Waterboarding Terrorists- Justified to Save Lives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHESTERTONRULES
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CHESTERTONRULES

Guest
I say yes.

I would be waterboarded to save a life. Would you?

Some considerations:

CCC:
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Lives have been saved:

The CIA is now confirming it’s claims made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of ‘enhanced techniques’ of interrogation on al Qaeda leaders Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) and Abu Zubaydah, which included the use of waterboarding, caused them to reveal actionable intelligence that allowed the U.S. government to stop a planned attack on Los Angeles. You can read that CIA waterboarding memo here.
rightpundits.com/?p=3790

What do you think?
 
Absent waterboarding, there is no reason to leave any terrorist alive.

Commence the drone attacks.

Apparently liberals believe that death is better than being waterboarded and imprisoned for life.
 
**I agree that in extremely limited circumstances, waterboarding is acceptable in order to save innocent lives from an unjust aggressor as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us.

The outcry from some “progressives” against waterboarding, while condoning the killing of terrorists is surely hypocritical!**

Sancta Maria, mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
Yes, terrorists are people who want to kill other people on behalf of their “god” who tells them to kill infidels and Jews. Waterboarding does not kill someone, it just scares the bejeebers out of them, and they tell us stuff that helps us save lives. Then we put them into prison where they get 3 hots and a cot and get treated better than they ever have been, and hopefully some of them even convert to Christianity, seeing as how they’ve been totally ripped off all their lives living under the scrutiny of an angry made-up god figure.
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
I say yes.

I would be waterboarded to save a life. Would you?

Some considerations:

CCC:
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. **The defense of the common good requires **that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Lives have been saved:

The CIA is now confirming it’s claims made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of ‘enhanced techniques’ of interrogation on al Qaeda leaders Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) and Abu Zubaydah, which included the use of waterboarding, caused them to reveal actionable intelligence that allowed the U.S. government to stop a planned attack on Los Angeles. You can read that CIA waterboarding memo here.
rightpundits.com/?p=3790

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I’d have no problem with it, provided that we’re certain the subject has critical information that can’t be obtained any other way in the required timeframe. I would not support it being used in a “fishing expedition”.

Also, I object to people saying waterboarding is OK because it’s “not torture”. It most certainly is torture, but as I said, sometimes that’s OK. I’m just saying let’s be honest about it.
 
TedDC said:
I’d have no problem with it, provided that we’re certain the subject has critical information that can’t be obtained any other way in the required timeframe. I would not support it being used in a “fishing expedition”.

Also, I object to people saying waterboarding is OK because it’s “not torture”. It most certainly is torture, but as I said, sometimes that’s OK. I’m just saying let’s be honest about it.
Click to expand...
Definitely torture. And use it according to whatever written policies take the arbitrariness out of the equation. That might or might not include fishing expeditions.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
Definitely torture. And use it according to whatever written policies take the arbitrariness out of the equation. That might or might not include fishing expeditions.
Click to expand...
I agree that it seems like torture, but according to US law it was not torture when used on KSM.
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
I agree that it seems like torture, but according to US law it was not torture when used on KSM.
Click to expand...
The label means little as I see it. It is what it is. I’d assume its a legitimate use. I’d prefer that there be formal guidelines, even if they’re not made public. I’m looking at this from a purely procedural point of view. Whatever needs to be done to those animals, have at it.
 
Waterboarding is nothing but torture on a 16th century scale and just because some government agency CLAIMS that it “saved lives” to condone the use, does not make it right.
The Nazis made it legal to torture Jews (before they got around to outright killing them). That did not make it right.
Even though something is termed “legal”, by ANY government, does not make it right.
Compromising one’s ethics and morality to secure one’s “safety” does not make it right.
It is never justifiable to torture our fellow man for any reason.
 
catsrus said:
Waterboarding is nothing but torture on a 16th century scale and just because some government agency CLAIMS that it “saved lives” to condone the use, does not make it right.
The Nazis made it legal to torture Jews (before they got around to outright killing them). That did not make it right.
Even though something is termed “legal”, by ANY government, does not make it right.
Compromising one’s ethics and morality to secure one’s “safety” does not make it right.
It is never justifiable to torture our fellow man for any reason.
Click to expand...
There’s the position killer argumentum ad hitlerum. Again.
 
I think it’s a necessary evil. Those things do exist in this world, in particular when your playing against nasty people who want to kill us, like KSM.

I view it differently than most people on CAF. Whenever it’s discussed, I find myself in the minority of those who support it, albeit grudgingly.
 
Rascalking said:
I think it’s a necessary evil. Those things do exist in this world, in particular when your playing against nasty people who want to kill us, like KSM.

