Waterboarding Terrorists- Justified to Save Lives?

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Sigh…

That’s right, I don’t want to accept that torture (again, let’s not muddy the waters by saying waterboarding, since some including myself are not totally convinced that it is torture) is the moral response, because it isn’t. Church says so, and it’s been referenced several times in this thread as where and why.

If I were convinced that waterboarding or let’s say lesser forms of interrogation did not rise to the level of torture, then fine, they’re moral to use. But clear torture is forbidden under all circumstances.

I side with the Church. It’s apparent you do not.

You do not side with the Church. You side with an irrational point because you refuse to deal with the topic.

It is a simple question.

Which do you choose when offered the choice:

a: Innocent deaths

b: Waterboarding a terrorist

You choose the immoral path for some reason.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Once again, you avoid the question.

Is torture evil or not???

…silence…cue the crickets…

I answered the question, but the answer destroys your argument so you are ignoring it.

 

[tomarin]

a. I don’t agree that waterboarding is torture, but I can concede it for the sake of this discussion.

Okay.

b. Lying is evil, but is lying to save a life evil?

Definitely not. If it were then hiding Anne Frank from the Germans would have been evil, which is absurd. However I don’t think lying and torturing a person are comparable. It’s better to avoid lying but sometimes it’s better to lie than tell the truth – to avoid hurting someone’s feelings, for example. That’s what we call a “white lie”.

Flip it around. Is it evil to allow innocent people to be killed?

Well you’re making a few assumptions here. Such as this particular terrorist has the information you want, that the information is actionable and that torturing him is a reliable way of getting such actionable information. No one can really know any of those things with certainty.

I can imagine a scenario in which you torture people who don’t actually know anything valuable, that they tell you all kinds of things that are not useful or are made up in order to get the pain to stop. I think the reality would be a lot grayer than these hypothetical situations that are cited for making the case for torture.

What I’m getting at with this line of questioning is that I thought it was a hallmark of Christian morality that you cannot licitly battle evil by doing intrinsically evil things. So I’m trying to square how you, a Christian, can advocate waterboarding. It seems to me either you don’t believe waterboarding is torture (but you would not condone as legitimate interrogation methods things that you do consider torture) or you don’t agree that using evil methods to fight evil is illegitimate. Which is fine – we can agree to disagree – but it’s questionable whether that’s a truly Christian position, and you shouldn’t expect Christians to agree with you.

It seems like both are true!

 

[TMC]

These statements are in regard to confessions, not to the prevention of innocent death.

What the heck are you talking about? The Church’s teaching on torture could not be more clear. It is also clear that you disagree with that teaching - I understand that and you are entitled to your viewpoint. What you are not entitle to do is to misrepresent the Church’s teaching.

 

[lufty]

Hey folks, torturing another human being is just plain un Christian.

 

[hazcompat]

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

The harm to the Body of Christ is greater when good turns to evil than when evil continues on its inevitable path to destruction.

The race is over. The camel is unsaddled and resting at the oasis.

It is finished.

Peace

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The situation is not one we choose, it is one that confronts us.

You agree that killing innocents is worse than torture.

What if those are your only choices? What is the objectively moral choice?

Chesterton, you do realize that when you are given a choice of two evils, choosing the lesser evil does not make the choice more moral. It remans an evil. The evil does not magic itself into a good. It doesn’t. That’s not the nature of evil. The evil remains an evil. And we are forbidden to pursue any end by an evil means. It really is that simple.

So if these indeed are the choices with which one is confronted (let’s say for the sake of argument that they are), and if one chooses to torture in order to prevent the possible deaths of others, one must, in making such a choice, not delude oneself into believing that one has taken the moral highground. One has not. The decision remains evil. It must be repented of, confessed, and forgiven. Because it remains sin. The noble purpose of saving life does not mitigate the sin of employing an evil means to accomplish it. One remains culpable for evil. One remains responsible not so much for the saving of innocent life (which saving is not guaranteed–torture is notoriously unreliable), but for cruelty inflicted on a fellow human being who remains made in God’s image. In other words, one remains guilty of assaulting and desecrating the image of God, one remains guilty of a crime against love (because one has not loved one’s neighbor as oneself).

With the one hand, you attempt to do good (saving life), with the other, you* destroy and diminish* the good (torture). This is sin. There is no way around it. In the scales of justice, the attempted good does not mitigate the actual evil. You lose. Simple. End of story.

