Waterboarding Terrorists- Justified to Save Lives?

[Rascalking]

The manner of interrogation should be guided by written policy, to prevent the arbitrary use of torture.

Yup. Agree totally.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Yup. Agree totally.

I’m pleased to find someone even more brutal than me.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I’m pleased to find someone even more brutal than me.

Dude I don’t care about written policy. Do whatever works. Lt. Col. Allen West gets my vote.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_%28former_U.S._military_officer%29

 

[Newbie2]

I agree that it seems like torture, but according to US law it was not torture when used on KSM.

Who do we as Catholics look to in order to define our morality?

“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”.

From a secular POV, I would agree. However, as Catholics, we need to take the dignity of the individual into consideration when we discuss interrogation techniques.

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?

This is a Catholic POV? That our enemies should ***fear ***us?? Respect us and leave us alone, fear what defending ourselves means, for sure. Is this what you mean?

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?

That’s where the crux lies, isn’t it? Torture ignores the human dignity of the person. If we go too far down that slope, we get to where we can justify some of the Nazi’s use of torture to develop techniques to help save fliers who ditched their aircraft into the frigid Atlantic.

If you decide that waterboarding is torture, and as such torture is OK…once you cross that line, where has a sense of morality gone? Where does the line get redrawn? Death of the person that is being tortured? How far short of that is too far? Pulling out fingernails? Burning?

Once torture is deemed to be OK, there are no limits, so we need to be careful where we draw the line at what is torture and what is not. It is indeed difficult in many cases to decide which interrogation techniques are merely “uncomfortable”, “very uncomfortable” or “torture” .

I think some in this thread have come dangerously close to throwing out our respect for the dignity of the human being i.e. the terrorist. Once we lose that respect for such dignity that every human being possesses, are we that much different than the terrorists?

Don’t get me wrong…I’m in favor of harsh interrogation techniques. In fact, I’m not totally convinced that waterboarding is torture…not convinced that it is not, either…I’m on the fence. Please don’t confuse my POV with those who perfer a total “hand’s off” approach to interrogation, but I think we need to think about and consider that every human being is one of God’s creations and possesses as such dignity that deserves respect.

I guess that’s where we get to figure it out on our own (no instruction book from the Almighty, that is), in terms of how to balance the human dignity of the terrorist against our right and duty to defend ourselves.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

…
From a secular POV, I would agree. However, as Catholics, we need to take the dignity of the individual into consideration when we discuss interrogation techniques…

This is a Catholic POV? That our enemies should ***fear ***us?? Respect us and leave us alone, fear what defending ourselves means, for sure. Is this what you mean?..

Islamics considering if jihad is really what they want to do should fear that if they pick up an RPG or AK47 and get taken alive on the battlefield that they’re going to either get a bullet to the head, waterboarded by the CIA or face extraordinary rendition to a country with even less moral scruples about torture than the US.

Not being a Catholic, I’m not going to consider the dignity of a terrorist undergoing interrogation techniques - in fact, the dignity of a terrorist is the last thing I care about. My position is that torture should be applied under specific guidelines, so that it is not applied arbitrarily.

 

[Tsuwano]

Does the Church have an opinion on waterboarding that Catholics are obliged to consider?

 

[Newbie2]

Islamics considering if jihad is really what they want to do should fear that if they pick up an RPG or AK47 and get taken alive on the battlefield that they’re going to either get a bullet to the head, waterboarded by the CIA or face extraordinary rendition to a country with even less moral scruples about torture than the US.

Not being a Catholic, I’m not going to consider the dignity of a terrorist undergoing interrogation techniques - in fact, the dignity of a terrorist is the last thing I care about. My position is that torture should be applied under specific guidelines, so that it is not applied arbitrarily.

Here’s a couple questions for you, so I can better understand your position:

1. Do you believe that every human being posesses God-given Human dignity? The embryo, the child, the adult and the geriatric?
2. If so, under what circumstances do you feel that someone can lose this dignity? Criminal? Terrorist? Mass murderer?

If not, then I already have a better understanding.

Thanks.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Does the Church have an opinion on waterboarding that Catholics are obliged to consider?

