Waterboarding Terrorists- Justified to Save Lives?

[CHESTERTONRULES]

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.

Is it your position that even if we know that a guilty party has information that would save innocent lives that we should not waterboard them?

From a moral perspective, I think the guilt of the person is a more important factor than whether or not they reveal the details of the plot.

If there is a 50% chance that a known terrorist will reveal details that will save my sons life then I think breaking fingers is acceptable.

After all, this captive’s goal is the death of innocent people.

 

[Newbie2]

Is it your position that even if we know that a guilty party has information that would save innocent lives that we should not waterboard them?

Not necessarily. I thought I’d been pretty clear that I’m on the fence whether or not to consider waterboarding as “torture”.
From a moral perspective, I think the guilt of the person is a more important factor than whether or not they reveal the details of the plot.

Guilt of what? I’m not following you here, could you explain? The reason for using torture for interrogation is to get information, right? I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems that you’re saying that the tortured used in interrogation is more of a punishment than a way to get at information. Do I misunderstand?
If there is a 50% chance that a known terrorist will reveal details that will save my sons life then I think breaking fingers is acceptable.

You still have not answered my question. IF at the end of the torture interrogation the suspect has not revealed any information, would you still consider to have been a moral act? In effect, in that hypothetical situation, the person has been tortured (a bad) yet no lives have been saved as a result (a good). Do you find this morally acceptable?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You still have not answered my question. IF at the end of the torture interrogation the suspect has not revealed any information, would you still consider to have been a moral act? In effect, in that hypothetical situation, the person has been tortured (a bad) yet no lives have been saved as a result (a good). Do you find this morally acceptable?

Yes. It was worth the chance to save lives. To have chosen against the torture would be condemning innocent people to death and that is much worse.

Repeating: The threat must be real and the terrorist must be known to be guilty.

This is often easy to verify with Al Qaeda operatives who are very open about their past actions and future goals.

 

[markomalley]

Repeating: The threat must be real and the terrorist must be known to be guilty.

How about just torturing somebody sort of as a deterrent to others? Not really worry about whether you get information or not but just to do it for the satisfaction of making the son-of-a-gun pay for the crimes he is guilty of?

 

[Newbie2]

Yes. It was worth the chance to save lives. To have chosen against the torture would be condemning innocent people to death and that is much worse.

Repeating: The threat must be real and the terrorist must be known to be guilty.

This is often easy to verify with Al Qaeda operatives who are very open about their past actions and future goals.

First,

Let me see if I have this straight so far:

You say it’s OK to torture someone even if the end result is that lives are not saved i.e. that an evil can be done without a good outcome.

Does that fairly state what you’re saying?

Second,

REPEATING: Guilty of WHAT? You keep saying “guilty” but I’m asking WHAT they’re guilty of. Guilty of planning an attack? Guilty of being involved with other terrorists? Guilty of having carried out other terrorist attacks???

And by “guilty”, do you mean proven guilty in a court of law? Or presumed guilty based on (let’s assume) reliable intelligence?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

First,

Let me see if I have this straight so far:

You say it’s OK to torture someone even if the end result is that lives are not saved i.e. that an evil can be done without a good outcome.

Does that fairly state what you’re saying?

Second,

REPEATING: Guilty of WHAT? You keep saying “guilty” but I’m asking WHAT they’re guilty of. Guilty of planning an attack? Guilty of being involved with other terrorists? Guilty of having carried out other terrorist attacks???

And by “guilty”, do you mean proven guilty in a court of law? Or presumed guilty based on (let’s assume) reliable intelligence?

If a person is a known, active member of a terrorist group who is responsible for killing innocent people then they are guilty. If they are open about their desire to kill more innocent people in the future they are guilty.

A guilty terrorist in this category who is believed to have knowledge of impending mass murder should be aggressively interrogated to save lives.

 

[markomalley]

If a person is a known, active member of a terrorist group who is responsible for killing innocent people then they are guilty. If they are open about their desire to kill more innocent people in the future they are guilty.

A guilty terrorist in this category who is believed to have knowledge of impending mass murder should be aggressively interrogated to save lives.

So then you are OK with torturing them just for grins?

Does that also apply to bank robbers? Or only terrorists?

Or how about jaywalkers?

 

[Newbie2]

If a person is a known, active member of a terrorist group who is responsible for killing innocent people then they are guilty. If they are open about their desire to kill more innocent people in the future they are guilty.

A guilty terrorist in this category who is believed to have knowledge of impending mass murder should be aggressively interrogated to save lives.

OK, forget it. I’m tired of asking “guilty of what?” You continue to avoid a direct answer to the question. Whatever.

But let’s go back to your opinion that torturing someone is OK even if there is no saving of lives as a result (as I put forward in a hypothetical).

Clearly this is performing an evil act. There’s no way you can seriously suggest that cutting off a person’s fingers to get information, for example, is not an evil. And if no information is obtained, then no lives are saved. So an evil is done with no good as a result.

You seem to think this is OK, doing evil with no good result. Doesn’t matter that the intention was good, it is still evil, and you seem to support it.

There is no way this is acceptable under Catholic Moral Theology. Don’t delude yourself.

