Waterboarding Terrorists- Justified to Save Lives?

[Rascalking]

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

It’s typical because it ignores the fact that there is evil in the world. Yes, even monsters have rights and have sparks of the divine in them. However, that doesn’t mean we let them get away with plotting to kill other people.

It’s typical because it talks about “Catholic moral teaching” in regards to the terrorists, who don’t care about the “dignity of every person”.

It’s typical because it tries to insinuate that because someone is “in favor” of water boarding they don’t care about “embryo, the child, the adult and the geriatric”

It’s typical because I’ve heard all those arguments before from other serious Catholics.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

It’s typical because it ignores the fact that there is evil in the world. Yes, even monsters have rights and have sparks of the divine in them. However, that doesn’t mean we let them get away with plotting to kill other people.

It’s typical because it talks about “Catholic moral teaching” in regards to the terrorists, who don’t care about the “dignity of every person”.

It’s typical because it tries to insinuate that because someone is “in favor” of water boarding they don’t care about “embryo, the child, the adult and the geriatric”

It’s typical because I’ve heard all those arguments before from other serious Catholics.

There’s something in this mindset that favors “them” over "us
, for reasons I cannot fathom. Is it a martyr complex? Do we have to let ourselves be killed prove how much better we are? Very common also in the liberal/progressive movement.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Originally Posted by CHESTERTONRULES
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.

)

It’s not an analogy, it’s an observation. If it is acceptable to kill in self defense, why wouldn’t it be acceptable to waterboard a terrorist to avoid mass killing?

The question is not whether or not you would like to be waterboarded, but if you would do so to save a life.

 

[Rascalking]

There’s something in this mindset that favors “them” over "us
, for reasons I cannot fathom. Is it a martyr complex? Do we have to let ourselves be killed prove how much better we are? Very common also in the liberal/progressive movement.

If your calling ME a liberal or progressive, than you clearly don’t know what your talking about.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

If your calling ME a liberal or progressive, than you clearly don’t know what your talking about.

I know you better than that.

 

[Rascalking]

I know you better than that.

I was kidding. Sorry I didn’t add the smiley face. My bad.

 

[PAboy57]

if we would fight this war the right way we wouldn’t even need to have this discussion.

Our God and His chosen people took war seriously in the Old Testament that I read. Maybe we need to read it again???

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

if we would fight this war the right way we wouldn’t even need to have this discussion.

Our God and His chosen people took war seriously in the Old Testament that I read. Maybe we need to read it again???

Different rules for a different time. But we do need to do what has to be done to protect the USA.

 

[Tsuwano]

Different rules for a different time. But we do need to do what has to be done to protect the USA.

Well, that is a very good question. After all, if waterboarding, whether recognized as torture or not, is a legitimate means of “protecting” the USA, it stands that it may be used by anyone as a legitimate means of protecting their interests as well. This means that any American soldier captured as a POW may be subjected to the same interrogation methods by our enemies and the United States has no cause for complaint or protest. Do Americans really wish to open this door by insisting that waterboarding is a legitimate means of interrogation? A second point which bothers me concerning waterboarding is that, if it is not torture, as many seem to think, then can it be utilized as a legitimate means of interrogation in all situations, and if not, why not? Why can’t our local police utilize waterboarding as a means of discovering local crackhouses? Why can’t the border patrol utilize the method to discover the pathways illegal immigrants use to cross the border? Why can’t principals in our schools use it to find out who the bullies in their schools are? Either waterboarding is torture or it isn’t. If it isn’t torture, then it may be utilized in a variety of situations as long as the ruling authorities believe it is a useful means of gathering information. If it is torture, then it is an illegal means of extracting information and is immoral. It seems to me that ruling waterboarding as torture and proscribing its use by legal authority is a greater means of protecting the rights and lives of the citizens of the United States than ruling it is not torture. Sen. McCain, a man who knows a thing or two about torture, has stated that waterboarding definitely is torture and should not be used by civilized states. I think I agree with him.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Well, that is a very good question. After all, if waterboarding, whether recognized as torture or not, is a legitimate means of “protecting” the USA, …im.

