Waterboarding Terrorists- Justified to Save Lives?

[TMC]

Vatican II also had a bit to say in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudiem et Spes (text in red is mine):Furthermore, [Tier I] whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, [Tier II] whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; [Tier III] whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.Vatican II had bishops from all over the world, including a whole lot of places where they did have planes slamming into them and where they did have both physical and mental torture going on for real (remember that the KGB was in top fighting form back in the early 60s…and a lot of these people had very vivid memories of Stalin who died not that much earlier)

And they chose to use a very much broader term than “torture.” They used “torments.” That is something worth chewing on a bit.

(Also worth chewing on is that they placed torments in a completely different – and lower – tier of offenses than abortion)

I am not sure I agree with the “tiers” that you have inserted into the text - but otherwise I think you have it right.

 

[Brywan]

**Why is it better for innocent people to die **

Maybe Jesus Christ would have something worthwhile to say about this…

 

[TMC]

All interesting and worth chewing on, but the bishops don’t control the countries they are from. When your in control of an entire country and see top secret information on who wants to kill your fellow citizens, you might change your mind a bit as well.

I don’t believe that torture increase our security, but even if it did it is inherently immoral and banned by the Church. It is easy to be moral when doing so is safe and comfortable. Anyone can act morally when acting morally is the easy thing to do. We are called to act morally always, even when doing so is not easy or comfortable - and, yes, even when doing so is not safe. You can’t stamp out evil with more evil.

 

[markomalley]

I am not sure I agree with the “tiers” that you have inserted into the text - but otherwise I think you have it right.

I used the term “whatever” in the original text to separate it into three distinct categories. I called them “tiers” – one could also call them “categories” or whatever.

The point is that there are three separate genera:whatever is opposed to life itself, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, and whatever insults human dignity. Then each of the species within each genus are broken out as examples. And I think the council laid them out in (decreasing) order of severity…thus tier I through tier III. Certainly murder is more evil than bad working conditions, isn’t it?

 

[markomalley]

All interesting and worth chewing on, but the bishops don’t control the countries they are from. When your in control of an entire country and see top secret information on who wants to kill your fellow citizens, you might change your mind a bit as well.

Well, I have never been in charge of my own country, but I have, in times past, seen my share of operational intelligence. And it is very, very, very fleeting. Codes and ciphers will change almost immediately. Operational plans that haven’t been put in place yet will change very rapidly (if a key person is captured, you assume he or she has been compromised and you change the plans around to mitigate the impact of that compromise).

Based upon my past experience, the only thing that such a person would be good for even after a month would be:

• Identifying key players (as in other targets)
• Identifying fixed bases of operations
• Identifying overall strategies
• Identifying tactics, techniques, and procedures

All of those items above are really, really important…but do they meet the criteria of immanence that the OP asserts is required to justify the use of “enhanced interrogation” as a means of self-defense?

As I posted in #114 above, the claim that waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed prevented an attack on LA doesn’t hold water…the timeline doesn’t line up (the LA attack was derailed in early 2002, according to President Bush, while KSM wasn’t even captured until March, 2003)

As for the bishops not controlling the country, on one hand, that is a non-sequitur. On the other hand, talking about doctrine and morals is 100% within the bishops’ sphere of competence.

This thread was posted on the Social Justice section of a Catholic message board. So if we are going to discuss the matter, we should discuss the matter through the lens of Catholic moral theology. At least that seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[TMC]

I used the term “whatever” in the original text to separate it into three distinct categories. I called them “tiers” – one could also call them “categories” or whatever.

The point is that there are three separate genera:whatever is opposed to life itself, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, and whatever insults human dignity. Then each of the species within each genus are broken out as examples. And I think the council laid them out in (decreasing) order of severity…thus tier I through tier III. Certainly murder is more evil than bad working conditions, isn’t it?

I think that everyone can agree that murder is worse than bad working conditions. My concern is that the Council did not say that everything in one group was worse than everything in another group. Also, to put them in tiers suggests that the things in certain categories can be justified as little evils. Which leads to saying that surely doing something in tier 2 is acceptable to prevent something in tier 1. I don’t think that one can reduce moral choices to those kinds of simple equations. I am not rejecting your thoughts on the matter out of hand - I just don’t think it is really that clear cut that the “tiers” are meant to seperate the “real bad” from the “sort of bad”.