As well you seem to suggest that even though this is an evil, the person “deserves” it anyway, since they are “guilty” (of being a terrorist?) Once again, do not delude yourself. Torture is never an acceptable punishment for any sort of crime under Catholic Moral Theology.

While your personal belief is your own opinion, your POV is extreme and is not supported by Catholic Moral Theology. Sorry. Not even close.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So then you are OK with torturing them just for grins?

Does that also apply to bank robbers? Or only terrorists?

Or how about jaywalkers?

You are being intellectually dishonest by ignoring my words and posting irrelevant, childish questions.

Feel free to address what I actually posted. If you do, I’ll be glad to respond.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

OK, forget it. I’m tired of asking “guilty of what?” You continue to avoid a direct answer to the question. Whatever.

.

Are you really incapable of understanding this?

If a person is a known, active member of a terrorist group who is responsible for killing innocent people then he is guilty. If he is open about his desire to kill more innocent people in the future he is guilty.

 

[Newbie2]

Are you really incapable of understanding this?

If a person is a known, active member of a terrorist group who is responsible for killing innocent people then he is guilty. If he is open about his desire to kill more innocent people in the future he is guilty.

Sigh…I repeat, forget it. Not worth my time to pursue this. Toodles.

 

[markomalley]

You are being intellectually dishonest by ignoring my words and posting irrelevant, childish questions.

Feel free to address what I actually posted. If you do, I’ll be glad to respond.

Why should I bother? You’ve gone from the point in your OP of it being a good thing in order to get critical information to save lives, to the point if we have to do it to 1000 men in order to find one with information, that’s ok too, to your latest position of it doesn’t matter if we get information or not, the SOB was guilty and had it coming to him.

Intellectually dishonest? Yeah, sure, whatever pal.

BTW, if you purport to be a conservative, you need to learn how to argue like one. You have presented exactly zero facts in this discussion (other than one report brought up by the MSM – as a conservative, you should know about the MSM).

I would suggest that you start studying up on Bill Buckley, Brent Bozell, and other giants in the conservative movement. The real conservative movement. Not the Sean Hannity branch of the conservative movement.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Why should I bother? You’ve gone from the point in your OP of it being a good thing in order to get critical information to save lives, to the point if we have to do it to 1000 men in order to find one with information, that’s ok too, to your latest position of it doesn’t matter if we get information or not, the SOB was guilty and had it coming to him.

Intellectually dishonest? Yeah, sure, whatever pal.

BTW, if you purport to be a conservative, you need to learn how to argue like one. You have presented exactly zero facts in this discussion (other than one report brought up by the MSM – as a conservative, you should know about the MSM).

I would suggest that you start studying up on Bill Buckley, Brent Bozell, and other giants in the conservative movement. The real conservative movement. Not the Sean Hannity branch of the conservative movement.

Feel free to respond to what I actually post.

 

[Tsuwano]

Are you really incapable of understanding this?

If a person is a known, active member of a terrorist group who is responsible for killing innocent people then he is guilty. If he is open about his desire to kill more innocent people in the future he is guilty.

So, in your view a person doesn’t actually have to do anything to be considered a candidate for torture. He simply has to be associated with a particular group and share their basic philosophy?

 

[Steel_Pinwheel]

Waterboarding is not justified. I’d prefer to die than to be immoral to save my life.

But, torture does not save lives. There’s the question of how much useful information is gained by torture, especially if you’re torturing someone who doesn’t know anything. Torture itself raises popular support for the “enemy”, making the enemy stronger.

There are other ways to stop terrorism. Doing yet another thing to provoke terrorism is not one of the ways to stop terrorism.

There is also the slippery slope, which has been discussed in this thread.

Truth is the first casualty of war. I still see people present half-truths and complete untruths to defend the Iraq war. I know I’ve been lied to a lot, and I don’t trust the government to tell me the truth about torture. That’s yet another reason why I can’t approve of torture.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So, in your view a person doesn’t actually have to do anything to be considered a candidate for torture. He simply has to be associated with a particular group and share their basic philosophy?

Joining and participating in a terrorist plot is not doing nothing.

If an al qaeda operative admits membership and shared goals with the group, then he is guilty of conspiring to commit mass murder.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Waterboarding is not justified. I’d prefer to die than to be immoral to save my life.

But, torture does not save lives. There’s the question of how much useful information is gained by torture, especially if you’re torturing someone who doesn’t know anything. Torture itself raises popular support for the “enemy”, making the enemy stronger.

There are other ways to stop terrorism. Doing yet another thing to provoke terrorism is not one of the ways to stop terrorism.

There is also the slippery slope, which has been discussed in this thread.

Truth is the first casualty of war. I still see people present half-truths and complete untruths to defend the Iraq war. I know I’ve been lied to a lot, and I don’t trust the government to tell me the truth about torture. That’s yet another reason why I can’t approve of torture.

I don’t trust the Left to tell me about world events. The Left is driven by an agenda that is not Christian but is anti American.

 

[Steel_Pinwheel]

I don’t trust the Left to tell me about world events. The Left is driven by an agenda that is not Christian but is anti American.

If the Left is your enemy, the Right is the kind of friend with which you need no enemies.

 

[Steel_Pinwheel]

Joining and participating in a terrorist plot is not doing nothing.

They don’t carry membership cards.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Who said that they were?