I’d answer that question, but you have to get off the slippery slope first.

 

[Tsuwano]

I’d answer that question, but you have to get off the slippery slope first.

Well, if the slope is slippery it’s not because I’ve made it so. It’s because the very nature of the subject matter is slippery. Torture may indeed be the best way of extracting information from people who wish to harm us, but the question has always been to what extent does the use of torture warp and harm ourselves and the values we claim to stand for. The fact is that torturing human beings, as well as animals, is immoral. If waterboarding is torture, then it is forbidden to us. We may choose to waterboard prisoners anyway, but please, let’s not pretend we’re any more civiilized than someone who chooses to pull out fingernails or burn holes into someone with a cigarette. If waterboarding is not torture, then eventually it will find its way into very own society and could even become an acceptable means of dealing with anyone who breaks the law.　　And why shouldn’t it? After all, it is a proven and effective way of extracting information from those who do not wish to divulge it. And of course, the only reason you would not want the legitimate authorities to know anything about you is because you are against that authority. Not only do the authorities in this case have a right to use waterboarding on you, but they have a responsibility to do so because, after all, they protect society and the only reason you would have to not give them that information is because you wish to harm society. Yes, it is a very slippery slope indeed. I mean, if it is not possible for you to give an answer because the slope is slippery, I understand. That is the situation our society finds itself in today. We must defend ourselves, but how do we do that without betraying the very values that underlie our society. Furthermore, if we play with the definitions of what constitutes torture, how do we prevent that definition from holding sway across the board. How can waterboarding not be torture when Americans do it, but most certainly was when the Japanese used it against captives in World War II or when America’s enemies choose to use it against American POW’s? How do we cut that knot then? Yep. Sure is slippery.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Well, if the slope is slippery it’s not because I’ve made it so. It’s because the very nature of the subject matter is slippery. Torture may indeed be the best way of extracting information from people who wish to harm us, but the question has always been to what extent does the use of torture warp and harm ourselves and the values we claim to stand for. The fact is that torturing human beings, as well as animals, is immoral. If waterboarding is torture, then it is forbidden to us. We may choose to waterboard prisoners anyway, but please, let’s not pretend we’re any more civiilized than someone who chooses to pull out fingernails or burn holes into someone with a cigarette. If waterboarding is not torture, then eventually it will find its way into very own society and could even become an acceptable means of dealing with anyone who breaks the law.　　And why shouldn’t it? After all, it is a proven and effective way of extracting information from those who do not wish to divulge it. And of course, the only reason you would not want the legitimate authorities to know anything about you is because you are against that authority. Not only do the authorities in this case have a right to use waterboarding on you, but they have a responsibility to do so because, after all, they protect society and the only reason you would have to not give them that information is because you wish to harm society. Yes, it is a very slippery slope indeed. I mean, if it is not possible for you to give an answer because the slope is slippery, I understand. That is the situation our society finds itself in today. We must defend ourselves, but how do we do that without betraying the very values that underlie our society. Furthermore, if we play with the definitions of what constitutes torture, how do we prevent that definition from holding sway across the board. How can waterboarding not be torture when Americans do it, but most certainly was when the Japanese used it against captives in World War II or when America’s enemies choose to use it against American POW’s? How do we cut that knot then? Yep. Sure is slippery.

I believe that our government has it about right. Waterboarding has been used on only three men, as I understand it, in this conflict. It has saved many lives.

I think that is prudent and morally justifiable.

 

[Newbie2]

It’s typical because it ignores the fact that there is evil in the world. Yes, even monsters have rights and have sparks of the divine in them. However, that doesn’t mean we let them get away with plotting to kill other people.

It’s typical because it talks about “Catholic moral teaching” in regards to the terrorists, who don’t care about the “dignity of every person”.

