Waterboarding Terrorists- Justified to Save Lives?

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Obviously I don’t see it that way. I see moral relativism as the rejection of moral absolutes – the idea that certain actions are always and everywhere immoral regardless of the circumstances. Take rape for example. It’s always wrong to rape someone, regardless of the circumstances. I think torture is in the same category of evildoing (in fact rape has often been used as a form of torture during wartime). Is it worse than mass killing as you asked above? No. But it’s still a pretty bad thing to do, so bad that no hypothetical scenario that requires raping someone in order to save someone else will make the act sit well with me.

(It also goes without saying that if I were not prepared to do the dirty deed myself then I have no right to ask CIA agents to do it on my behalf – but I digress.)

So in the context of this particular conversation, it’s the defenders of drawing a clear line between certain methods of interrogation who are defending moral absolutes as I see it whereas the people who want to make exceptions to the rule who are on the side of moral relativism. Whether they realize it or not.

As far as taking one principle – defending innocent life – and elevating it to the status of a prime directive, that ignores the entire history of thought among Christians about the right way and the wrong way to wage wars. I’m trying to engage with and be faithful to this tradition of thought whereas the other side is not, in my opinion, either because they don’t think it’s relevant anymore (see Charles Krauthammer) or they aren’t aware of it. And not thinking it’s relevant anymore is a tacit endorsement of moral relativism, as far as I’m concerned.

You are incorrect. A just war is just because it involves the defeat of an aggressive force that, among other things, targets innocent life.

 

[Steel_Pinwheel]

You seem to be missing the point.

Al Qaeda is an aggressive organization dedicated to killing innocent people.

The US is the aggressor in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, you discovered relatively recently what some of us knew before the war, that Saddam was innocent of the charge that he had WMDs.

 

[TMC]

You seem to be missing the point.

Al Qaeda is an aggressive organization dedicated to killing innocent people.

Al Qaeda is the aggressor, so a member of Al Qaeda is an aggressor.

Clearly, the Church teaches that action to prevent the deaths of innocent life is warranted.

So by your reasoning, any person suspected to be a member of any group that is suspected of planning to commit a violent act can be tortured, if the torturer believes that torturing the person may reduce the likelihood that the violent act will be successfully carried out? That is not even close to using force to repel an agressor, which is what the CCC passage you cite discusses.

The Pope has directly refuted your theory:

Pope Benedict XVI’s top official for justice issues said Tuesday that torture was unacceptable for extracting information that might thwart a terrorist attack.

usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-12-13-pope_x.htm

I realize that this is not an infallible announcement – but I also think it is fair to point out that the author of the Catechism may have some insight into its meaning. The Catholic Church condemns using torture, even in the hypothetical situations you propose.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The US is the aggressor in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, you discovered relatively recently what some of us knew before the war, that Saddam was innocent of the charge that he had WMDs.

You are wrong. Iraq invaded Kuwait then failed to live up to their surrender agreements. Iraq continued to fire on US and UN aircraft. Iraq supported terrorist organizations and violated mandatory UN resolutions. Saddam DID have WMD and he had plans to make more when sanctions were dropped.

The Taliban(Afghanistan) supported Al Qaeda which attacked the United States at home and abroad multiple times.

 

[tomarin]

You are incorrect. A just war is just because it involves the defeat of an aggressive force that, among other things, targets innocent life.

You have to have a just cause but you also need to treat the enemy humanely, once they are in your custody. That’s where you are falling short.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So by your reasoning, any person suspected to be a member of any group that is suspected of planning to commit a violent act can be tortured, if the torturer believes that torturing the person may reduce the likelihood that the violent act will be successfully carried out? .

No, that is not my reasoning.

My reasoning is this.

A proven member of an aggressive force who has knowledge of an imminent act of terror can and absolutely should be waterboarded if it is likely that it will save innocent lives.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You have to have a just cause but you also need to treat the enemy humanely, once they are in your custody. That’s where you are falling short.