I don’t know what is so difficult about this concept: you cannot commit an evil in order to produce a good. You cannot. It is morally impossible. You can try–you will sin in the process, and you will fail. Simple. Very simple. There are fewer things that admit less grey area than this: an evil means cannot be used to accomplish a good end. It does not matter if the evil is lesser or greater. It remains evil. Simple. That should be the end of the discussion.

But I know it will not be. I suspect that it is because of a nationalistic spirit that you wish to explain away the evil of torture, or somehow portray it as a good. This is sad as a nationalistic spirit has a tendency to make us delusional and quite unable to grasp and see the good. It could be that a sense of outrage has led you to want to mitigate the evil of torture. This, too, is sad, as we are told that the anger of men does not accomplish the righteousness of God. Our sense of outrage does not magically transform evil things into good things.

You asked earlier about a “just” war situation. I think that the good loses, even in a “just” war. But a “just” war is predicated on rendering harmless an imminent danger in the moment that the danger presents itself. This danger is not the whisper of a threat, not a rumor of violence, it is not an existential state of endangerment. It is not thoughtcrime. It is the reality of ongoing actual violence and aggression. A “just” war is about confronting that reality in the moment in which it presents itself. It is doing and pursuing justice which actually has as its aim the rehabilitation to the good of those who have abandoned the good. Torture is inimical to justice as it makes the torturer complicit in injustice. Torture is inimical to the catechism section you originally quoted as the one tortured has already been rendered harmless by their incarceration. “Just” war theory is thus not analogous to the dodgy enterprise of coming up with a logic for torture.

For what, after all, is torture if not the willed application of physical, psychological and/or emotional pain (cruelty) on a helpless and defenseless being? You can only claim that the one being tortured is an aggressor (in terms of the catechism) if you make him or her an instance of the Perpetually Aggressive Enemy Other, whoever or whatever that might be. This does violence to their individual humanity, and also does violence to the torturer’s own beliefs (at least if they claim to be a Christian)–it suggests that the one being tortured cannot change, that they are irreformable, that they are impervious to grace, that they are ultimately unworthy of love, that their very being is a crime. By torturing another, one effectively denies one’s own faith, and in so doing, betrays the Lord of Life, the examplar of our humanity. To try to mitigate this by claiming patriotism, moral outrage, logic or some moral highground is fundamentally reprehensible.

I urge you to give up the unsound and immoral justification of torture on which you have been engaged in this thread.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Steel_Pinwheel]

Chesterton, you do realize that when you are given a choice of two evils, choosing the lesser evil does not make the choice more moral. It remans an evil.

I always vote for a 3rd-party presidential candidate because I won’t vote for the lesser of two evils. (This is easy for me because I know my vote won’t change the outcome.) But, the vast majority of Christians don’t hesitate to vote for who they think is the lesser of two evils. The logic is simple, the lessor evil is a relative good.

What makes torture so unacceptable to me is that it isn’t a lesser evil. Torture is the lessor evil in the hypothetical case of if you have a guy you know planted bomb in a crowded location. But, in practice, torture is rarely going to be used in such a situation.

One of our mislead posters presented Mohamed Atta as an example of a terrorist bragging about who he is and what he has done. But, that poster lives in a world of propaganda and lies (e.g. Iraq’s WMDs). Torture was used to coerce confessions out of Atta (some of them most likely false confessions). I’ve seen no evidence that his torture saved innocent lives (the government hasn’t earned my trust that I would just take their word for it). But, the torture of Atta is just the camel’s nose in the tent. If, and as, the US changes its anti-torture posture, torture will be used on many innocent people. We have tortured innocent people and the payoff has been dubious.

The advocates of torture also refuse to consider what torture will do to America’s reputation. When it got out how the US treated some prisoners in an Iraqi prison, the US whined that such news costs innocent lives. Duh! We cannot torture people without others finding out about it. And, they will learn to hate us and fight us for it. We also lose the ground to object to how they treat American prisoners.

There are other ways to gain information. Even optimistically, torture wouldn’t expand our knowledge for preemptive defense by even 1%. But, it seriously damages our moral edge - and that moral edge is really our whole excuse for being in Iraq and Afghanistan. We could easily destroy these countries by military might, if that’s why we were there.

Torture is not the lesser evil. It’s mental porn for psychopaths. And, it’s something we wouldn’t be talking about if we weren’t so influenced by judaizers.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Grace & Peace!

Chesterton, you do realize that when you are given a choice of two evils, choosing the lesser evil does not make the choice more moral. It remans an evil. !

