Torture

[kujo]

Hey ya'll. This comes from a comment on thread about Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and his stance on the use of torture (or "enhanced interrogation technique") in the War on Terror.

Is there any scenario where torture is permissible?

I don't know what the Church's stance is on this, so I speak only from my humble opinion. And, according to that lowly opinion, if the above scenario were to come into fruition, I would have to say that it would be acceptable, if, and only if, [i]an imminent, specific threat to national security would be avoided with the information that the suspect has[/i].

Does this hold water?

Edited October 26, 2007 by kujo

[inDEED]

I completely endorse ANYTHING that Jack Bauer does. He is after all, continually saving these United States from terrorists around the globe.

[img]http://www.80stees.com/images/products/24_Jack_Bauer_Spared_your_Life-T.jpg[/img]

[kujo]

[quote name='inDEED' post='1409697' date='Oct 26 2007, 03:21 PM']I completely endorse ANYTHING that Jack Bauer does. He is after all, continually saving these United States from terrorists around the globe.[/quote]

Appreciate the Jack Bauer support. I was looking for a more serious answer though....

[Autumn Dusk]

torture happens, we don't need governments to do it, parents do it just fine

[cathoholic_anonymous]

I voted 'no'.

Catholicism doesn't preach a utilitarian ethic. It would be gravely wrong to subject people to physical or psychological abuse to get information out of them. The end can't justify the means, even in such an odd situation. And it [i]would[/i] be an odd situation, because if you genuinely knew for sure that a person had such information then you would probably have a fairly good idea about the info itself.

It is doubtful whether people working in this field would even make a show at rigorous investigation if they knew that they had torture to fall back on. It is certain that there have been incidences of people being unjustly arrested and yes, tortured when security services were 'absolutely sure' about something, only to learn that 'absolutely sure' really indicated a hunch or a piece of wildly speculative guessing dressed up as evidence.

It is also important to consider the wider effects of torture - not just on the poor individual him- or herself, but on the global community. It would cause America's allies to grow distant at an even more flagrant breach of international law, including the Geneva Convention; and it would give those people who genuinely do see the US as a [i]bona fide[/i] enemy an extra justification to fight. (It would also serve as a brilliant and emotive recruitment tool.) And what of the torturers themselves? Is it possible to torture someone without hating them, or without getting either dreadfully embittered or psychologically ill? Hurting another human being in that way requires a certain kind of sick courage. Pulling the trigger of a gun or dropping a bomb from a plane is a much more distant way of causing damage, but even that can be disturbing enough. The proximity of torture takes something else, which is why even Hitler's SS and the Einzatzgruppen would get drunk before a particularly sadistic episode of butchery. The whole idea of causing another person such agony goes completely against our God-given nature as human beings, so is it any wonder? What kind of people do torturers become?

Finally, it would be extremely difficult for the United States to condemn torture in other countries if it had its own justification for its use. It would be all to easy for officials in countries where torture is rampant to plead innocent on the same charge. The mere existence of Guantanamo is already a bone of contention for a lot of people who look for consistency in America's stance on various human rights, let alone what goes on inside the prison. A policy of officially sanctioned torture would be terrible for the reputation of the USA.

On a more cynical note, people who plot against whole nations, including civilians, are usually well-trained to resist torture. So even assuming that a Catholic could ever find it in him or herself to torture another human being, what are the chances of it yielding much information anyway?

[kujo]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1409705' date='Oct 26 2007, 03:59 PM']I voted 'no'.
....[/quote]

Thank you for your thorough response, CA. While I don't agree with some of your assertions, I respect your opinion.

I singled out a few sections that I disagreed with...

[quote]...because if you genuinely knew for sure that a person had such information then you would probably have a fairly good idea about the info itself.[/quote]

I am not sure I follow the logic here. If you were to capture someone you knew to be working to attack the country, how would that knowledge mean you knew what the attack would be?

[quote]...It would cause America's allies to grow distant at an even more flagrant breach of international law, including the Geneva Convention; and it would give those people who genuinely do see the US as a [i]bona fide[/i] enemy an extra justification to fight.[/quote]

Right, because the US is the only Western country that tortures people...

[quote]...On a more cynical note, people who plot against whole nations, including civilians, are usually well-trained to resist torture.[/quote]

Any evidence to support this claim? I didn't know that Bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan offered lessons on coping with waterboarding.

[Era Might]

[quote]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. ...In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

--Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2297-2298[/quote]

[Paladin D]

It's been said by military commanders that torture rarely works. The confessor who is being tortured, gives whatever answer may be pleasing to those who are interrogating him. Thus, falsified intelligence; however, Jack Bauer is still awesome.

