Waterboarding Terrorists- Justified to Save Lives?

[Tsuwano]

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.

It is not my intention to pass judgement on the U.S. Government concerning its treament of members of Al Qaeda in her possession, but I do have a problem with the argument that since only three men were waterboarded, it seems to be morally justifiable. If it is wrong to waterboard 1,000 men, why is it morally justifiable to pull three men out of that group and waterboard them? The argument in favor seems to be that waterboarding those three men saved many lives, but this is not an absolute fact. We do not know for sure how many lives were saved, if any. We do not know who was saved or if the particular act of waterboarding those three men was the immediate reason that people were saved. What we do know for sure is that three men were tortured and that human dignity is violated in the process. Furthermore, I have to ask what are we really saying when we say that waterboarding three men to save the lives of a host of others is prudent? What we are really saying, it seems to me, is that we are willing to risk the damage, both known and unknown, that utilizing torture may cause us in the long run for the short term gain of saving lives here and now. The reason it is prudent is that we perceive the risk of real future damage as less likely or less severe than the present possibility of the damage caused by a terrorist attack in the immediate future. We’re shooting craps with morality here, and maybe there is no way out of this conundrum, but it requires serious thinking about what exactly is at risk. If I had been in President Bush’s position, I may have made the same decisions he made in allowing waterboarding to be implemented against Al Qaeda operatives, but I would be under no illusion that I was acting morally. Neither would I think that somewhere and somehow we weren’t betraying the very values which give us strength against groups like Al Qaeda. It may have been a prudent decision, but that doesn’t make it a moral one.

 

[Georgia]

The question really gets down to weighing what we are doing against the innocent lives that will be spared. According to the stories, the waterboarding of KSM saved a number of lives. Was subjecting him to something that did no physical damage while scaring him worthwhile?

We use the term “torture” pretty broadly here. U.S. military personnel have been trained by being waterboarded.

Daniel Pearl was tortured and was videotaped while his head was cut off. His family is still being tortured.

Would you approve waterboarding to prevent another Daniel Pearl incident?

 

[Tsuwano]

The question really gets down to weighing what we are doing against the innocent lives that will be spared. According to the stories, the waterboarding of KSM saved a number of lives. Was subjecting him to something that did no physical damage while scaring him worthwhile?

We use the term “torture” pretty broadly here. U.S. military personnel have been trained by being waterboarded.

Daniel Pearl was tortured and was videotaped while his head was cut off. His family is still being tortured.

Would you approve waterboarding to prevent another Daniel Pearl incident?

I think the question you ask in the first sentence of your post is not where the debate ends, but rather where it begins. It is an important question, but there should be other questions which follow. The debate is not only about how many lives will be saved by engaging in torture of human beings, but also about the kind of damage we do to ourselves and the values we claim to uphold. Does engaging in waterboarding damage our goals in the long run? Is it possible to save lives without risking those values by engaging in immoral behavior? It doesn’t matter that U.S. military personnel have been trained by being waterboarded (and I can guarantee you that not all military personnel are trained by being waterboarded) or that Daniel Pearl was tortured in such an inhumane and evil way. If the only way we can win a victory against Al Qaeda is by engaging in the same inhumane actions that they use, then the war is already lost in my opinion. What exactly are we defending if that is the case? People the world over do not admire the U.S.A. because it engages in torture. We should seek to uphold the value of human persons, not mimic those who see no value in those who are different from them.