No, it does not.

However, the just war theory would seem to apply in my opinion.

See the quote from the catechism in the OP.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Here’s a couple questions for you, so I can better understand your position:

1. Do you believe that every human being posesses God-given Human dignity? The embryo, the child, the adult and the geriatric?
2. If so, under what circumstances do you feel that someone can lose this dignity? Criminal? Terrorist? Mass murderer?

If not, then I already have a better understanding.

Thanks.

Catholic teaching accepts that a man can be killed in war. If a man can be killed to protect innocent life, then surly he can be subjected to 20 minutes of extreme discomfort, fear, and pain.

Would you be waterboarded to save an innocent life?

 

[Rascalking]

Here’s a couple questions for you, so I can better understand your position:

1. Do you believe that every human being possesses God-given Human dignity? The embryo, the child, the adult and the geriatric?
2. If so, under what circumstances do you feel that someone can lose this dignity? Criminal? Terrorist? Mass murderer?

If not, then I already have a better understanding.

Thanks.

Typical response. Instead of dealing with real world evil, compare the person who supports water boarding to someone who doesn’t care about the “embryo”, “child”, “adult” or “geriatric”.

I care about all those people. I don’t want to see them get blown up by a terrorist with a grudge against my sister who has the audacity to wear blue jeans.

 

[centurionguard]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by catsrus View Post
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.
**

There’s the position killer argumentum ad hitlerum. Again.

Ah! so I see Reservoir Dog ; so where the CIA and Terrorist meet, the Geneva Convention only works in favor of the CIA.

When the CIA use torture implements against the terrorists it brings them down below the level of their enemies.

 

[centurionguard]

Who do we as Catholics look to in order to define our morality?

From a secular POV, I would agree. However, as Catholics, we need to take the dignity of the individual into consideration when we discuss interrogation techniques.

This is a Catholic POV? That our enemies should ***fear ***us?? Respect us and leave us alone, fear what defending ourselves means, for sure. Is this what you mean?

That’s where the crux lies, isn’t it? Torture ignores the human dignity of the person. If we go too far down that slope, we get to where we can justify some of the Nazi’s use of torture to develop techniques to help save fliers who ditched their aircraft into the frigid Atlantic.

If you decide that waterboarding is torture, and as such torture is OK…once you cross that line, where has a sense of morality gone? Where does the line get redrawn? Death of the person that is being tortured? How far short of that is too far? Pulling out fingernails? Burning?

Once torture is deemed to be OK, there are no limits, so we need to be careful where we draw the line at what is torture and what is not. It is indeed difficult in many cases to decide which interrogation techniques are merely “uncomfortable”, “very uncomfortable” or “torture” .

I think some in this thread have come dangerously close to throwing out our respect for the dignity of the human being i.e. the terrorist. Once we lose that respect for such dignity that every human being possesses, are we that much different than the terrorists?

Don’t get me wrong…I’m in favor of harsh interrogation techniques. In fact, I’m not totally convinced that waterboarding is torture…not convinced that it is not, either…I’m on the fence. Please don’t confuse my POV with those who perfer a total “hand’s off” approach to interrogation, but I think we need to think about and consider that every human being is one of God’s creations and possesses as such dignity that deserves respect.

I guess that’s where we get to figure it out on our own (no instruction book from the Almighty, that is), in terms of how to balance the human dignity of the terrorist against our right and duty to defend ourselves.

Great Post

 

[Rascalking]

When the CIA use torture implements against the terrorists it brings them down below the level of their enemies.

Yeah, maybe it does, but it also can be used to save lives.

It’s both hypothetical and real world, but if you have the very credible evidence that a major terrorist attack is going to occur (IE-nuclear event), then you have to do what it takes to stop it.

I’m pro-life. I care about unborn children and born people who might be victims of a deadly a terrorist attack!

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

…
Ah! so I see Reservoir Dog ; so where the CIA and Terrorist meet, the Geneva Convention only works in favor of the CIA.

When the CIA use torture implements against the terrorists it brings them down below the level of their enemies.

If you consider sawing off heads or blowing up civilians the equivalent of water boarding, sure. I can’t say what you think personally brings you down to their level, so I’m speaking only for myself in this matter.