Ideally you think the use of torture it would work in most cases, but it's certainly not so.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Paladin D

[S][N]

This will be interesting to see the responses. The Church condemns torture (as far I know from it's teachings) in all forms. YET because your question involves "to thwart an attack on the US", people will twist and undermine Church teaching in favour of political agenda's.

Same thing happened with the Iraq war. The Church was against it in completeness, yet people ignored that and numerous sites, Catholic blogs and forums were filled with; 'Why the Iraq war is just', 'Why Saddam should be killed' etc.

Edited October 26, 2007 by S][N

[inDEED]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1409749' date='Oct 26 2007, 02:03 PM']Jack Bauer is still awesome.[/quote]

Wise words, Paladin.

[Aloysius]

The ends do not justify the means. Period.

Ron Paul '08

[cmotherofpirl]

Define torture. Is making someone uncomfortable torture? Playing loud music? Preventing sleep?

And as Al says, the end never justifies the means.

[Aloysius]

btw, "enhanced interrogation technique" is nothing more than Orwellian newspeak for "torture"

"Torture...uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred" CCC

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1409834' date='Oct 26 2007, 07:33 PM']btw, "enhanced interrogation technique" is nothing more than Orwellian newspeak for "torture"

"Torture...uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred" CCC[/quote]
What is moral violence?

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='kujo' post='1409711' date='Oct 26 2007, 09:11 PM']Thank you for your thorough response, CA. While I don't agree with some of your assertions, I respect your opinion.

I singled out a few sections that I disagreed with...
I am not sure I follow the logic here. If you were to capture someone you knew to be working to attack the country, how would that knowledge mean you knew what the attack would be?[/quote]

If you knew for sure that somebody was working to attack the country, you would almost certainly have some idea about what shape the attack would take. To give a simplified example, highly trained terrorists don't write Post-It notes saying "Attack this country on Date XYZ" and just leave it at that. If intelligence services manage to learn about an attack, they usually learn details about what the attack will entail. Infiltration has to be thorough. Judging by past events, it seems that intelligence services either get a lot of information or barely any.

[quote]Right, because the US is the only Western country that tortures people...
Any evidence to support this claim? I didn't know that Bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan offered lessons on coping with waterboarding.[/quote]

I did not assert that the US is the only Western country that tortures people. Your question referred to the US specifically, so I tailored my answer to fit an American context.

As for the lessons that are taught in al-Qaeda camps, they have been documented by ex-members of al-Qaeda. Former member Omar Naisiri, now a journalist and a British citizen, wrote a detailed article for the [i]Guardian[/i] about his training in Afghanistan and followed it up with a book. Resisting torture was a fundamental part of the programme for recruits who were to be entrusted with plotting or carrying out terrorist attacks.

Even without the testimonies of former insiders, it would be an obvious and reasonable assumption to make that torture resistance forms part of this type of training. After all, it has been known to happen in many other terrorist militias, as well as in elite units of regular national armed forces. Britain’s Special Air Service (SAS) is one example of a unit that undergoes routine anti-torture training. Even if a torture victim has not been taught how to deal with the agony, it is more than likely that he will just blurt out whatever the interrogator wants to hear, irrespective of its truth. That is probably what most of us would do if somebody started torturing us.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[dstrycula]

A.M.D.G.

Torture can NEVER, under any circumstance, be justified.

[GodChild]

[quote name='S][N' post='1409775' date='Oct 27 2007, 08:31 AM']
This will be interesting to see the responses. The Church condemns torture (as far I know from it's teachings) in all forms. YET because your question involves "to thwart an attack on the US", people will twist and undermine Church teaching in favour of political agenda's.

Same thing happened with the Iraq war. The Church was against it in completeness, yet people ignored that and numerous sites, Catholic blogs and forums were filled with; 'Why the Iraq war is just', 'Why Saddam should be killed' etc.[/quote]

I agree - a double-standard? a pope unto themselves? a selective adherence to the rules?

[LoneYankee]

Under no circumstances is torture permissible. (As stated in the Catechism)

[Groo the Wanderer]

I voted yes...not because I oppose the Church on her teachings regarding torture, but rather because I oppose the loose definitions applied to the word 'torture' these days.

Bamboo sticks under the fingernails, pruning shears to the digits, electrocutions, drowning, beatings....are torture and I do not condone them at all, nor anything like them.

Waterboarding, psych warfare, sleep deprivation, loud music, unlimited free coffee with no potty break...are NOT torture and I DO support the use of these and similar techniques.

[S][N]

That's called MENTAL TORTURE Groo. Just because it doesn't harm you physically straight away doesn't mean it's not torture. Mental torture is far worse than physical.

And by supporting these you are in contradiction with the Church, I'm sure theres some form of punishment for that, such as no Communion perhaps.