 

[Rascalking]

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. ***

Yup. I agree totally.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

It is not my intention to pass judgement on the U.S. Government concerning its treament of members of Al Qaeda in her possession, but I do have a problem with the argument that since only three men were waterboarded, it seems to be morally justifiable. If it is wrong to waterboard 1,000 men, why is it morally justifiable to pull three men out of that group and waterboard them? The argument in favor seems to be that waterboarding those three men saved many lives, but this is not an absolute fact. We do not know for sure how many lives were saved, if any. We do not know who was saved or if the particular act of waterboarding those three men was the immediate reason that people were saved. What we do know for sure is that three men were tortured and that human dignity is violated in the process. Furthermore, I have to ask what are we really saying when we say that waterboarding three men to save the lives of a host of others is prudent? What we are really saying, it seems to me, is that we are willing to risk the damage, both known and unknown, that utilizing torture may cause us in the long run for the short term gain of saving lives here and now. The reason it is prudent is that we perceive the risk of real future damage as less likely or less severe than the present possibility of the damage caused by a terrorist attack in the immediate future. We’re shooting craps with morality here, and maybe there is no way out of this conundrum, but it requires serious thinking about what exactly is at risk. If I had been in President Bush’s position, I may have made the same decisions he made in allowing waterboarding to be implemented against Al Qaeda operatives, but I would be under no illusion that I was acting morally. Neither would I think that somewhere and somehow we weren’t betraying the very values which give us strength against groups like Al Qaeda. It may have been a prudent decision, but that doesn’t make it a moral one.

I believe that it could be morally justifiable to waterboard 1000 men. If it saves lives, then it is justified.

My point was that the government is prudent with this tactic and does not seem to be abusive unnecessarily.

To claim that actions that save lives are immoral does not seem consistent with Catholic teaching.

 

[Newbie2]

I believe that it could be morally justifiable to waterboard 1000 men. If it saves lives, then it is justified.

.

Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that only one out of those 1000 men actually knows something that could save lives. The other 999 are part of a terror organization, but have not participated in planning or actual carrying out of any wrongdoing. Let’s say that half of them were just recruited and don’t know what is going on.

Let’s further say, to take any question of what is torture and what is not out of the occasion, that we for this discussion deem waterboarding as torture. If that is not acceptable, substitute some clear form of torture.

So let’s just say that we torture 1000 men to get the answer that only one turns out to know. Is that, in your POV, a morally acceptable action? I’m just trying to get a handle on what you consider “could be” in the positve.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that only one out of those 1000 men actually knows something that could save lives. The other 999 are part of a terror organization, but have not participated in planning or actual carrying out of any wrongdoing. Let’s say that half of them were just recruited and don’t know what is going on.

Let’s further say, to take any question of what is torture and what is not out of the occasion, that we for this discussion deem waterboarding as torture. If that is not acceptable, substitute some clear form of torture.

So let’s just say that we torture 1000 men to get the answer that only one turns out to know. Is that, in your POV, a morally acceptable action? I’m just trying to get a handle on what you consider “could be” in the positve.

If we saved the life of my child or yours, is there any question that it is morally justifiable?

If I would be waterboarded to save your child, then I would advocate that others be waterboarded for the same purpose. Women go through much worse while giving birth.

Should we justify abortion to prevent this pain for the mother?

 

[Newbie2]

If we saved the life of my child or yours, is there any question that it is morally justifiable?

Yes, if we’re talking about something that is clearly torture.
If I would be waterboarded to save your child, then I would advocate that others be waterboarded for the same purpose. Women go through much worse while giving birth.

Should we justify abortion to prevent this pain for the mother?

That analogy is a non-sequitur.

Besides, whether it is a child, mine or yours, an adult or whomever doesn’t change the scenario. A good end does not justify evil means. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have made this point, that is, that torturing terrorist suspects is immoral.

 

[Tsuwano]

I believe that it could be morally justifiable to waterboard 1000 men. If it saves lives, then it is justified.

My point was that the government is prudent with this tactic and does not seem to be abusive unnecessarily.

To claim that actions that save lives are immoral does not seem consistent with Catholic teaching.

Well, I didn’t claim that “actions that save lives are immoral.” I do claim that immoral actions which happen to save lives are still immoral. It is not always true that actions which save lives are justified. After all, it could be argued that shooting captured soldiers on the battlefield saves the lives of those they are battling against. Is it immoral to shoot captured soldiers on the battlefield? I think it is. Is such an act consistent with Catholic teaching? I don’t think so.