It’s typical because it tries to insinuate that because someone is “in favor” of water boarding they don’t care about “embryo, the child, the adult and the geriatric”

It’s typical because I’ve heard all those arguments before from other serious Catholics.

M’kay. Thanks for the explanation.

I’m a bit curious, though, as to the logic of: *It’s typical because it talks about “Catholic moral teaching” in regards to the terrorists, who don’t care about the “dignity of every person”. *

Does this mean we are only to apply our morality to those who reciprocate? Or, in other words, do our morals go out the window in how we treat people because they do not treat us the same?

It’s not an analogy, it’s an observation. If it is acceptable to kill in self defense, why wouldn’t it be acceptable to waterboard a terrorist to avoid mass killing?

The question is not whether or not you would like to be waterboarded, but if you would do so to save a life.

OK, I see.

Good question. Honestly, I don’t know. IF I knew that it would eventually end, sure. If I wasn’t sure if I were to be “waterboarded to death”, I’m not sure.

If the question is asking whether or not I’d die for another i.e. tortured to death, honestly, I’m not certain. For family, yes. Others? ??? I’m not martyr material.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

… Yep. Sure is slippery.

As I said, when you stop playing the slippery slope game, this might be an interesting conversation. I know its easier to argue in this flawed way, but its not something I indulge in.

I’m also going to add in false analogy to the flaws of your argument.

 

[Newbie2]

As I said, when you stop playing the slippery slope game, this might be an interesting conversation. I know its easier to argue in this flawed way, but its not something I indulge in.

I’m also going to add in false analogy to the flaws of your argument.

What specifically is flawed about a slippery slope aspect to the subject of torture?

Unless one can clearly define what is torture and what is not, there is the danger of moving that line further and further toward what is clearly torture.

You seem to be apt to throw around terms like “flawed” and “false analogy”, but seem short on specifically refuting the very arguments you deem as such. It would indeed be an interesting conversation if you would attempt to refute Tsuwano’s POV, rather than dismiss it out of hand as “false”.

The “interesting conversation” term goes both ways.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

What specifically is flawed about a slippery slope aspect to the subject of torture?

Unless one can clearly define what is torture and what is not, there is the danger of moving that line further and further toward what is clearly torture.

You seem to be apt to throw around terms like “flawed” and “false analogy”, but seem short on specifically refuting the very arguments you deem as such. It would indeed be an interesting conversation if you would attempt to refute Tsuwano’s POV, rather than dismiss it out of hand as “false”.

The “interesting conversation” term goes both ways.

Just lost interest.

 

[Newbie2]

Just lost interest.

Too bad. Just when it was getting intesting.

 

[Rascalking]

M’kay. Thanks for the explanation.

I’m a bit curious, though, as to the logic of: *It’s typical because it talks about “Catholic moral teaching” in regards to the terrorists, who don’t care about the “dignity of every person”. *

Does this mean we are only to apply our morality to those who reciprocate? Or, in other words, do our morals go out the window in how we treat people because they do not treat us the same?

No, of course not. It does mean though-that we need to be very, very careful in focusing on the “dignity of the every person” in the bad guys, so we forget that the living, innocent people count as well. Sometimes to protect the innocent, we need to inflict harm on the bad.

It’s not a “zero sum” game where we either treat terrorists like gold, give them bombs and allow them to kill people or shove bamboo up their finger nails.

 

[Newbie2]

It’s not a “zero sum” game where we either treat terrorists like gold, give them bombs and allow them to kill people or shove bamboo up their finger nails.

I agree, and somewhere in the middle is the moral answer. Precisely where that is, isn’t always easy to define.

But as I wrote earlier, IF one defines a certain interrogation technique as “torture”, one cannot morally justify using that technique as per Catholic Moral theology.

CCC 2297 *** Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. ***

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CCC 2297 *** Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. ***

Notedly absent is “to prevent mass killings.”

I don’t think this is an accidental oversight.