 

[Rascalking]

Well, I have never been in charge of my own country, but I have, in times past, seen my share of operational intelligence. And it is very, very, very fleeting. Codes and ciphers will change almost immediately. Operational plans that haven’t been put in place yet will change very rapidly (if a key person is captured, you assume he or she has been compromised and you change the plans around to mitigate the impact of that compromise).

Based upon my past experience, the only thing that such a person would be good for even after a month would be:

• Identifying key players (as in other targets)
• Identifying fixed bases of operations
• Identifying overall strategies
• Identifying tactics, techniques, and procedures

All of those items above are really, really important…but do they meet the criteria of immanence that the OP asserts is required to justify the use of “enhanced interrogation” as a means of self-defense?

As I posted in #114 above, the claim that waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed prevented an attack on LA doesn’t hold water…the timeline doesn’t line up (the LA attack was derailed in early 2002, according to President Bush, while KSM wasn’t even captured until March, 2003)

As for the bishops not controlling the country, on one hand, that is a non-sequitur. On the other hand, talking about doctrine and morals is 100% within the bishops’ sphere of competence.

This thread was posted on the Social Justice section of a Catholic message board. So if we are going to discuss the matter, we should discuss the matter through the lens of Catholic moral theology. At least that seems pretty reasonable to me.

I’ll keep that in mind. I’m glad there are people doing things like water boarding, etc , keeping my family safe. I’ll thank them for you.

Cheers.

 

[markomalley]

I’ll keep that in mind. I’m glad there are people doing things like water boarding, etc , keeping my family safe. I’ll thank them for you.

Cheers.

Don’t bother. I really don’t care to have you thank them for me. And, frankly, I’d rather live in a dangerous world than one where I have any material cooperation with evil…just for the petty purpose of living a bit longer.

I would far rather sleep well at night for fewer nights than to sleep for more nights, but with the knowledge that I had any participation in evil.

It’s hard enough getting a good night’s sleep when I know that my tax dollars go to finance abortion. I really would prefer not to add this as a matter of national policy, as well.

 

[Newbie2]

No, we can’t ignore what they said. We need them to help us with our moral statements and actions.

However, something vital to remember is that popes don’t have to make decisions for countries that are world powers. No one is slamming planes into St. Peter’s Basicalla, althought I’m sure they’d like to.

Look at this way-if we had solid proof a bomb was going to off in the vatican-we don’t know where, but we have other proof-emails, phone calls, etc .Do we ask the suspect in custody really nicely? Do we take away his dessert? Slap him on the wrist?

I don’t remember anyone in this thread suggesting that even intense interrogation is morally unacceptable, just when it crosses the line to torture…and as has been discussed, we don’t really know where that line is drawn all the time, do we?

But even a veiled suggestion that a terror suspect is “morally torturable” based on what his target is, is pretty silly. Or that the Pope would change his mind if if the Vatican was the target of a plot. (and no doubt he has been the target many times)

All interesting and worth chewing on, but the bishops don’t control the countries they are from. When your in control of an entire country and see top secret information on who wants to kill your fellow citizens, you might change your mind a bit as well.

Doubtful, if someone takes moral theology seriously. However, few if any devout Catholics are in such positions of power and responsibility. So your point is taken for those who don’t hold the nation to a strict moral policy.

 

[roelblomsma]

You don’t know what you are talking about. You are just repeating left wing propaganda that has nothing to do with the Truth.

Do you deny that Saddam Hussein ruled by torture and oppression?

Do you deny that Saddam was responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people?

Do you deny that Saddam Hussein attacked three neighboring nations?

Do you deny that Saddam financially supported and harbored terrorists?

Do you deny that Saddam ignored UN sanctions for 12 years?

Do you deny that Saddam produced and used WMD?

I agree with most of what you write, but the same things happens in China, North-Correa, Cuba, Latin America, all over Africa, and in other countries. Why haven’t you invaded there, I mean if the USA is so worried about human rights. You guys invaded Irak because of the oil. See Farenheit 911 of Micheal More.