 

[wabrams]

If it is wrong to waterboard 1,000 men, why is it morally justifiable to pull three men out of that group and waterboard them?

B/c we used on three men who were high value prisoners and no other methods of interrogation were working. IIRC, the longest one lasted before talking was something like 8 minutes, then he spilled his guts. The rest didn’t take as long.

The argument in favor seems to be that waterboarding those three men saved many lives, but this is not an absolute fact. We do not know for sure how many lives were saved, if any. We do not know who was saved or if the particular act of waterboarding those three men was the immediate reason that people were saved.

You’re not going to find that out for a long time, as the info is classified. Since only 3 were ever waterboarded, I would say the intelligence must have been pretty darn good.

What we do know for sure is that three men were tortured and that human dignity is violated in the process. Furthermore, I have to ask what are we really saying when we say that waterboarding three men to save the lives of a host of others is prudent? What we are really saying, it seems to me, is that we are willing to risk the damage, both known and unknown, that utilizing torture may cause us in the long run for the short term gain of saving lives here and now. The reason it is prudent is that we perceive the risk of real future damage as less likely or less severe than the present possibility of the damage caused by a terrorist attack in the immediate future. We’re shooting craps with morality here, and maybe there is no way out of this conundrum, but it requires serious thinking about what exactly is at risk. If I had been in President Bush’s position, I may have made the same decisions he made in allowing waterboarding to be implemented against Al Qaeda operatives, but I would be under no illusion that I was acting morally. Neither would I think that somewhere and somehow we weren’t betraying the very values which give us strength against groups like Al Qaeda. It may have been a prudent decision, but that doesn’t make it a moral one.

Sorry, but I do not see this as torture. No physical harm is done, they just get the snot scared out of them. Torture would be holding their heads under water, breaking bones, beatings, electroshock, etc.

 

[centurionguard]

B/c we used on three men who were high value prisoners and no other methods of interrogation were working. IIRC, the longest one lasted before talking was something like 8 minutes, then he spilled his guts. The rest didn’t take as long.

You’re not going to find that out for a long time, as the info is classified. Since only 3 were ever waterboarded, I would say the intelligence must have been pretty darn good.

Sorry, but I do not see this as torture. No physical harm is done, they just get the snot scared out of them. Torture would be holding their heads under water, breaking bones, beatings, electroshock, etc.

…

Sorry, but I do not see this as torture. No physical harm is done, they just get the snot scared out of them. Torture would be holding their heads under water, breaking bones, beatings, electroshock, etc.

What makes you think that if authorities doing the Waterboarding torture can’t get the answers they’re seeking; that they won’t take the barbarism of torture to the next steps as you described above?

I don’t condone the acts of enemies of war or terrorism. But I find it so awfully strange that when one reads about some of the horrors of torture that happen to men on our side during the first and second World Wars…how is it we don’t hear about the acts of torture we did to our German and Japanese prisoners? Is our side so angelic and innocent?

Its very regrettable that War and Terrorism brings out the worst on both sides.
The human equation gets thrown in the trash.

Peace
Chris

 

[Rascalking]

To be fair and consistent, I have to admit that if someone had a member of my family hostage, and I could get my hands on them, I’d waterboard them myself. It’s important to remember that the people who died in terrorist attacks are all members of someones family.

 

[markomalley]

What do you think?

You already cited the section of the CCC authorizing national defense. One thing that seems to be missing from any of these torture related discussions is a discussion of what, exactly, the Catechism is. From the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum:The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a **statement **of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!
What the CCC says it is: a statement of the Faith. A sure norm for teaching the Faith.

What the CCC does not claim to be: a doctrinal document (i.e., a source document that, in of itself, determines what Catholic doctrine is).

This is important, because if you really want to look at the doctrinal documents, you need to refer to the footnotes and look at the documents that are referenced. For example, in the paragraph you cited (2265), the source of that statement was from the Summa Theologica, 2-2-64-7.

