Since there are now so many conservative who now say that waterboarding is not torture and that it is effective and just another "enhanced" interrogation technique, I think we should take it to the next level. Just think of all the money we can save if we brought waterboarding to our local police precincts. We could get confessions in murder cases in no time and help to improve the wait time in the court system while at the same time saving taxpayers money on lengthy and costly murder trials. Though why constrain it to just murder cases since it is only an enhanced interrogation technique. Martha Stewart would have copped to insider training in no time. In fact we could have members of the administration when they testify to congress be waterboarded just to be sure of the truth of what they are testifying to. After all the ends now justifies the means so lets get with the program and bring simulated drowning in a controlled environment to a neighborhood to you. If it’s good enough for the Khmer Rouge it’s good enough for us.
19 comments
How is “just scaring someone” (presumably much like you would scare an animal) not also placed under the same requirements for torture?
Forgive me, while I plagiarize the “just war” requirements. Remember that all of them must be met:
a) Is there certainty of loss of life, and that this person has information that would prevent such loss? (heh, like I said, the chances are so minimal as to be pointless.)
b) Are all other means proven fruitless, and, contra-wise, that this method in particular is likely to bear results?
c) Would the harm caused be greater then the harm averted? (so, we torture whole families of Muslims because one of them might have a bomb somewhere? Or, maybe, have a bomb somewhere, someday?)
Any amount of “is it really torture” talk is stupid and unfounded. Treating people like animals is almost as evil as killing them outright, even were it justified.
???
Since you mention the Khmer Rouge..i’m reading The Killing Fields…what a strange culture cambodia is/was…& the communism disastrous…truly awful…
Interesting…makes good sense.
The idea is to make it safe, legal and rare. I think that’s been used by another cause, but it sure seems to resonate with Americans.
Let’s not forget how prevalent the tendency is to condemn things most have very little knowledge about in a nation where so few are willing or capable of actual service. This torture(ed?) talk is only chatter & “what ifs” from folks who will never see a “bad guy”, much less, risk anything around “bad guys”. One might get the impression from all this angst that those actually involved in these efforts come from a different womb and that would be a real tragedy.
The catechism states “[t]orture 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.” Unless I’m parsing that sentence incorrectly, it would appear that physical violence used to extract information necessary to safeguard the lives of people immediately in danger (e.g., the usual ‘terrorist knows where the bomb that’s about to go off is’ hypothetical) would not necessarily be condemned.
That’s section 2297, b/t/w.
I’m no authority on this, but just a short comment on your remark, Josh. In my opinion, you are correct and, in so far as the “ticking time bomb scenario” is possible, torture may be admissible in those circumstances. HOWEVER, there is an important distinction between “saving lives” some time in future (possibly), and really saving lives. In other words, if a situation develops where there is certain life or death for innocent people (and there is NO OTHER means), then yes, it should be used. But, under no other circumstances should it even be considered. I apply the same criteria as I do to abortion. Surely you get a few criminals by killing millions of poor children, and even save lives, but at what cost? Now, of course, these “terrorists” are despicable (in so far as they knew the law of God when they made their evil decisions, something only God knows), but even if they all are as bad as Osama himself, which I am certain is not the case, they still deserve the dignity not to be treated like animals in our quest to hopefully protect someone, someday.
Those are loophole readings of the Catechism. You might as well say that the Catechism doesn’t condemn torturing someone who owes you money.
Gaudium et Spes (no. 27) condemns torture categorically:
Furthermore…whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as…torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself…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.
Pope John Paul II quoted that same passage in Veritatis Splendor (no. 80), calling torture (of any kind) one of “a number of examples of…intrinsically evil” acts.
Circumstances do not effect something that is intrinsically evil. Those are the same arguments people use to defend abortion for certain circumstances. This is just consequentialism.
I agree, the possibility of any circumstance allowing torture is so minimal as to render it pointless to discuss (or, in the case of abortion, an impossibility).
How is waterboarding torture, as it doesn’t harm the person, just scares him?
Are we talking the Ancient Chinese Water Torchure?
We are the good guys in this fight. Let’s keep it that way. Dump the torture or the euphamistic, “enhanced interogation” techniques and trust that God will give us justice for acting as He instructed us.
What is missing from the discussion on whether or not “waterboarding” is torture is a discussion on the specifics as to what is torture.
I’m no expert, but I believe that the following techniques should be included: physical beating, bastinado, amputations, mutilations, removal of fingernails, removal of teeth, blinding, use of electric cattle prods, extreme heat, extreme cold, etc.
Once those items have been discussed, then the question as to whether or not “waterboarding”, causing fear, is in the same classification of the others.
Using waterboarding to obtain a confession to a crime is morally equivilant to using the death penalty to punish people who run red lights. The Death penalty is STILL not intrinsically immoral & I submit neither is waterboarding in certain cases. Torture OTOH is always immoral.
Sometimes psychological torture is more damaging to a person’s integrity than physical torture. A person being waterboarded doesn’t know they aren’t going to die. In fact, a person with a heart irregularity could easily die from the panic it induces.
“The Death penalty is STILL not intrinsically immoral & I submit neither is waterboarding in certain cases. Torture OTOH is always immoral.”
In what case is torture not torture? Unless waterboarding is also a sport, I am bewildered. I think it would take some seriously stretched justification to call waterboarding non-torturous.
Jeff, you’ve failed again. People are taking your suggestion seriously rather than as parody. Real life is becoming more ludicrous than anything you can imagine.