Protecting innocent life is a higher priority than the comfort of captured terrorists.

Why should innocent people die rather than waterboarding an aggressor? How is that logical or moral?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So by your reasoning, any person suspected to be a member of any group that is suspected of planning to commit a violent act can be tortured, if the torturer believes that torturing the person may reduce the likelihood that the violent act will be successfully carried out? That is not even close to using force to repel an agressor, which is what the CCC passage you cite discusses.

The Pope has directly refuted your theory:

usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-12-13-pope_x.htm

I realize that this is not an infallible announcement – but I also think it is fair to point out that the author of the Catechism may have some insight into its meaning. The Catholic Church condemns using torture, even in the hypothetical situations you propose.

The article doesn’t even quote the pope regarding this issue.

 

[Newbie2]

The taking of innnocent life is objectively worse than waterboarding.

Your relativistic approach diminishes the evil of innocent deaths.

My POV, which is that of the Church, is not relativistic. Torture is forbidden. Taking innocent life is forbidden. Please don’t try to say this is a relativistic POV, because it’s not.

Relativism, as it relates to this discussion, is saying that the evil of torture is OK because it it is not as “bad” as mass destruction. We both agree that killing many innocents is a worse than torturing one person, but the relativism comes in when one accepts a lesser objective evil (torture), justifying it because it is not as bad as the mass destruction evil. Both evils are objectively evil and are not acceptable under any circumstances i.e. one cannot accept one evil to prevent the other.

And, once again, we’re talking about clear torture, as you accept as OK in previous posts, not necessarily waterboarding, which I’m not convinced either is or is not torture.

Clearly you either do not realize what relativism is, you are misstating Church teaching to fit your POV or you are accusing the Roman Catholic Church of taking a relativistic POV on torture.

This is a difficult teaching to accept in this case, but we cannot do one evil to prevent another. There’s not much else I can say on this matter to convince you that this is Church teaching, as you seem to stubbornly reject it.

 

[Tsuwano]

Does confining a prisoner to a small cell for the rest of his life insult his human dignity?

It depends on how small the cell is and how you treat the prisoner during his incarceration.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

It depends on how small the cell is and how you treat the prisoner during his incarceration.

Now you understand that the definition of torture is subjective, but the definition of death is not.

Allowing innocent people to be killed in order to avoid waterboarding a terrorist is immoral.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Relativism, as it relates to this discussion, is saying that the evil of torture is OK because it it is not as “bad” as mass destruction. We both agree that killing many innocents is a worse than torturing one person, but the relativism comes in when one accepts a lesser objective evil (torture), justifying it because it is not as bad as the mass destruction evil. Both evils are objectively evil and are not acceptable under any circumstances i.e. one cannot accept one evil to prevent the other.

:

The situation is not one we choose, it is one that confronts us.

You agree that killing innocents is worse than torture.

What if those are your only choices? What is the objectively moral choice?

 

[TMC]

The article doesn’t even quote the pope regarding this issue.

The article quotes the Pope’s spokesman who is speaking for the Pope on the issue. Besides, as I am sure you know, Pope Benedict has spoken against torture many, many times. Here is an example:

In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070906_pastorale-carceraria_en.html

Here is what Pope John Paul II said about it:

In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim”. International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Inflicting%20punishment

As you know, there are many, many other similar statements, including in encyclicals and other documents. The Church has declared torture inherently evil and never justified. I understand that you disagree with the Church’s teaching on this issue, but it is not helpful to your argument to be continually spinning and misrepresenting the Church’s teaching.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The article quotes the Pope’s spokesman who is speaking for the Pope on the issue. Besides, as I am sure you know, Pope Benedict has spoken against torture many, many times. Here is an example:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070906_pastorale-carceraria_en.html

Here is what Pope John Paul II said about it:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Inflicting%20punishment

As you know, there are many, many other similar statements, including in encyclicals and other documents. The Church has declared torture inherently evil and never justified. I understand that you disagree with the Church’s teaching on this issue, but it is not helpful to your argument to be continually spinning and misrepresenting the Church’s teaching.