This is absolutely false.

When only two possible choices exist, you must choose the most moral path.

Turn the statement in the OP around. Is it justifiable for innocent people to be killed in order to avoid waterboarding a terrorist?

No one who disagrees with my position will answer this question, apparently.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

The harm to the Body of Christ is greater when good turns to evil than when evil continues on its inevitable path to destruction.

The race is over. The camel is unsaddled and resting at the oasis.

It is finished.

Peace

I would expect to be waterboarded if information I was withholding would lead to saving innocent lives.

That’s the Golden Rule.

Saving innocent life is a higher priority than the physical comfort of a terrorist.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

When only two possible choices exist, you must choose the most moral path.

That assumes that there will be a moral option among the given choices. That is not always the case. The options you give here are both evils (torture v. the possible deaths of some or many). There is no way to choose a moral option when the given options are immoral. That’s just how it works. Calling the lesser evil the more moral option may be comforting but is ultimately delusional.

Turn the statement in the OP around. Is it justifiable for innocent people to be killed in order to avoid waterboarding a terrorist?

Your question assumes that waterboarding is the only option, is unavoidable. It is not. Waterboarding terrorists is not unavoidable in order to save lives. But the rephrasing of the question is merely illustrative of where you’re having a problem–It is *not *justifiable for many to die of a terrorist action, nor is it justifiable to employ waterboarding or any other type of torture on the off chance that it might save lives. Again, as mentioned above: both options represent evils. Simple.

Later on in the thread, you write:

Saving innocent life is a higher priority than the physical comfort of a terrorist.

Yes, you’re right. But physical comfort is not the issue here any more than is whiskers on kittens. The question is not: do I save innocent lives, or do I a buy a settee for a terrorist? No. The question is: do I torture this man or woman on the off chance that he or she may have a sliver of information that could prevent the deaths of many, or do I seek other means to prevent the deaths of many. Or, in other words: do I engage in the expedient evil, or do I seek a good means to pursue a good end. With these options, there actually is a viable moral choice.

Chesterton, it seems like, for you, nationalism trumps Catholicism. I’m sure that you can recognize that that’s problematic. I know it is also often difficult for us to admit when we have been pursuing something in error–often we prefer, for pride’s sake, to persist in our folly, until we come to see such persistence as virtue. It is not.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Grace & Peace!

That assumes that there will be a moral option among the given choices. That is not always the case. The options you give here are both evils (torture v. the possible deaths of some or many). There is no way to choose a moral option when the given options are immoral. That’s just how it works. Calling the lesser evil the more moral option may be comforting but is ultimately delusional.

Your question assumes that waterboarding is the only option, is unavoidable. It is not. Waterboarding terrorists is not unavoidable in order to save lives. But the rephrasing of the question is merely illustrative of where you’re having a problem–It is *not *justifiable for many to die of a terrorist action, nor is it justifiable to employ waterboarding or any other type of torture on the off chance that it might save lives. Again, as mentioned above: both options represent evils. Simple.

Later on in the thread, you write:

Yes, you’re right. But physical comfort is not the issue here any more than is whiskers on kittens. The question is not: do I save innocent lives, or do I a buy a settee for a terrorist? No. The question is: do I torture this man or woman on the off chance that he or she may have a sliver of information that could prevent the deaths of many, or do I seek other means to prevent the deaths of many. Or, in other words: do I engage in the expedient evil, or do I seek a good means to pursue a good end. With these options, there actually is a viable moral choice.

Chesterton, it seems like, for you, nationalism trumps Catholicism. I’m sure that you can recognize that that’s problematic. I know it is also often difficult for us to admit when we have been pursuing something in error–often we prefer, for pride’s sake, to persist in our folly, until we come to see such persistence as virtue. It is not.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

This has nothing to do with nationalism, it involves morality and rationality.

If it is morally acceptable to kill a man in self defense, it is absolutely morally acceptable to waterboard him for the defense of others.

Waterboarding is a moral, just, and Godly choice if it is necessary to save innocent lives.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You are ignoring the highest priority of a security officer, which is to protect the innocent from the aggressors.

I can’t really proceed any further with you. You are trapped behind a huge blind spot.

Thankfully, those with a more clear and moral compass are protecting us here in the United States.

 

[Newbie2]

I answered the question, but the answer destroys your argument so you are ignoring it.

Another poster asked the question and you ducked it.

Doesn’t matter. It’s clear you’re ignoring all the references that everyone has posted refuting your position, while all you have to offer is your opinion.

