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 10:23 pm
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'?
Yes there is a difference. The first is a good intention. The second evil. However, good intentions cannot make an evil act like waterboarding morally good. Good intentions pave the way to Hell as the saying goes.
November 9, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Can the waterboarding be "self defense" of the common good of others, if you know there is an impending attack? And you are in that position of authority to defend the innocent, and know too that the person has intended to attack other innocents? Just a question.
November 10, 2010 at 12:15 am
Anon: A good question. The answer is no. Torture is wrong no matter the circumstances. If it were acceptable to torture someone because they had information on an impending attack, thus making the torture "self-defense," then it would be ok to torture regular POWs for information about legitimate military actions. Terrorists are nasty people but that does not mean that we can commit immoral acts to combat them.
November 10, 2010 at 12:38 am
Hi! We are students at Smith College in Massachusetts taking a Research Seminar. We invite you to take a survey assessing gender attitudes and behavior. The survey should take between 30-45 minutes to complete and is completely anonymous. To thank you for your participation, you will be entered into a raffle for a $50 gift card on Amazon.com. Thank you in advance for your participation!
Click here to take survey
November 10, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Can the waterboarding be "self defense" of the common good of others, if you know there is an impending attack?
No. Because "self-defense" is the intended end, torture is the means. The means have to be morally acceptable in and of themselves before the ends can be considered.
November 10, 2010 at 11:50 pm
I do not consider waterboarding torture.
I don't consider fistfights torture.
I don't consider athletic training torture.
I don't consider spanking torture.
We let legal torture go on everyday in this country.
I consider abortion torture.
I consider child sexual abuse torture.
I consider maiming and dismemberment torture.
I consider rape torture.
I consider burning torture.
When you take something like waterboarding and equate it with real torture, you diminish what real torture is.
Question: If someone came into your home right now and threatened to maim, burn, and dismember your family, exactly what would you do to stop them?
How would you have stopped 9-11?
November 11, 2010 at 1:50 am
Magda:
Congratulations. You've covered bad arguments #7, 8, 11, 16, and 25 with a raving non sequitur thrown in for good measure.
Reality: Torture did not stop 9/11, and would never have stopped 9/11. Good police work might have, given the huge clue the perps were dropping that our government failed to notice.
November 11, 2010 at 1:52 am
Oh, and Argument #18 also seems to be behind the first part of your argument.
November 11, 2010 at 2:17 am
Mark P. Shea
Aren't you evading the question?
November 11, 2010 at 3:32 am
Which question? What would I do to stop a home invader? Fight him and, if necessary, kill him.
What I would not do, if I overpowered him, is torture him, both because it is intrinsically evil and because there would be no point.
November 11, 2010 at 4:30 am
So if he got there before you and knew where your children were and you knew they would die a horrible death, what would you do?
November 11, 2010 at 4:33 am
And what would you do in order to overpower him?
Anything worst than waterboarding?
Anything I consider torture?
November 11, 2010 at 1:34 pm
If someone came into your home right now and threatened to maim, burn, and dismember your family, exactly what would you do to stop them?
As several have pointed out before, If Mark were to say yes, he would waterboard in that instance to save his family, all that proves is that when you put someone in a situation with maximum temptation to do evil, people succumb. Now a person succumbing would likely have reduced responsibility for doing it, but "Aha! You would cave! Therefore waterboarding is not wrong!" is a fallacious argument.
November 11, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Magda:
And if your daughter was raped by a close relative and was suffering with a rapid-growing cancer assisted by pregnancy hormones, which you knew was going to kill her if you did not obtain an abortion, would you do it?
Anybody can construct extreme hypothetical scenarios designed to justify some grave evil.
November 11, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Isn't it fascinating that Catholics get apoplectic about waterboarding yet don't say a word when the minions of a murderous dictator crucifies his victims, throws them into wood shredders, rapes them in front of the victim’s spouse and mutilates them by gouging out eyes, nailing tongues to wooden boards and amputating penises and female breasts with electric carving knives.
This is what Saddam’s minions did.
I’ll take the Bush/Cheney “mistakes” over the Wojtyla/Ratzinger “morality” any day of the week. I’ve seen where each leads.
November 11, 2010 at 6:31 pm
BTW, Mark, I'll believe your concerns about "grave evil" when you make legitimate attempts to stop abusing people through personal attacks and deliberate distortions of their opposing positions. Read the Eighth Commandment sometime. Then fall on your face and ask for God's mercy. If you don't, you're going to need an asbestos body suit in the afterlife (it won't do you any good, of course, but I'm just sayin').
November 11, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Our torture is 30% less evil than the leading Saddam brand, so it's ok?
November 11, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Mark,
I would not advise my daughter to have an abortion.
I'm mystified that you equate that with the decision to waterboard in order to overpower a malicious enemy who intends grave harm.
November 11, 2010 at 10:30 pm
There's nothing mystifying about it. Abortion is intrinsicly wrong. I think it has been amply demonstrated that waterboarding is torture and that torture is intrinsicly wrong. That being the case, no amount good intentions or circumstances can ticking time-bomb circumstances can justify either abortion or torture. Appealing to how bad the guy is that we are torturing doesn't change that. Thus, the comparison to abortion is apt and one might as well say that abortion is ok because the guy who raped her was really bad.
November 12, 2010 at 2:11 am
I don't think the issue is the person being waterboarded here. I would assume that randomly waterboarding an individual removed for no reason from a supermarket lin might be considered torture in the same way that long waits on the interstate can cramp legs. The waterboarding was not performed to punish the evildoer. The waterboarding was performed to extract information necessary from an individual who held it with the intent to commit murder. The end was a good, the act averted was evil. The intent was not to harm. A more likely comparison might be drawn by a surgical procedure to save a mother with an ectopic pregnancy an abortion occurs but is not the intent of the act.