Besides. One of the excuses for invading Irak was the intelligence that nuclear weapons were built there and that they where harbouring and training terrorist. Nothing found! Go explain.

Well, I guess, from a Christian point of view. Treat others as you would like to be treated. I think it’s logical that the Arab world is angry with the USA for all the wars you inflicted on them. And no, I’m not a fan of the Arabs and even less of Muslims, but that does not mean I agree on making war without legitimate reasons.

 

[roelblomsma]

I don’t think waterboarding is a legitimate act that the American Government should be engaged in, but neither do I agree with your view of “American operations” in the Middle East. I’m not convinced the invasion of Iraq was the best thing to do at that time, but neither do I think Iraq under Hussein was some sort of Garden of Eden. I also think that Iraq is presently better off than it was under Hussein’s thumb and, whether I like it or not, President George W. Bush and the American military and Allies are responsible for that. As for Afghanistan, the U.S. military is not in that country for the purpose of deciding anyone’s faith. This is pure Taliban and Al Qaeda propaganda. The U.S. is in Afghanistan because Al Qaeda terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11th, 2001. If that event had not occurred, America would not presently be in Afghanistan. It is false to assume that America is responsible for terrorism or for Muslim extremists in the Middle East. Muslim extremists focus on the U.S. because of the values of liberty and religious tolerance which the U.S. holds and which they see as a threat. I think these very same values are threatened, not only by the Muslim and other religious extremists in the Middle East, but also by our own blind and misguided use of torture against these extremists. This is another reason I think waterboarding is not only immoral, but on a political level, just a stupid thing to do.

Well, ok. I agree with most of what you say. But I’d like to apply the same argument as I gave one of the other members. In China, North-Correa, Cuba, and many countries in Africa and South America people suffer under horrible oppression from dictators and regimes. Why has the USA not invaded those countries? Well, obviously because they have no interests there. Furthermore, I think if the USA hadn’t meddled in the Middle East, no Muslim extremist would be focussed on the USA. Are there terrorist plans for Russia, Canada, Sweden, etc… no, because those countries leave them to their own business.

Again, I don’t agree with dictatorships, Muslims, terrorists, etc, but to start wars on base of illegitmate reasons is just not right in my opinion.

 

[Rascalking]

Don’t bother. I really don’t care to have you thank them for me. And, frankly, I’d rather live in a dangerous world than one where I have any material cooperation with evil…just for the petty purpose of living a bit longer.

I would far rather sleep well at night for fewer nights than to sleep for more nights, but with the knowledge that I had any participation in evil.

It’s hard enough getting a good night’s sleep when I know that my tax dollars go to finance abortion. I really would prefer not to add this as a matter of national policy, as well.

That’s okay, I’ll do so anyway. If your American, our government will save you whether you show appreciation or not. If you don’t like it, your free to move instead of cooperating with “evil”.

And your right on abortion, 100 percent correct. Couldn’t agree with you more. However, you still should show a little gratitude to nation that’s given you so much.

 

[Rascalking]

I don’t remember anyone in this thread suggesting that even intense interrogation is morally unacceptable, just when it crosses the line to torture…and as has been discussed, we don’t really know where that line is drawn all the time, do we?

But even a veiled suggestion that a terror suspect is “morally torturable” based on what his target is, is pretty silly. Or that the Pope would change his mind if if the Vatican was the target of a plot. (and no doubt he has been the target many times)

Doubtful, if someone takes moral theology seriously. However, few if any devout Catholics are in such positions of power and responsibility. So your point is taken for those who don’t hold the nation to a strict moral policy.

I hold to the “perfect is the enemy of the good” when it comes to mankind.

Again, I’m glad people do the dirty work and save our butts-giving us the very freedom to talk about things like this on the internet instead of living in a Taliban like world.

 

[Tsuwano]

Well, ok. I agree with most of what you say. But I’d like to apply the same argument as I gave one of the other members. In China, North-Correa, Cuba, and many countries in Africa and South America people suffer under horrible oppression from dictators and regimes. Why has the USA not invaded those countries? Well, obviously because they have no interests there. Furthermore, I think if the USA hadn’t meddled in the Middle East, no Muslim extremist would be focussed on the USA. Are there terrorist plans for Russia, Canada, Sweden, etc… no, because those countries leave them to their own business.

