’ve already linked to a story about Mamdouh Habib in post 33. Here are some excerpts:

At one point, he was forced to hang by the arms above a drum-like mechanism that administered an electric shock when touched. Pakistani police asked him repeatedly if he was with al-Qaeda, and if he trained in Afghanistan. Habib responded “No” over and over until he passed out.

When he arrived, Omar Solaimon, chief of Egyptian security, informed him that Egypt receives $10 million for every confessed terrorist they hand over to the United States. Habib stated that during his five months in Egypt, "there was no interrogation, only torture."

Three British detainees who have since been released from the prison described Habib as being in a “catastrophic state” when he arrived. Most of his fingernails were missing, and he regularly bled from the nose, mouth, and ears while he slept.

Torture for the sake of torture is a sin. If we sanctioned that, it was a sin. I was unable to corroborate the story.

 

[daughterofeve]

If there were three nuclear bombs secretly hidden in three different locations in your city, threatening to kill millions, would it be morally justified to torture the person who knew their location.

Vote and give an argument as to why you think it would or would not be justified.

''Do no evil that good may come thereof"

 

[DOShea]

Sorry for the length, trying to respond to many.

Seems pretty clear cut. Torture in inherently evil. Christ was tortured. And, as the evidence clearly shows, it is very ineffective. In fact, it appears that to befirend our enemies is far more effective in getting at the truth. Yeah, that whole love thy neighbor thing. What good are our principles if we only follow them when it’s convenient or doesn’t cost us anything.

What evidence are you pointing to with this conclusion? There are as many people who will tell you enhanced interrogation techniques ARE effective as say they aren’t. Do you really imagine in a scenario where authorities are trying to find 3 nuclear devices that the truthfulness of the answer would not be easy to verify, and that the suspect being interrogated is fully aware of that?
The difference in principle is that it’s not an ordinary case, thus isn’t part of the original principle, and standing by waxing eloquent on how nice your principled life is means that in a short time it will end - along with millions of INNOCENT others - in a nuclear detonation. What good are our principles if we are not alive to use them? It is no different than saying in principle it is wrong to take another human life, then fighting as part of a nation’s armed forces where you must take another human life, sometimes many. Is that a violation of principle?

Turn the other cheek.

Didn’t Peter get chastised for cutting of Malchus ear, in an attempt to prevent a far greater crime?

No, he got chastised for losing his composure and trying to solve a crisis in the manner of a vigilante, not in accord with the legitimate laws.

…to fall prey to moral relitivism and self-justifications?

It isn’t moral relativism nor self-justification to stand up for the inalienable rights of millions of people to the ONE individual who is acting outside the law and attempting to slaughter them all indiscriminately.

What next, abortion whenever someones life is in danger…

I would ask why you would even HAVE a position on abortion when you think it’s wrong to terminate a pregnancy, yet perfectly evil to try and halt the mass execution of millions of past full-term innocent lives. How do you square that? It sounds to me more a case of Jewish zealots trying to convince Jesus that He shouldn’t heal on the Sabbath because, see here, it is written…

We should heed church teachings on the matter;

If we’re going only by what you quoted, I note two things;

1. It doesn’t address the posed scenario
2. It speaks of torture in terms of inflicting cruelty for its own sake, not to accomplish an end. The types of torture it alludes to in discussing the history of the Church’s role in it were quite beyond what might be used on a person in the posed scenario. Notice the words… “not necessary for public order.” Well in the posed scenario, it might BE necessary for public order, and to save millions, and I’m not sure it would fall under this prohibition which is clearly leveled at regimes that use this type of thing in everyday practice only for the purpose of instilling fear and keeping a populace from challenging a despotic leader, such as a Saddam Hussein, whose regime was famous for routinely employing these methods.

To be fair, there is a big difference between self defence and torture.

In any ordinary circumstance I would agree with you, but you’ve not addressed the fact that in this posed scenario 3 nuclear weapons are soon to incinerate millions and then over weeks and month, another few million will die in agonizing, brutal ways. Do those lives merit any defense, and if they do, then what defense do they merit?
It seems fallacious to me to say that in the case of an assailant with a knife attacking one’s family, it’s perfectly okay to shoot him dead - and no foul here, because HE didn’t stop, it’s all his fault - yet let the same fellow use 60 kilotons of nuclear weapons and we shouldn’t slap him across the face because that would be undignified. Better we buy him an ice cream cone and don’t worry about those millions that will die, the millions of families that will be ripped apart, the widespread disease, panic, and chaos that will itself lead to many more crimes against human dignity.
The people trying to gain the information would not be smacking the subject around solely for intimidation, nor to foster a fear that he better not mess with those in power, or for other reasons of inflicting personal suffering just because they can. There is a purpose for it, and it’s a circumstance where there isn’t time for alternatives like trying, over time, to change his mind. It’s get the info quickly or die. That makes is every bit as self-defending as protecting against the knife attack.