In regards to torture, of course, we have the following:
Respect for bodily integrity

2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. 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. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.90

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

2297 refers back to Denzinger 3722, which, in turn, refers to the encyclical of Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 70:70. Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason. St. Thomas teaches this when inquiring whether human judges for the sake of preventing future evils can inflict punishment, he admits that the power indeed exists as regards certain other forms of evil, but justly and properly denies it as regards the maiming of the body. “No one who is guiltless may be punished by a human tribunal either by flogging to death, or mutilation, or by beating.”[54]

We can see some additional information from Vatican II, Gaudiem et Spes (text in red is mine):
Furthermore, [Category I] whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, [Category II] whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; [Category 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.
(to be continued)

 

[markomalley]

(continued from previous post)

So the bottom line is that a “constitution” (the most solemn type of document issued by the Holy See) has identified mental torment as grave matter. But also, at the same time, note that GS27 established a three-tier hierarchy: *(I) whatever is opposed to life itself; (II) whatever violates the integrity of the human person; and (III) whatever insults human dignity. *

Physical and mental torment (which waterboarding would be considered a species of) is squarely in the **second **tier.

Does that make it OK? No.

But let us keep things in context. Abortion and euthanasia are squarely in the **first **tier.

There are a group of Catholics out there who would like George Bush to be tried and convicted as a war criminal due to waterboarding. I would submit that those same Catholics are almost universally pretty mum when it comes to calling for the arrest, trial, and conviction of the Supreme Court and pro-abortion members of Congress for the crime of genocide (for the crime of providing state sanction for abortion). I don’t see any calls in the international community for the trial and conviction of the government of the Netherlands (when euthanasia is legal). I don’t see any calls for the international sanctions to be applied against the state of Oregon (where assisted suicide is legal – and state funded).

So I’ll grant them that waterboarding (which falls in the category of mental torment) is grave matter. But until I see those same people who are jumping up and down for the punishment of the Great Eveeeeeeiiiiiiilllll Shrub in Chief, along with his minions going at least equally apoplectic over the crimes of the first tier (from the GS27 decomposition, above), I don’t think I will get excited with them. Because a country that authorizes, encourages, and, in some cases, funds the holocaust of abortion has no right to say one blasted word about anything else on that list.

(Oh, and by the way, for the record: immoral means can never be used to achieve what would be considered a moral end)

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You already cited the section of the CCC authorizing national defense. One thing that seems to be missing from any of these torture related discussions is a discussion of what, exactly, the Catechism is. From the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum:The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a **statement **of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!
What the CCC says it is: a statement of the Faith. A sure norm for teaching the Faith.

What the CCC does not claim to be: a doctrinal document (i.e., a source document that, in of itself, determines what Catholic doctrine is).

This is important, because if you really want to look at the doctrinal documents, you need to refer to the footnotes and look at the documents that are referenced. For example, in the paragraph you cited (2265), the source of that statement was from the Summa Theologica, 2-2-64-7.

In regards to torture, of course, we have the following:
Respect for bodily integrity

2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. 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. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.90

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

2297 refers back to Denzinger 3722, which, in turn, refers to the encyclical of Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 70:70. Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason. St. Thomas teaches this when inquiring whether human judges for the sake of preventing future evils can inflict punishment, he admits that the power indeed exists as regards certain other forms of evil, but justly and properly denies it as regards the maiming of the body. “No one who is guiltless may be punished by a human tribunal either by flogging to death, or mutilation, or by beating.”[54]

We can see some additional information from Vatican II, Gaudiem et Spes (text in red is mine):
Furthermore, [Category I] whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, [Category II] whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; [Category 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.
(to be continued)

I don’t read anything here that makes the case that waterboarding a terrorist to save lives is immoral.

If it is moral to kill in self defense or in defense of the innocent, why wouldn’t it be moral to waterboard someone?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that only one out of those 1000 men actually knows something that could save lives. The other 999 are part of a terror organization, but have not participated in planning or actual carrying out of any wrongdoing. Let’s say that half of them were just recruited and don’t know what is going on.