Again, I don’t agree with dictatorships, Muslims, terrorists, etc, but to start wars on base of illegitmate reasons is just not right in my opinion.

Well, the U.S. is not obligated to invade every country it has differences with. The Bush Administration pushed for the invasion of Iraq because it obviously believed that the Hussein regime was a serious threat it could no longer ignore. It is wrong and just plain silly to assume that the U.S. has no interest in China or North Korea or Cuba. After all, American troops have helped defend South Korea from invasion from the North at great expense for over 50 years and has been instrumental in the so far fruitless negotiations with North Korea. The U.S. is not averse to diplomacy, but in the case of Iraq and Hussein it chose a different route after prolonged diplomacy failed. Some have said the U.S. should have continued diplomatic efforts, and perhaps so, but the fact is that the Bush Administration chose not to. I think you are also wrong to assume that Islamic terrorists have not targeted Russia, Canada and other countries. In fact, Russia has been the target of Islamic terrorist attacks. You are right to say that wars should not be started lightly or for false reasons, but there is still ample debate concerning the reasons the U.S. chose to go to war against Hussein and the conclusions are far from clear.

 

[Tsuwano]

I hold to the “perfect is the enemy of the good” when it comes to mankind.

Again, I’m glad people do the dirty work and save our butts-giving us the very freedom to talk about things like this on the internet instead of living in a Taliban like world.

You may be glad that people do “dirty work” for us, but no one should claim that work is moral or that in some fashion it doesn’t damage us in some way or doesn’t betray the very values we claim shape us as a people. And if those values are consistently betrayed, we may very well be living in a “Taliban like world” soon enough.

 

[markomalley]

That’s okay, I’ll do so anyway. If your American, our government will save you whether you show appreciation or not. If you don’t like it, your free to move instead of cooperating with “evil”.

And your right on abortion, 100 percent correct. Couldn’t agree with you more. However, you still should show a little gratitude to nation that’s given you so much.

I think 21 years of military service is gratitude enough, don’t you? And a profound demonstration of moral relativism after having moral absolutes preached to me is the primary reason why I could no longer stay in for the full 30.

But I am always glad to be preached at on how I should show my appreciation.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

And two popes have said torture is immoral, no matter what the intent. Absolute morality? Or can we ignore what they said?

I don’t know what you are referring to and I would love to see the quotes. Regardless, these were not doctrinal statements.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I agree with most of what you write, but the same things happens in China, North-Correa, Cuba, Latin America, all over Africa, and in other countries. Why haven’t you invaded there, I mean if the USA is so worried about human rights. You guys invaded Irak because of the oil. See Farenheit 911 of Micheal More.

Besides. One of the excuses for invading Irak was the intelligence that nuclear weapons were built there and that they where harbouring and training terrorist. Nothing found! Go explain.

Well, I guess, from a Christian point of view. Treat others as you would like to be treated. I think it’s logical that the Arab world is angry with the USA for all the wars you inflicted on them. And no, I’m not a fan of the Arabs and even less of Muslims, but that does not mean I agree on making war without legitimate reasons.

Each nation is unique. Iraq’s violation of UNSC regulations was unique.

The fact that we can’t solve all the world’s problems doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do anything.

 

[roelblomsma]

Each nation is unique. Iraq’s violation of UNSC regulations was unique.

The fact that we can’t solve all the world’s problems doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do anything.

Sure. I’m not saying you should solve all problems. I do still think the invasion of Irak was based on Oil and on the fact that Bush senior hadn’t finished what he would have liked to finish.

For me it would be very legitimate, though, for you guys to invade Iran. Those guys really do have nucs and are more than willing to use them…

Well, anyways, no use in discussing politics. For all we know, Obama is maybe a good friend of the Bush’ and is drinking martini’s at the Texas ranch right now.

 

[Rascalking]

I think 21 years of military service is gratitude enough, don’t you? And a profound demonstration of moral relativism after having moral absolutes preached to me is the primary reason why I could no longer stay in for the full 30.

But I am always glad to be preached at on how I should show my appreciation.

Thank you for your service to the country, and I say that in all seriousness. Your a more brave man than I am.