 

[DOShea]

By your standard, a human life loses its value as soon as it becomes a threat to life.

On the contrary, I am not advocating any use of these methods outside the scenario that it was confined to. To some extent, a human life does lose its value when it becomes an imminent threat to life, that is why there is such a thing as justified killing in self defense. It’s important to point out that it only remains in that diminished state as long as it poses a threat. Certainly firing a shot that disables the attacker means the dynamics of the situation have now changed, thus you would NOT be justified if you continued to shoot the attacker. Likewise, elevating the level of force used on someone known to have the location of nuclear weapons about to go off has limits too. As soon as he spits out the locations, you no longer have the same scenario and whatever you did to prevent that huge loss of life is no longer justified.

It would be a moral good to respect the moral value of the prisoner.

Yes, as soon as he becomes just a prisoner. But he isn’t that at the start, he is a person in the process of committing the murder of millions of people, just as if they were covered in gasoline and he was standing there holding a book of matches about to strike one and toss it in the fuel. There is a major difference in how you treat that person and a person simply in custody for a crime already committed.
Note that when a suspect holds himself up inside a bank with hostages after a robbery has gone wrong, the police have him totally surrounded. He is, in effect, “in custody,” but the important distinction is he is also still capable of causing further crimes, i.e. death or harm, to hostages. They don’t treat him as if he’s in a cell down at the county lockup in those circumstances. They try to negotiate, but are not above having a sniper shoot him dead or storming the building even if it might mean he kills one or two before they can disable him. Do you see the difference between those situations and merely having a criminal in custody without any other murders imminently pending?

Read the Catechism, then. This isn’t a question that’s really up for debate for Catholics. It’s as settled as contraception, abortion, and women priests.

I have, and more than just the snippets that have been presented here. It’s your personal opinion that what has been quoted can be stretched like a rubber balloon and used to cover what is actually an act of war, not a simple matter of prisoners in custody in general circumstances, which is what the quoted articles address. There is no “doctrine of nuclear defense techniques,” and we are left to try and deal with balancing what we do know in a circumstance that isn’t addressed. Perhaps you’d care to show me in writing where this CCC article has been expounded on officially, with the caveat that in case of pending nuclear terrorist attack, it’s more important to recognize the dignity of the one prisoner while totally disregarding the dignity of the millions who are about to die.

We are not permitted to do evil so that good may come about.

Oh yes we are, and have. Even at the behest of the Holy Father.
During WWII, priests issued false Baptismal certificates, an act that in any other circumstance would be morally wrong (a lie), yet it was done in an attempt to accomplish a greater good, which was to keep Jews from being sent to their death. All the way back to the first century Christians have (acceptably) lied and distorted the truth in order to protect other Christians. When St Lawrence was present when the Pope was murdered in front of him in the catacombs, he was sent to go gather the funds they had and bring them back. He “stole” the treasury of the church and immediately gave it all away to the poor to prevent the Romans from taking it, an act that cost him his own life. Was that theft morally justified, or do we have a Saint that should be a convicted felon?
So I’ll ask it this way… how come morality can bend in those circumstance, but it absolutely cannot when the stakes are a million times higher? Sounds to me like THAT is relativism, not what I’m proposing.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

Catholic Theology is not backwards. You do not understand the nature of love or the purpose for which we exist.

I do not understand the nature of love or the purpose for which we exist? Hypothetically all I want is to see are the millions of lives to be saved. What about this hypothetical person that has three nuclear bombs that are ready to go off and kill millions of people? What are the chances that he understands the nature of love or the purpose for which we exist? No one can correlate the desire of this person to annihilate of millions of lives with Love. I think it is quite apparent that this hypothetical person that has three nuclear bombs is the one that lives in an existential crisis with no love.

In this hypothetical situation, you have a choice, let millions of people suffer and die, or get the person to reveal the information of three neuclear. If direct questioning fails, then one senario could be torture. The person who planted the nuclear bombing is in direct control the situation. If he tells the truth no torture. But if he withholds the information then forces the hands of his interagators. If he confesses after the torture and the millions of lives are saved, the maybe he’ll go on with his life and maybe someday he would understand that why he was tortured was to save the lives of millions of people. But if he resist the interrogators even further and the bombs go off, then that is the unthinkable.

 

[RWMorris]

Thank you, John Paul Jones and DOShea. Y’all said what I was trying to say a whole lot better than I could. Fantastic posts.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I do not understand the nature of love or the purpose for which we exist? Hypothetically all I want is to see are the millions of lives to be saved.

What does it mean for millions of lives to be saved, or even one life?