Waterboarding Terrorists- Justified to Save Lives?

[markomalley]

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.

Is it moral to actually kill someone to protect human life?

It is moral to kill in self defense or in the defense of another if that is the only way to stop an attack.

Let’s take one more look at that CCC paragraph you quoted in your original post (along with the two earlier quotes…for context):2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… the one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to **repel **by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.66
Both footnote 65 and 66 refer to Thomas Aquinas’ *Summa, *II-II-64-7. You really and truly should read it.

The question that remains is “What is self-defense?”

That’s why I asked you the question earlier (which you didn’t respond to):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?
As well as the other question on the same subject.

The real question that you need to deal with is if doing something in anticipation of the enemy making an aggressive act is defense or not.

 

[Newbie2]

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?

“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”

Sins against human dignity are immoral.

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

Only IF waterboarding is considered “torture”. Then it would be an immoral means. Pretty clear from the two last popes and the CCC.

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.

(It was a hypothetical question)
But if our intelligence is SO good, why do we need to interrogate people?? I think you have too much faith in our intelligence, but that is another subject. Besides, it was a hypothetical to clarify another poster’s position.
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.

Torture is torture, if purposeful or not. Whether it is “not random” or “random” has no bearing on the morality of torture.
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?

Has no bearing on the morality of torture. A Red Herring.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

“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”

Sins against human dignity are immoral.

Only IF waterboarding is considered “torture”. Then it would be an immoral means. Pretty clear from the two last popes and the CCC.

Waterboarding was not used for any of the purposes listed above, it was used to prevent mass killings.

Saving lives is more important than causing pain to aggressors.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Is it moral to actually kill someone to protect human life?

It is moral to kill in self defense or in the defense of another if that is the only way to stop an attack.

Let’s take one more look at that CCC paragraph you quoted in your original post (along with the two earlier quotes…for context):2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… the one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to **repel **by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.66
Both footnote 65 and 66 refer to Thomas Aquinas’ *Summa, *II-II-64-7. You really and truly should read it.

The question that remains is “What is self-defense?”

That’s why I asked you the question earlier (which you didn’t respond to):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?
As well as the other question on the same subject.

The real question that you need to deal with is if doing something in anticipation of the enemy making an aggressive act is defense or not.

None of the above negates this:

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 re**quires 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.

If we have the right to use arms, ie. lethal force, to repel aggressors, then it is also our duty to use painful coercion to protect innocent life if that is necessary.

 

[Newbie2]

Waterboarding was not used for any of the purposes listed above, it was used to prevent mass killings.

Saving lives is more important than causing pain to aggressors.

Not if it’s done immorally.

None of the above negates this:

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 re**quires 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.

If we have the right to use arms, ie. lethal force, to repel aggressors, then ** it is also our duty to use painful coercion to protect innocent life if that is necessary**.

Now it becomes “our duty” to torture? And what’s “if necessary?” And what if a suspect is tortured to death? Is that a moral killing?

Your leap is too great.

 

[markomalley]

None of the above negates this:

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 re**quires 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.

If we have the right to use arms, ie. lethal force, to repel aggressors, then it is also our duty to use painful coercion to protect innocent life if that is necessary.

Why don’t you answer my question?

 

[Newbie2]

Why don’t you answer my question?

Which “you” are you addressing?

 

[markomalley]

Which “you” are you addressing?

The other participant (the one I quoted in my post)

 

[Newbie2]

That’s what I thought, thanks.

 

[Newbie2]

Waterboarding was not used for any of the purposes listed above, it was used to prevent mass killings.

“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”

It was not used to extract a confession? What exactly was the purpose?

(I assume we’re both taking waterboarding as “torture” for sake of this discussion?)

 

[wabrams]

...............................................................................................................................

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?

Other than the laand threat of proseecution, there really isn’t anything to stop them. Never really has, probably never will be.

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?

So you are now comparing the US to the Imperial Japanese and the Nazis?

 

[Tsuwano]

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.

Simply because three men spilled their guts under torture doesn’t make the act of torturing them moral. The act may be effective, but it isn’t moral. The two adjectives mean different things. In addition, though you may not recognize waterboarding as torture, many other people and legal groups do. As I’ve already mentioned in a previous post, Senator McCain, a man who has actually had the experience of being tortured, also believes that waterboarding is a means of torture and should not be used by American agencies.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Why don’t you answer my question?

I believe deterence and terrorism prevention are legitiimate acts of defense.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

“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”

It was not used to extract a confession? What exactly was the purpose?

