Sorry Mr. Vice President, there needs to be a line. Anything does not go in the name of keeping America safe. As hopefully everyone knows, I don’t have Bush/Cheney derangement syndrome, but they are simply wrong about this. Immoral things made to look like virtue are even more immoral. I post it simply for the record.
ht to Gateway Pundit
December 16, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Bush and Cheney likely saved lives. The waterboaring of that punk lasted about 20 seconds and he gave up information that saved innocent lives.
So you can sit there from your high tower and critique them and wag your finger at them but this is the real world where real bad guys have real bombs and real bullets. And they mean you harm.
Nobody likes torture but there are children alive today because of Bush and Cheney.
December 16, 2008 at 9:40 pm
My, what a brave post by Anonymouse. Maybe it’s time to get back to watching some 24. Too snarky?? This is about the dignity of the human person made in the image and likeness of God. To say nothing about the historically inaccurate information gathered from torture victims.
December 16, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Waterboarding is not torture. Torture is intrinsically evil, but since waterboarding is not torture, waterboarding is not intrinscially evil. As “Anonymous” stated, waterboarding can be morally justified under some circumstances. What would make waterboarding torture? Intensive and aggressive is not equivalent to torture. Search YouTube for the Christopher Hitchens video in which he voluntarily undergoes waterboarding. Now, Hitchens afterwards claims that it is torture, but his own demeanor afterwords belies his claim. The Hitchens video shows that waterboarding is effective in breaking down someone’s resistance by scaring him without inflicting intense pain or permanent damage.
December 16, 2008 at 10:22 pm
I do not thing any decision in the matter can be made lightly, and while I oppose all forms of torture, I appreciate that sometimes people feel that the ends justify the means. I do not know how I would feel if information could have been gotten using torture and wasn’t and a family member died. I hope I would have the courage of conviction to stand by that, and in that hope I stand by my “ivory tower.”
My favorite movie of all time has some important lines about this:
A decision must be made in the life of every nation… at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy… to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. The answer to that is: Survival as what? A country isn’t a rock. It’s not an extension of one’s self. It’s what it stands for. It’s what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult. Before the people of the world…let it now be noted… that here in our decision, this is what we stand for: Justice… truth… and the value of a single human being.
— Spencer Tracy as Judge Haywood, Judgment at Nuremberg
December 16, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Waterboarding is not torture. Torture is intrinsically evil, but since waterboarding is not torture, waterboarding is not intrinscially evil.
Would you volunteer to be waterboarded to prove that theory? I recall watching an episode of “Mythbusters” where Chinese water torture, which merely involved dripping water on the forehead, made one of the staffers cry. And this was in a controlled setting with safety personnel standing by to free her at her behest.
I would not want to be waterboarded, and it is torture.
December 16, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Would you volunteer to be waterboarded to prove that theory?
I happen to think that waterboarding does constitute torture, but this is a poor argument. I wouldn’t want to be subjected to any number of things that would not constitute torture.
December 16, 2008 at 11:27 pm
“I recall watching an episode of “Mythbusters” where Chinese water torture, which merely involved dripping water on the forehead, made one of the staffers cry.”
Oh, it made a staffer cry? Well, boo-hoo!
Making someone cry is not the criterion for torture.
December 16, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Does the Church have an official position on waterboarding in particular? Not torture in general; but, this specific technique.
The reason I ask is because, as with more than one thing, I may need to make a distinction between what I feel personally and the position I must take as a Catholic. Left to my own means I’d waterboard the !#$% out the guy.
I do not feel that it qualifies as torture; but, that’s a subjective evaluation based on where I feel the line is drawn between acceptable coercion and torture. I’m interested in where others who comment (and post) here think the line is drawn. What are the criteria that must be met in order to qualify as torture?
Of course the question is moot if the Church has an official position.
December 17, 2008 at 12:55 am
This is where conservative Catholics become cafeteria Catholics. You can do evil to achieve good or they try to deny what torture is.
“Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”
Pope John Paul II described these as “intrinsically evil” acts in Vertatis Splendor. “Physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit” are intrinsically evil. The worst thing in the world is not death, the worst thing is sin. The person who conducts a torture is degraded. Ironically the chief interrogator in Iraq when on the Laura Ingraham Show condemned torture, especially because of what it does to the person who conducts the torture. He suggested techniques that were effective while never crossing any line of mental or physical torture.
December 17, 2008 at 12:59 am
Sen. McCain says that waterboarding is torture.
December 17, 2008 at 1:36 am
Sen. McCain says a lot of things I disagree with.