These statements are in regard to confessions, not to the prevention of innocent death.

 

[Newbie2]

The situation is not one we choose, it is one that confronts us.

You agree that killing innocents is worse than torture.

What if those are your only choices? What is the objectively moral choice?

See, again you put up a straw man argument. Those simply are not our only two choices, and you’d be hard pressed to come up with a plausable scenario where they were the only two choices, unless you’re suggesting something like the “Saw” movies.

But, since you persist in that folly, the correct moral choice is not to torture or engage in killing of innocents. Both are immoral. What is so difficult to understand?

Again, I know this is a hard teaching to accept. There are all sorts of situations where it seems that doing even just a little bit of evil that would end in good might be acceptable. But doing evil can never justify the good that results. If one dismisses that critical notion, where does it stop? One can then justify just about anything, which is relativism.

Hey, aborting one baby isn’t such a big thing, compared to launching a nuclear attack where millions of people will die. Torturing one person isn’t such a big thing, compared to launching a biological attack that will kill millions. See the simliarity?

It doesn’t matter if the baby is innocent and the person undergoing torture is a terrorist. Abortion is forbidden. Torture is forbidden. End of story.

 

[tomarin]

Protecting innocent life is a higher priority than the comfort of captured terrorists.

Why should innocent people die rather than waterboarding an aggressor? How is that logical or moral?

Do you agree or disagree that:

a. waterboarding is torture? And

b. that torture is evil?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

See, again you put up a straw man argument. Those simply are not our only two choices, and you’d be hard pressed to come up with a plausable scenario where they were the only two choices, unless you’re suggesting something like the “Saw” movies.

But, since you persist in that folly, the correct moral choice is not to torture or engage in killing of innocents. Both are immoral. What is so difficult to understand?

Again, I know this is a hard teaching to accept. There are all sorts of situations where it seems that doing even just a little bit of evil that would end in good might be acceptable. But doing evil can never justify the good that results. If one dismisses that critical notion, where does it stop? One can then justify just about anything, which is relativism.

Hey, aborting one baby isn’t such a big thing, compared to launching a nuclear attack where millions of people will die. Torturing one person isn’t such a big thing, compared to launching a biological attack that will kill millions. See the simliarity?

It doesn’t matter if the baby is innocent and the person undergoing torture is a terrorist. Abortion is forbidden. Torture is forbidden. End of story.

I don’t think you know what a straw man argument is. Please look it up.

You are avoiding the whole point of this discussion. When given the choice between innocent deaths and waterboarding a terrorist, which is the moral choice?

The answer is clear even though you don’t want to accept it.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Do you agree or disagree that:

a. waterboarding is torture? And

b. that torture is evil?

a. I don’t agree that waterboarding is torture, but I can concede it for the sake of this discussion.

b. Lying is evil, but is lying to save a life evil?

Flip it around. Is it evil to allow innocent people to be killed?

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t think you know what a straw man argument is. Please look it up.

You are avoiding the whole point of this discussion. When given the choice between innocent deaths and waterboarding a terrorist, which is the moral choice?

The answer is clear even though you don’t want to accept it.

Sigh…

That’s right, I don’t want to accept that torture (again, let’s not muddy the waters by saying waterboarding, since some including myself are not totally convinced that it is torture) is the moral response, because it isn’t. Church says so, and it’s been referenced several times in this thread as where and why.

If I were convinced that waterboarding or let’s say lesser forms of interrogation did not rise to the level of torture, then fine, they’re moral to use. But clear torture is forbidden under all circumstances.

I side with the Church. It’s apparent you do not.

 

[Newbie2]

a. I don’t agree that waterboarding is torture, but I can concede it for the sake of this discussion.

b. Lying is evil, but is lying to save a life evil?

Flip it around. Is it evil to allow innocent people to be killed?

Once again, you avoid the question.

Is torture evil or not???

…silence…cue the crickets…