I view it differently than most people on CAF. Whenever it’s discussed, I find myself in the minority of those who support it, albeit grudgingly.
Click to expand...
“Torture” is really just a conclusory term meaning “I don’t like it”. If someone doesn’t like to hear about sleep deprivation, then sleep deprivation becomes “torture”. And so on down the continuum to the point where someone could cogently argue that every terrorist captured, gun in hand in the Afghanistan wasteland, is entitled to a preliminary hearing before being bound over for trial in an American courtroom, otherwise, its “torture”.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
“Torture” is really just a conclusory term meaning “I don’t like it”. If someone doesn’t like to hear about sleep deprivation, then sleep deprivation becomes “torture”. And so on down the continuum to the point where someone could cogently argue that every terrorist captured, gun in hand in the Afghanistan wasteland, is entitled to a preliminary hearing before being bound over for trial in an American courtroom, otherwise, its “torture”.
Click to expand...
Actually, the term “torture” was applied to “enhanced” interrogation techniques such as waterboarding by the U.S. prior to the use under the Bush administration against accused Muslim terrorists. It was condemned by the U.S. as barbaric and in contravention of international law (the Geneva Convention) because such techniques were being used against U.S. citizens. The Bush administration went to John Yu and asked him to cook up a legal memorandum condoning the use of waterboarding (which was already being used by the CIA). Yu’s legal opinion was not vetted by legal scholars outside the White House and has been roundly condemned by experts on international law, particularly those with a background in international conventions on terrorism, including many within the Bush administration.

Your notion that “torture” means only what we want it to mean is just plain wrong. The U.S. gave up the moral high ground. Waterboarding is ineffective and illegal. Bush, Cheney, and others who permitted its use should be tried under international law. I think that the unwillingness of the Obama administration to hold hearings in the U.S. was politically astute but morally questionable.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
“Torture” is really just a conclusory term meaning “I don’t like it”. If someone doesn’t like to hear about sleep deprivation, then sleep deprivation becomes “torture”. And so on down the continuum to the point where someone could cogently argue that every terrorist captured, gun in hand in the Afghanistan wasteland, is entitled to a preliminary hearing before being bound over for trial in an American courtroom, otherwise, its “torture”.
Click to expand...
What’s your point?
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
I say yes.

I would be waterboarded to save a life. Would you?

Some considerations:

CCC:
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. **The defense of the common good requires **that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Lives have been saved:

The CIA is now confirming it’s claims made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of ‘enhanced techniques’ of interrogation on al Qaeda leaders Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) and Abu Zubaydah, which included the use of waterboarding, caused them to reveal actionable intelligence that allowed the U.S. government to stop a planned attack on Los Angeles. You can read that CIA waterboarding memo here.
rightpundits.com/?p=3790

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Rock On! Not a problem with me. Give’em Hell!!!
 
Alan55 said:
Actually, the term “torture” was applied to “enhanced” interrogation techniques such as waterboarding by the U.S. prior to the use under the Bush administration against accused Muslim terrorists. It was condemned by the U.S. as barbaric and in contravention of international law (the Geneva Convention) because such techniques were being used against U.S. citizens. The Bush administration went to John Yu and asked him to cook up a legal memorandum condoning the use of waterboarding (which was already being used by the CIA). Yu’s legal opinion was not vetted by legal scholars outside the White House and has been roundly condemned by experts on international law, particularly those with a background in international conventions on terrorism, including many within the Bush administration.

Your notion that “torture” means only what we want it to mean is just plain wrong. The U.S. gave up the moral high ground. Waterboarding is ineffective and illegal. Bush, Cheney, and others who permitted its use should be tried under international law. I think that the unwillingness of the Obama administration to hold hearings in the U.S. was politically astute but morally questionable.
Click to expand...
I’ve read all the legal briefing papers on this matter. Bottom line is that torture is a conclusory term for whatever we decide is off limits. There is no moral high ground in this fight. The radical Islamists will never love the US, they never have, no matter what rules we opt to constrain ourselves by. Since they won’t love us, they should fear us.

Torture is not, of course, and end in itself. The thread considers cases where torture would extract useful information, and given that goal, sure, why not?
 
Rascalking said:
I don’t. That doesn’t mean I want them butchered without some basic (and I mean basic) rights.
Click to expand...
The manner of interrogation should be guided by written policy, to prevent the arbitrary use of torture.
 
Alan55 said:
Actually, the term “torture” was applied to “enhanced” interrogation techniques such as waterboarding by the U.S. prior to the use under the Bush administration against accused Muslim terrorists. It was condemned by the U.S. as barbaric and in contravention of international law (the Geneva Convention) because such techniques were being used against U.S. citizens. The Bush administration went to John Yu and asked him to cook up a legal memorandum condoning the use of waterboarding (which was already being used by the CIA). Yu’s legal opinion was not vetted by legal scholars outside the White House and has been roundly condemned by experts on international law, particularly those with a background in international conventions on terrorism, including many within the Bush administration.

Your notion that “torture” means only what we want it to mean is just plain wrong. The U.S. gave up the moral high ground. Waterboarding is ineffective and illegal. Bush, Cheney, and others who permitted its use should be tried under international law. I think that the unwillingness of the Obama administration to hold hearings in the U.S. was politically astute but morally questionable.
Click to expand...
Waterboarding is effective and it saved innocent lives.

Let’s concede that it is torture.

Why is it better for innocent people to die than for a terrorist to suffer 20 minutes of extreme discomfort and pain?

Isn’t the life of the innocent a higher priority than the comfort of a killer?

Did you read the catechism quote in the OP?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top