I just watched Matt Lauer interview George W. Bush on NBC promoting his new book on his Presidency.
By way of a minor preamble, let me state that the interview did little to change my overall impression of the man, but it did change it some. I have for a time believed that he is generally a good man who cares deeply about his country. He did what he thought was best but he made some bad decisions. But I have always thought that even his bad decisions were made for, what he thought, were good reasons.
His decisions on war and peace, spending, and bailouts are all legitimate matters for disagreement. I agreed with some and disagreed with others but I have always thought he came by his decisions, even the bad ones, honestly.
With all that said, I was struck by what I can only classify as a moment of dishonesty. I don’t think that President Bush lied to Matt Lauer or the American people, I think he lied to himself.
The topic, it should come as no surprise, is the water-boarding of three suspected terrorists …
November 9, 2010 at 3:07 am
Beg to differ.
November 9, 2010 at 4:40 am
Ditto. My brother, Navy pilot, commander etc. trained using water-boarding. Most services use it to train.
November 9, 2010 at 6:16 am
Frankly, if the waterboarding of a terrorist saved some innocent lives, then good! This is one reason why I'm having less and less confidence in Catholic moral perspectives. The people making them are so concerned about esoteric and academic considerations that they fail to realize practical moral ones. After all, aren't the innocent worth protecting? Then again, this is the same Church that tut-tuts about all sorts of sexual immorality yet fails or refuses to discipline sexually immoral priests and the bishops who protected them.
November 9, 2010 at 10:37 am
Barbara,
Isn't that training used to prepare a pilot for when he is shot down, captured and TORTURED by an enemy? The Navy doesn't do that to it's officers just because they have a legal right – it's used to train them for TORTURE.
November 9, 2010 at 11:17 am
I thought he dodge the question as well. But it could have been for another reason. There are still left-wing activists that want to bring the President up on charges for the waterboarding. His response sounded more like a person up on the prosecution stand then a politician being slick.
Charles Krauthammer weighed in on the morality of waterboarding and his comments are worth throwing into the mix. He said it should be reserved for only high-ranking prisoners with vital information and only if there is a sense of pending danger.
You could argue Bush met these criteria.
It is a hard call. If the information obtained saved a few hundred lives with the terrorist walking away from the waterboarding, it becomes a tougher call not to defend.
November 9, 2010 at 1:01 pm
I don't give a damm about all this whinning about waterboarding. The intense interrogation these terrorists go through is nothing compared to what they put their innocent victims through.
November 9, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Matthew's on 100%. Waterboarding is torture. It doesn't matter what the terrorists do to other people. They are still humans made in the image of God, just like me or you. It is not right to violate their human dignity. Period.
Catholic theology does not permit the ends to justify the means. Rejecting this teaching makes someone just as much of a cafeteria Catholic as rejecting the teachings on artificial contraception.
Joseph, you may have less and less confidence in Catholic moral theology, but that's your problem, not the Church's. The Church is consistent in her assessment of the dignity of the person. It's mighty helpful when this supports your political leanings and opinions, but can be a tough cross to bear when you disagree. Mentioning the priestly abuse scandal is just a handy excuse to ignore the Magisterium of the Church.
November 9, 2010 at 1:17 pm
My brother, Navy pilot, commander etc. trained using water-boarding. Most services use it to train
The "we waterboard our own guys" is failed argument #3. Even SERE trainer Malcom Nance says waterboarding is torture: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2007/11/09/nance/
"There are still left-wing activists that want to bring the President up on charges for the waterboarding."
Count me as a right-winger that has little problem with with bringing him up on charges, but is more corcerned that we make it so Americans never have to engage in brutality masquerading as courage again. If we catch any enemy soldiers and their only act was waterboarding Americans, I want those guys brought up on war crimes and I think most Americans do as well.
November 9, 2010 at 2:59 pm
From the Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church:
404. The activity of offices charged with establishing criminal responsibility, which is always personal in character, must strive to be a meticulous search for truth and must be conducted in full respect for the dignity and rights of the human person; this means guaranteeing the rights of the guilty as well as those of the innocent. The juridical principle by which punishment cannot be inflicted if a crime has not first been proven must be borne in mind.
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”.[830] International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances….
Really. In the scale of justification, 0 to 10, 0 meaning "no" and 10 meaning "yes", where does water boarding fall?
-Theo
November 9, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I have been as critical of Bush on this issue as anyone in the Catholic blogosphere not named Mark Shea or Zippy. He was wrong to make the call to waterboard, which is undeniably torture.
But let's label the calls for Bush to be brought up on war crimes for what they are: moral posturing. George W. Bush made a grave error in authorizing an act that he believed would make his country safer. He was wrong both in engaging this nation in an objectively evil act and in believing that good would ultimately come of it. He will be answerable to God on the Day of Judgment for his error in judgment.
But no court in this country would ever convict George W. Bush for using so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" against 3 terrorists, and I will be damned before I want to watch that man be brought before some extraterritorial, extrajudicial kangaroo court made up of a bunch of left-wing Europeans and 3rd-world despots to be tried for waterboarding the likes of Khalid Sheik Muhammand.
November 9, 2010 at 3:16 pm
As a clarification for those who may not have understood it the first time. This post is NOT about the “water-boarding is or is not torture debate>” My point, if anyone still cares, was the standard by which the President used to judge whether water-boarding was the “right thing to do.”