December 17, 2008 at 2:28 am
Jeff Miller, I’m not denying what torture is; I’m denying that waterboarding is torture.
The reference in Veritatis Splendor to “coercing the spirit” doesn’t apply to torture nor to aggressive methods of interrogation that do not cross the threshold into torture. It’s about forced conversions. Aggressive interrogation is about coercing someone for whom there is justifiable reason to believe he is complicit with and knowledgeable about imminent and grave evil that will be inflicted upon innocents. You’re not coercing his spirit, you’re coercing him into divulging the information that you have evidence to conclude will save lives.
You need to demonstrate or explain why waterboarding is torture. Pulling teeth is torture. Sticking pins underneath fingernails is torture. What makes waterboarding torture?
American intelligence officials have confirmed that the interrogation techniques used, which do not meet the definition of torture, have thwarted Al Qaeda attacks and saved lives. The end does not justify the means, of course, but the means are only in question if they are evil. Since waterboarding is not torture, and therefore not intrinsically evil, it’s not automatically an instance of using an evil means to attain the end. In some cases waterboarding might be a morally justifiable proportionate means to attain a good end.
December 17, 2008 at 2:35 am
Watch this video of Christopher Hitchens being subjected briefly to waterboarding, listen to his description, THEN tell me it isn’t torture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58
Then if you still say it isn’t, pray tell me what torture IS, and why that doesn’t happen there.
December 17, 2008 at 3:26 am
Good evening and thank you for a discussion of interest.
Of note, within less than 1 hour of the first post, an ad hominem attack on the courage of a poster (rather than confining comments to the merits of his arguments) shows up, on a Christian and Catholic website. As a graduate of a Jesuit university, my recollections of debate were to win the argument, not go after the arguer. Indeed, when we are speaking of human rights and torture, I do recall someone saying that if you call a man a fool it is the same as murder: we’ll be celebrating His birthday soon.
Secondly, if we define anything offensive to human dignity as torture, what do we do with the vast majority of confined criminals who, each day, suffer such offenses? Presumably, we weigh the value of their offense against the problem of having someone dangerous unconfined. Controlling such individuals within the confines of a penal institution may involve having them forfeit some areas of their dignity. Is this the standard we wish to apply across the board?
The point is, where do we draw the line?
How do we define torture? Physical abuse? Mental “deprogramming” or “reprogramming”? Lack of food, lack of variety of food, lack of a tasty variety of food? Solitary confinement? Overcrowded confinement?
These are hard questions: if you wish to take a stand against waterboarding, by all means do so, but ready yourselves as to where your stand will be when confronted with other means of interrogation. Is simply yelling at someone in a confined area “offensive to human dignity”?
Thanks for bringing up an interesting topic, and allowing comment and discussion
December 17, 2008 at 7:02 am
David L. Alexander, if waterboarding were really torture, then why did Hitchens agree to be waterboarded a second time to see whether he could endure it for longer? Seems to me that if waterboarding were intensely painful and traumatic, Hitchens would have been scarred for life after the first attempt and would never have volunteered for a second experience. Who volunteers for torture after they’ve already experienced it once? Waterboarding is not torture. Got that? HITCHENS WAS WATERBOARDED ONCE AND HE VOLUNTEERED FOR IT A SECOND TIME. No way is waterboarding torture. No way. It’s a legitimate, morally justifiable aggressive interrogation tactic.
December 17, 2008 at 12:04 pm
The clip only showed Hitchens doing it once. There is no record that I found, or of which I am aware, of him doing it twice. So stop shouting and prove it. Then you won’t have to shout at all.
December 17, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Here is a two part article that analyze the issue of torture from a Catholic perspective (Part II is probably the most helpful(:
Part I: Scripture
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt118.html
Part II: Tradition, Magisterium
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
December 17, 2008 at 2:26 pm
So you can sit there from your high tower and critique them and wag your finger at them but this is the real world where real bad guys have real bombs and real bullets. And they mean you harm.
Sorry, but this is also really poor logic. Most of have never been raped or have found themselves pregnant outside of marriage, but that doesn’t make our objections to abortion any less legitimate. If something is evil, our station in life should not prevent us from calling evil by name.
December 17, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Hitchens did consent to be waterboarded a second time, immediately after the first. He wanted to see if he could last longer knowing what he was going to face.
You can read Hitchens’ description of his waterboarding experience here (note the title of the piece, “Believe Me, It’s Torture”):
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
“Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.”
Allowing our agents to employ torture puts our soldiers at risk.
December 17, 2008 at 3:06 pm
The first comment sounds like it was taken directly from Col. Jessup’s speech in “A Few Good Men”!