Waterboarding Terrorists- Justified to Save Lives?

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Sure. I’m not saying you should solve all problems. I do still think the invasion of Irak was based on Oil and on the fact that Bush senior hadn’t finished what he would have liked to finish.

Well, you are wrong and you are ignoring the facts. If we wanted oil Saddam would have been glad to sell it to us. That is obviously not an issue.

For me it would be very legitimate, though, for you guys to invade Iran. Those guys really do have nucs and are more than willing to use them…

Hopefully it won’t come to that.

Well, anyways, no use in discussing politics. For all we know, Obama is maybe a good friend of the Bush’ and is drinking martini’s at the Texas ranch right now.

Bush doesn’t drink and he is an honorable man.

Obama drinks and supports anti Christian values.

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t know what you are referring to and I would love to see the quotes. Regardless, these were not doctrinal statements.

First thing I found when I googled it was: usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-12-13-pope_x.htm

Yes, I know this is USA today and they might have an agenda in the story. I’m sure there are other quotes out there, but I’m also sure taking the time to look them up and post them to convince you is a waste of my time.

At a news conference about the peace message, Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican’s pontifical council on peace and justice, was asked if torture could be a legitimate tool to gain information that might prevent terror attacks.

The prelate replied that there was no justification for using torture, which is the “humiliation of the human person, whoever he is.”

“The church does not allow torture as a means to extract the truth,” Martino said. Terror suspects “sometimes say what the torturers want to hear. … There are other ways to obtain the truth.”

Not doctrinal so we can ignore it, eh?

The evidence is there, whether or not you choose to accept it is another thing.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

First thing I found when I googled it was: usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-12-13-pope_x.htm

Yes, I know this is USA today and they might have an agenda in the story. I’m sure there are other quotes out there, but I’m also sure taking the time to look them up and post them to convince you is a waste of my time.

At a news conference about the peace message, Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican’s pontifical council on peace and justice, was asked if torture could be a legitimate tool to gain information that might prevent terror attacks.

The prelate replied that there was no justification for using torture, which is the “humiliation of the human person, whoever he is.”

“The church does not allow torture as a means to extract the truth,” Martino said. Terror suspects “sometimes say what the torturers want to hear. … There are other ways to obtain the truth.”

Not doctrinal so we can ignore it, eh?

The evidence is there, whether or not you choose to accept it is another thing.

Yes, it is not doctrinal and can be disregarded.

Not only that, but it is not from a pope.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, it is not doctrinal and can be disregarded.

Not only that, but it is not from a pope.

So we can ignore pretty much anything from the Pontifical council?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So we can ignore pretty much anything from the Pontifical council?

If it is merely opinion it should be considered but is not binding.

Not only that, but the quote you provided was not comprehensive. The catechism is a much better source for Church teaching.

 

[Newbie2]

If it is merely opinion it should be considered but is not binding.

Not only that, but the quote you provided was not comprehensive. The catechism is a much better source for Church teaching.

I’d agree, and the CCC seems pretty clear about this. But you doubt that the Vatican is against torture?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I’d agree, and the CCC seems pretty clear about this. But you doubt that the Vatican is against torture?

The Catechism is clear that protecting the lives of innocent people is the top priority for defense organizations:

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.

 

[TMC]

So we can ignore pretty much anything from the Pontifical council?

Apparently many American Catholics think Pontifical councils are trumped by the GOP.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Apparently many American Catholics think Pontifical councils are trumped by the GOP.

Like most lefties you can’t stick to the subject:

The Catechism is clear that protecting the lives of innocent people is the top priority for defense organizations:

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.

 

[roelblomsma]

Bush doesn’t drink and he is an honorable man.

I think one should be most critical about himself and the groups and countries he belongs to, else you become a blind sheep that unwillingly contribute to evil. Like in the books of George Orwell and Huxley (1984, the Animal Farm, A Brave New World) or in reallity (Nazies, Fascists, Comunists, Sects).

George Bush was an alcoholic and still struggles with that. You can read that in his own Biografie. So to say he doesn’t drink is not true.

In Michael Moore’s movies there is footage (on film) of the Bush family being very good friends with the Osama’s. Also there is footage of him in the Skulls and Bones society. A secrete society.

Same counts for the Catholic faith. I am most critical and it is only therefore that I maintain my faith. As soon as I would have to compromise reality and the obvious for lies, then my faith would end. I also think that of nationalism. I’m proud of my nationality but I would never blindly believe all that is said. I guess we should follow Jesus in this. He challenged autorities because they were wrong.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I think one should be most critical about himself and the groups and countries he belongs to, else you become a blind sheep that unwillingly contribute to evil. Like in the books of George Orwell and Huxley (1984, the Animal Farm, A Brave New World) or in reallity (Nazies, Fascists, Comunists, Sects).