My assessment is that he convinced himself that the “legal” standard was the only hurdle to be crossed. That is a (very low) standard I believe the president has rightly rejected in many other cases. Because it is “legal” does not mean it is moral.
I argue that the President “lied to himself” by convincing himself that “legal” is a sufficient question to judge the “right thing to do.” An standard he clearly rejects in other areas.
November 9, 2010 at 3:17 pm
I agree 100%, Patrick.
November 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm
With respect, Patrick, I think you have framed the argument incorrectly. In the context of war, the act of waterboarding must be considered in its proper setting: a technique to be used by combatants against enemy combatants. It is not a thing to be done in this country, nor to be adjudicated under U. S. criminal law.
I do think, however, that seeking counsel from attorneys–he did not specify military counsel–was a dodge of sorts. Bush was CinC; it was his job to judge whether to interfere in what the military found useful. The responsibility was his, and in the end, only his.
November 9, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Funny that just recently we discovered that our enemies continue to find new ways to murder innocent civilians. And all the while, we slice and dice theoretical concepts as if this was all a board game. What the President did as President and what he says now (safely put out to pasture where he can mend his reputation) should be taken with a grain of salt. Water boarding is a very nasty bit of treatment; but so is sleep deprivation and beatings. And our current President, pacifistic musings aside, launches drone missle attacks on camps that just so happen to inflict quite a bit of collateral damage (ie innocent people as well as combattants are killed). The former President Bush is still being called the mat for something that was in the big picture was quite rare. The current President, however recieves scant criticisms. I would venture to say less than 10% of the voting public is even aware of the CIA's drone attacks.
November 9, 2010 at 6:19 pm
It doesn't matter what the terrorists do to other people. They are still humans made in the image of God, just like me or you. It is not right to violate their human dignity. Period.
So if push came to shove, you would violate the human dignity of innocent people to preserve the human dignity of a murderer?
Catholic theology does not permit the ends to justify the means. Rejecting this teaching makes someone just as much of a cafeteria Catholic as rejecting the teachings on artificial contraception.
OK, what would you do if, having exhausted all other options, the only way to protect innocent people is to waterboard a terrorist?
Joseph, you may have less and less confidence in Catholic moral theology, but that's your problem, not the Church's.
Well, God has other ideas. God hates the shedding of innocent blood. God avenges the widows and orphans against their oppressors, even if those oppressors have "religious" identities. Read Ezekiel 34, Matthew 23 and 1 Samuel 1-4.
The Church is consistent in her assessment of the dignity of the person. Mentioning the priestly abuse scandal is just a handy excuse to ignore the Magisterium of the Church.
No, it's not an excuse. It illustrates the fundamental hypocrisy of the Church's leadership. They're willing to apply esoteric, academic interpretations to other people but not to themselves. That hypocrisy reflects the fact that the Church doesn't give one rip about
consistency concerning the "dignity of the human person;" only about its power, prestige and secular influence.
November 9, 2010 at 6:21 pm
One more thing, Michael. If the Church is so fired up about elected officials supporting abortion, then why did Pope John Paul II give the Eucharist to members of the Italian parliament who did just that?!?!?!?
November 9, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Sorry to be so blunt, when the terrorist, sorry men of peace, stop SAWING OF HEADS I'll feel bad about water boarding, until then have at it. If it saved one life from these animals, good, if it scared then half to death, better. if it left them a blubbering mass on the floor, priceless
November 9, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Wow, there are a lot of people who need to read their Aquinas on means and ends. But then, he is just another modern prelate whose failure in the face of the abuse crisis discredits his views on the heresy of Consequentialism.
I'm sorry, but consistent Catholic teaching for centuries has been that you cannot pursue evil means in order to secure good ends. And torture has been infallibly defined as intrinsically evil, the exact same term used for abortion (recognizing that there can be differences in scale). You might quibble about whether waterboarding is torture, but a core Catholic moral teaching – firmly entrenched in Holy Tradition and not some new "peace and happy feelings" trend in the Church – is that torture is evil and good ends do not justify evil means. It is truly saddening to see so many commenters who so often taut their orthodoxy deny this fundamental Catholic moral teaching.
November 9, 2010 at 6:59 pm
I'll pay attention to what anyone has to say about waterboarding and other acts being "torture" when they can provide a list of what IS actually authorized in the interest of saving innocent lives. Funny how the evasions kick in when that gets brought up, maybe I just need to get out more.
As it currently stands, even playing the "Barney" song "I love you, you love me" in the presence of Islamic prisoners has been deemed "torture" (no, I'm not making that up). We worry about children's music while our erstwhile enemies cheerfully cut off heads.
Noted.
The whole argument stinks of the ridiculous.
November 9, 2010 at 9:11 pm
This is one of the better discussions in a while. Let me throw some kindle on the fire.
I agree that a good end does not justify an evil means. But let's look at the Catechism on self defense:
"2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility."
I pose a question, Is there a difference between waterboarding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed for vital information that could stop a germ warfare attack on a major U.S. city, and torturing a low level al qaeda infantry soldier for the 'kicks'?
I go back on forth on this issue, but those quoting the Catechism should address this as well.