Whatever. I don’t consider this as my argument, but the Church’s. I see it as sad that you reject the Church’s teachings in this area. Hopefully you will study the evidence and someday reconsider. I’ve done all I can do to show you what she teaches.

You continue to set up this false premise whereby the only two choices are waterboarding and guaranteed innocent death. Might as well say that the Zorgons are attacking from outer space and they demand you torture your firstborn to keep them from attacking.

And btw you keep backsliding to “waterboarding” when you’ve said that other forms of interrogation that are clearly torture are acceptable. Why do you keep doing this? If you’re convinced of your position, why keep backsliding? Why not say “torture” when in this discussion it’s been made clear that there are some who are not convinced it is torture.

Never mind…you’ll probably evade that question too…

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Another poster asked the question and you ducked it.

Doesn’t matter. It’s clear you’re ignoring all the references that everyone has posted refuting your position, while all you have to offer is your opinion.

Whatever. I don’t consider this as my argument, but the Church’s. I see it as sad that you reject the Church’s teachings in this area. Hopefully you will study the evidence and someday reconsider. I’ve done all I can do to show you what she teaches.

You continue to set up this false premise whereby the only two choices are waterboarding and guaranteed innocent death. Might as well say that the Zorgons are attacking from outer space and they demand you torture your firstborn to keep them from attacking.

And btw you keep backsliding to “waterboarding” when you’ve said that other forms of interrogation that are clearly torture are acceptable. Why do you keep doing this? If you’re convinced of your position, why keep backsliding? Why not say “torture” when in this discussion it’s been made clear that there are some who are not convinced it is torture.

Never mind…you’ll probably evade that question too…

The thread is specifically about waterboarding to save lives.

Try to focus on the OP.

Your claim that it is better for innocent people to die than for a guilty terrorist to be waterboarded is inconsistent with Catholic teaching.

 

[Newbie2]

The thread is specifically about waterboarding to save lives.

Try to focus on the OP.

Your claim that it is better for innocent people to die than for a guilty terrorist to be waterboarded is inconsistent with Catholic teaching.

That is simply not true. I’ve never claimed that, please don’t misrepresent my posts.

I’ve been responding to your claim that torture, clear torture, is acceptable, which came up in the discussion. I’ve written several times that I’m not convinced either way that waterboarding is torture or not.

I do find it amusing that you’re backtracking…well, amusing and hopeful that you’re starting to ‘get it’. What I do not find amusing is that you’re misrepresenting what I’ve written.

I think maybe it’s time to think about closing this thread…everybody seems to have had their say, there’s clear disagreement that isn’t likely to be resolved, and now there seems to be some intentional mistepresentation of other’s claims. I’d like it not to degenerate from here.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I have a question for those who are against waterboarding terrorists.

It is okay to shine a bright light in a terrorist’s face while you interrogate him. This makes the terrorist uncomfortable and intimidates him. Waterboarding does the same thing with a far greater intensity. So why is it okay to shine a bright light in a terrorist’s face but not to waterboard him? The only difference between the 2 procedures seems to be the intensity of the discomfort and intimidation felt by the terrorist.

 

[Steel_Pinwheel]

It is okay to shine a bright light in a terrorist’s face while you interrogate him. This makes the terrorist uncomfortable and intimidates him. Waterboarding does the same thing with a far greater intensity. So why is it okay to shine a bright light in a terrorist’s face but not to waterboard him? The only difference between the 2 procedures seems to be the intensity of the discomfort and intimidation felt by the terrorist.

You don’t see the difference between the infliction of pain and imposing a risk of death verses a bright light? Why don’t you just say you’re not against torture? And, don’t you mean the suspected terrorist? Not all of us have your blind confidence in the guilt of the accused.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

That is simply not true. I’ve never claimed that, please don’t misrepresent my posts.

.

Then you need to be more clear.

The OP regards whether waterboarding is justified to save lives.

If you think it is then that’s great.

However, I got the impression that this is not what you think.

If you think waterboarding is not justified to save lies, then you must believe that losing innocent lives is preferable to waterboarding a terrorist.

The OP presents a YES or NO question.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You don’t see the difference between the infliction of pain and imposing a risk of death verses a bright light? Why don’t you just say you’re not against torture? And, don’t you mean the suspected terrorist? Not all of us have your blind confidence in the guilt of the accused.

Do you believe that abortion is justified in order for a woman to avoid the pain of childbirth?