(I assume we’re both taking waterboarding as “torture” for sake of this discussion?)

It was not used to extract confessions, it was used to gather information about future attacks.

It was used appropriately and it saved innnocent lives.

Do you think allowing another terrorist attack would have been more moral?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Simply because three men spilled their guts under torture doesn’t make the act of torturing them moral. The act may be effective, but it isn’t moral. The two adjectives mean different things. In addition, though you may not recognize waterboarding as torture, many other people and legal groups do. As I’ve already mentioned in a previous post, Senator McCain, a man who has actually had the experience of being tortured, also believes that waterboarding is a means of torture and should not be used by American agencies.

Is it moral to kill in self defense?

If you think it is, then why isn’t it moral to waterboard someone in self defense?

 

[Tsuwano]

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.

Yes, I agree, I would probably want to cause a little pain to someone who harmed members of my family, too, but I would recognize my desire to inflict pain as warped and immoral and certainly not in imitation of the Christ I claim to follow. There is a choice to be made in these situations. We either give in to the barbarism and evil of those violent emotions or we choose to give in to the redemption and love offered by Jesus of Nazareth. On one hand I couldn’t blame you for wanting to torture someone under the conditions you described, but I wouldn’t describe your actions as Christian either.

 

[Tsuwano]

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?

You have a great deal of faith in our Government, and that’s admirable to an extent. But I should add that the American intelligence gathering agencies have never had a very high reputation when it comes to gleaning information. The history of American intelligence is filled with error. I also wish your comment about Americans, as a nation, never engaging in random torture of any group of people on the off chance that one of them will know something of value, was true. Unfortunately, I only have to think of the American experience in Vietnam, when whole villages were burned and destroyed on the off chance that they were harboring communist Vietcong, to think that it is not true at all. I agree that many of the men held in Cuba are treated well, but this thread is not about them. It is about those who have not been treated well and who have been tortured through waterboarding. It is about whether or not this act is justified in order to save lives. As for Daniel Pearl, my prayers go out to his wife and family who have suffered terribly because he was tortured and murdered. Nevertheless, his suffering does not provide us with the right to inflict suffering on others. As tragic and evil as his murder was, it is not an excuse to behave in the same manner as his killers.

 

[Rascalking]

Yes, I agree, I would probably want to cause a little pain to someone who harmed members of my family, too, but I would recognize my desire to inflict pain as warped and immoral and certainly not in imitation of the Christ I claim to follow. There is a choice to be made in these situations. We either give in to the barbarism and evil of those violent emotions or we choose to give in to the redemption and love offered by Jesus of Nazareth. On one hand I couldn’t blame you for wanting to torture someone under the conditions you described, but I wouldn’t describe your actions as Christian either.

I agree that it may not be Christian behavior. I do stray every now and then. Just because I’m Catholic doesn’t mean I’m perfect-though I am really close.

Thanks though for admitting that you would feel the same kinds of feelings as well. That’s an important step, because many people feel as though they are “better” or more moral than others because they wouldn’t even think of doing that to someone who wronged them.

 

[Tsuwano]

Is it moral to kill in self defense?

If you think it is, then why isn’t it moral to waterboard someone in self defense?

It can be moral to kill in self defense, but not necessarily so. If I knew an unknown assassin was among a group of twenty men, I believe it would be immoral for me to defend myself by gunning down all the members of that group in order to kill my assassin. The threat would have to be direct and immediate. An individual attacks me with a knife and I have no other recourse, then I may use lethal means to defend myself. Nevertheless, lethal means of self defense should always be a last resort.

As for waterboarding, as others have mentioned, torture is a grave offense against the dignity of the human person. Not only does it damage the person who suffers the torture, but it also damages the person who inflicts the torture. In my opinion, it also damages the society in whose name the torture has been inflicted. Torture does not address a direct and immediate threat to the individual or to the nation which is not possible to address in a different way. Since torture involves the wilfull and planned infliction of pain on another individual, it cannot legitimately be recognized as an act of self defense. Information gleaned from torture is always highly suspicious and it is usually necessary to prove the information viable through other means. Torture betrays the very values we claim to be upholding and makes us hypocrites in the eyes of the civilized world. Our use of torture gives credence to the claims of our enemies that we do not believe in liberty for the Islamic nations of the Middle East or that we respect the religious beliefs of Muslims.

 

[Tsuwano]

I believe deterence and terrorism prevention are legitiimate acts of defense.

I believe there are many different acts which fall under the heading of “deterence and terrorism prevention.” Some are legitimate acts of defense and others are not.