Let’s further say, to take any question of what is torture and what is not out of the occasion, that we for this discussion deem waterboarding as torture. If that is not acceptable, substitute some clear form of torture.

So let’s just say that we torture 1000 men to get the answer that only one turns out to know. Is that, in your POV, a morally acceptable action? I’m just trying to get a handle on what you consider “could be” in the positve.

It would not happen. Our intelligence is much better than that. We have known who is the right person to apply pressure to, and which are the people who know nothing. We have never and will never as a nation, randomly torture any group of people just on the off chance that one of them will know something of value. Most of these POWs were treated extremely well, which is evidenced by how many of them gained quite a bit of weight while in custody. 3 hots, a cot and their holy book the Koran all to themselves was much better than their normal life conditions. The waterboarding issue has been made much of by our press but does anyone remember what happens to people like Daniel Pearl when caught by Muslims?

 

[markomalley]

I don’t read anything here that makes the case that waterboarding a terrorist to save lives is immoral.

If it is moral to kill in self defense or in defense of the innocent, why wouldn’t it be moral to waterboard someone?

Apples and oranges.

Please read the continuation post that I wrote immediately after the one you replied to.

In answer to your question, though, it is not licit to use an immoral means to achieve a good end. (From the CCC)1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. the end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.
As an example, robbing a bank could not be justified by having the intention of donating the take to the Church. Robbing a bank is wrong, no matter why you would want to do so.

Before thinking it could be justified, though, using the doctrine of self-defense, we have to ask the question: would this self-defense doctrine be allowed to engage in a pre-emptive attack on another.

For example, there is no question that if somebody is trying to stab you, you have the right to defend yourself from the attacker and that this defense might result in the death of that attacker. But…would you be allowed to pop a cap in the same attacker before he started to attack you? Or would you morally be required to use some other means to prevent the attack from occurring in the first place? Would a preemptive attack be defensive or preventive in this case?

Or you can use a nation-state example: if we *“knew” (knew through intelligence sources such as cable traffic) *that the USSR was going to launch a nuclear attack but they hadn’t launched it yet, would we be justified in launching a preemptive attack under the rationale of self-defense? Or would we need to wait until we had confirmation that an attack was in progress prior to launching a retaliatory attack? In this case, would a preemptive attack be defensive or preventive?

Then are preventive actions allowed as self-defense?

That’s the fundamental problem that I see. The use of coercive techniques of interrogation are not dealing with true self-defense. They are done on a preventive basis. And so I’m not sure that self-defense could be used as a justification.

If you found a bomb planted and if you found the person who planted it **and **you needed to know how to disarm that bomb **and **the only way that you could get that information was through waterboarding…then I could see “self defense” being used as a good rationale.

But, as I posted above, these things need to be kept in their proper context. Compared to our authorization of abortion, compared to the authorization for euthanasia in parts of the “civilized” world, compared to the authorization for physician assisted suicide in parts of this country, the use of coercive interrogation techniques that would be considered mental torment are small potatoes.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Apples and oranges.

Please read the continuation post that I wrote immediately after the one you replied to.

In answer to your question, though, it is not licit to use an immoral means to achieve a good end. .

This is just begging the question. There are no grounds to claim that waterboarding a terrorist to save innocent life constitutes “immoral means”.

 

[markomalley]

This is just begging the question. There are no grounds to claim that waterboarding a terrorist to save innocent life constitutes “immoral means”.

Would you consider it to fall in the category of “tormenting the mind” of the person being waterboarded? Consider that you are trying to make the person react to a stimulus that simulates him being drowned.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Would you consider it to fall in the category of “tormenting the mind” of the person being waterboarded? Consider that you are trying to make the person react to a stimulus that simulates him being drowned.

I still don’t consider this to be immoral. I’m not following you here.

Is it not moral to actually kill someone to protect innocent life? Killing to protect innocent life often involves the infliction of great pain. This is not a relevant factor regarding the morality of the action involved.