But back to the original topic. I think Alan Dershowitz makes an eloquent case for limited kinds of torture in specific instances such as what I believe the OP was asking about.

Rules Should Govern Torture, Dershowitz Says

That’s if someone wants to take a reasoned approach.

 

[centurionguard]

If you consider sawing off heads or blowing up civilians the equivalent of water boarding, sure. I can’t say what you think personally brings you down to their level, so I’m speaking only for myself in this matter.

But back to the original topic. I think Alan Dershowitz makes an eloquent case for limited kinds of torture in specific instances such as what I believe the OP was asking about.

Rules Should Govern Torture, Dershowitz Says

That’s if someone wants to take a reasoned approach.

Reservoir Dog wrote:

** I can’t say what you think personally brings you down to their level**

What insinuates that unjustified smirk comment? I take it that the Geneva Convention means absolutely nothing to you?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Reservoir Dog wrote:

What insinuates that unjustified smirk comment? I take it that the Geneva Convention means absolutely nothing to you?

I can’t stop you from misrepresenting my position on the GC, but for the record, you are wrong.

 

[centurionguard]

I can’t stop you from misrepresenting my position on the GC, but for the record, you are wrong.

Please explain what makes you so sure your personal position on the G.C. is perfectly right? Have you read the G.C.?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Please explain what makes you so sure your personal position on the G.C. is perfectly right? Have you read the G.C.?

Which GC? Did you know there is more than one?

As long as you continue to misrepresent my stated position, I have zero intention of explaining anything to you.

 

[centurionguard]

“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 wrote:

“Torture” is really just a conclusory term meaning “I don’t like it”.

I think your interpretation would change if you were the torture victim.

**The Laws of the United Nations Defines Torture in the following:

Under the United Nations Torture Convention of 1984, torture involves intentional infliction of pain, by a public official, to obtain information.

The full definition of torture in the convention is: “Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

This definition excludes “pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions”, which seems designed to permit the death penalty.**

Perhaps you might best read the following sites here:

icrc.org/ihl

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_9_138/ai_n17211772/

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7390&CFID=59325382&CFTOKEN=81851838

chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/04/28/is-torture-ever-moral/

catholicexchange.com/2009/05/12/118499/

Peace
Chris

 

[Newbie2]

Catholic teaching accepts that a man can be killed in war. If a man can be killed to protect innocent life, then surly he can be subjected to 20 minutes of extreme discomfort, fear, and pain.

Would you be waterboarded to save an innocent life?

I don’t see the analogy.

I don’t see the point of the question. Would I like to be waterboarded under any circumstances? No.

Typical response. Instead of dealing with real world evil, compare the person who supports water boarding to someone who doesn’t care about the “embryo”, “child”, “adult” or “geriatric”.

I care about all those people. I don’t want to see them get blown up by a terrorist with a grudge against my sister who has the audacity to wear blue jeans.

“Typical response” in what way?

In dealing with “real world evil”, we simply cannot abandon morality, otherwise, what separates us from our enemy, in the moral sense?

You missed my point by a country mile. Let me 'splain it for you again:

IF one considers the dignity of the human to be present in all stages of life, embryo, child, adult and geriatric (consistant with Catholic Moral theology), one cannot abandon that dignity in regard to an individual because of that individual’s behavior; human dignity is an inborn quality, it cannot be lost or (morally, at least) taken from someone.

So it really doesn’t matter if another human holds a grudge against and wants to kill your sister…it doesn’t matter if the same person is on a mission to kill each and every United States Citizen…that person still possesses human dignity which must not be taken away from them.

Now, go ahead and argue if waterboarding is torture or not. As I mentioned, I’m on the fence. But IF you consider it torture, at least by Catholic Moral standards, it is immoral to use on anyone, IF one is guided by Catholic Moral standards.

This isn’t about turning the other cheek, it isn’t about pacifism. It’s about whether one considers the Catholic Moral perspective in considering each and every person, regardless of their sins or behavior, a human person posessing innate human dignity, which is taken from them in being tortured.

So, there’s my explanation. Mind explaining how my post is “typical”?