George Bush was an alcoholic and still struggles with that. You can read that in his own Biografie. So to say he doesn’t drink is not true.

In Michael Moore’s movies there is footage (on film) of the Bush family being very good friends with the Osama’s. Also there is footage of him in the Skulls and Bones society. A secrete society.

Same counts for the Catholic faith. I am most critical and it is only therefore that I maintain my faith. As soon as I would have to compromise reality and the obvious for lies, then my faith would end. I also think that of nationalism. I’m proud of my nationality but I would never blindly believe all that is said. I guess we should follow Jesus in this. He challenged autorities because they were wrong.

Bush doesn’t drink.

Michael Moore is a proven liar and not a reliable source of information.

You are getting your information from biased, immoral sources.

 

[TMC]

Like most lefties you can’t stick to the subject:

The Catechism is clear that protecting the lives of innocent people is the top priority for defense organizations:

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.

It is also clear that torture is not “legitimate defense.”

From a Catholic doctrinal perspective this is not a gray area or something with a lot of nuance. All the Bishops gathered in Ecumenical Council declared that torture is inherently evil and not justifiable. Period. There is not a lot of wiggle room.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

It is also clear that torture is not “legitimate defense.”

From a Catholic doctrinal perspective this is not a gray area or something with a lot of nuance. All the Bishops gathered in Ecumenical Council declared that torture is inherently evil and not justifiable. Period. There is not a lot of wiggle room.

You are wrong.

If innocent life is saved by waterboarding a terrorist, then that is a good and moral choice that would be supported by most Catholics, including the pope.

If it is OK to kill someone to defend the innocent, then it is definitely OK to subject them to 20 minutes of extreme discomfort and pain to defend the innocent.

 

[Newbie2]

You are wrong.

If innocent life is saved by waterboarding a terrorist, then that is a good and moral choice that would be supported by most Catholics, including the pope.

If it is OK to kill someone to defend the innocent, then it is definitely OK to subject them to 20 minutes of extreme discomfort and pain to defend the innocent.

Earlier in this thread, there was some discussion regarding if waterboarding should or should not be considered torture. Given that context, i.e. that waterboarding maybe should be considered as an interrogation method that does not cross the line, you might have a valid point.

However, when we’re considering interrogation methods that clearly cross that line; breaking fingers, burning, pulling out fingernails…do you still think these things are justified?

Follow up, if you find these things acceptable. IF someone is clearly tortured in order to get information “that would save lives”, as you’ve put it, and they don’t give up any useful information, would you still consider that justified?

 

[TMC]

You are wrong.

If innocent life is saved by waterboarding a terrorist, then that is a good and moral choice that would be supported by most Catholics, including the pope.

If it is OK to kill someone to defend the innocent, then it is definitely OK to subject them to 20 minutes of extreme discomfort and pain to defend the innocent.

You have been shown where the Church as said that torture is inherently evil. Please show me where the Pope has said torture would ever be “a good and moral choice.”

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Earlier in this thread, there was some discussion regarding if waterboarding should or should not be considered torture. Given that context, i.e. that waterboarding maybe should be considered as an interrogation method that does not cross the line, you might have a valid point.

However, when we’re considering interrogation methods that clearly cross that line; breaking fingers, burning, pulling out fingernails…do you still think these things are justified?

Follow up, if you find these things acceptable. IF someone is clearly tortured in order to get information “that would save lives”, as you’ve put it, and they don’t give up any useful information, would you still consider that justified?

If it was clear a case of the torture of an undoubtedly guilty terrorist versus the slaughter of innocent life, I think torture would be legitimate.

Granted that this is hypothetical, don’t you agree?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You have been shown where the Church as said that torture is inherently evil. Please show me where the Pope has said torture would ever be “a good and moral choice.”

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.

 

[TMC]

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.

Torture does not render the agressor unable to cause harm. By definition the tortured person is already in custody and unable to cause harm.

 

[Newbie2]

If it was clear a case of the torture of an undoubtedly guilty terrorist versus the slaughter of innocent life, I think torture would be legitimate.

Granted that this is hypothetical, don’t you agree?

Of course it’s hypothetical. We discuss hypothetical situations all the time in the CAF moral forum in order to make or clarify a point on moral theology.

OK, so you’re OK with clear torture (breaking fingers, for example) for terror suspects in order to get information to save lives.

What if such a person is tortured and no information is revealed? You weren’t clear on whether or not you’re OK with this.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Torture does not render the agressor unable to cause harm. By definition the tortured person is already in custody and unable to cause harm.

Enhanced interrogation can prevent the aggressor, Al Qaeda in this case, from doing harm.