Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 11:39am

Torture, Effectiveness, & Consequentialism

I have been meaning to post on the torture memos since last week, but have not had time. For now, I’ll point you to a post of Blackadder’s, which highlights the unconvincing arguments currently being floated to justify the Bush Administration’s use of torture:

The latest meme running through these sites is that while it may be honorable to be opposed to torture on principle, we ought to be reasonable and just admit that torture works. Here, for example, is Jonah Goldberg:

I have no objection to the moral argument against torture — if you honestly believe something amounts to torture. But the “it doesn’t work” line remains a cop out, no matter how confidently you bluster otherwise.

And here’s Michelle Malkin, making the same point:

We need to have an honest debate on interrogation techniques and securing America against attack from radical, committed terrorists. Conservatives should stop pretending that waterboarding isn’t a form of torture that the US has opposed for decades when used abroad, especially against our own citizens. But everyone else should stop pretending that it doesn’t work, and that we would have been safer without its use.

Yet while there is no shortage of confident assertions made over the last few days that ‘torture works’ and that it’s silly to pretend otherwise, the evidence adduced to support this claim tends to be rather thin. Malkin, for example, points to a New York Times story concerning a memo written by Admiral Dennis Blair, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence. According to Malkin, the memo establishes “the truth that waterboarding produced information that saved hundreds of American lives, perhaps thousands.” Blair’s actual description of what waterboarding gained, however, is a tad less grandiose:

High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country.

Nothing in there about thwarted plots or saved lives. And while getting a “deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization” is no doubt important, one wonders whether it might have been possible to gain such a “deeper understanding” without waterboarding suspects hundreds of times.

Ironically, Adm. Blair’s own assessment of the use of torture is exactly the sort of position Malkin condemns as unserious:

The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.

…..

One wonders: if the case that torture saved lives is so rock solid, why do its advocates keep having to distort the facts in order to make their case?

Read the whole thing here.

From a Catholic perspective, of course, the efficacy of torture is irrelevant. It is an offense against human dignity whether it works or not. However, the effectiveness of torture does matter in the U.S. because consequentialism and pragmatism are widely accepted approaches to morality. For this reason, it is important  for Catholics to make the case against torture on moral and pragmatic/consequentialist grounds.

Update: Michael I. has some additional thought-provoking comments here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
113 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dale Price
Dale Price
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 3:35pm

It’s a great post, and thanks for highlighting here.

Sadly, while one does have to occasionally wade into “but does it work?” waters, I think the better argument is that there are some doors you simply cannot open.

I think the most disturbing line of implicit argumentation I came across was the discussion that the waterboarded terrorists thought we were weak until they got the watering can.

I think I can live with their contempt, actually. Lest we forget, KSM was the one running for his life and looking like a cut-rate pr0n actor gone to seed when he was captured.

I’ll go back to a point I made before: if Al Qaeda waterboarded captured Americans (say, 150+ times), would we describe their actions as “enhanced interrogation techniques”?

Michael C.
Michael C.
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 3:46pm

Should not there be an analysis of the severity and imminence of the harm that could be prevented by torture? For example, the classic Dirty Harry movie scene where the criminal has trapped a victim in a vault that will run out of air shortly. There is no reasonable chance of finding the victim in time to save her. Dirty Harry tortures the criminal to force him to tell the location and the girl is saved. Would the church forbid torture in that situation? Or in the “24” situation with a ticking nuclear bomb? Is it not the same inquiry that one has to make when defending a life? Certainly, if Dirty Harry would be justified in blowing a criminal away if it was the only practical way to prevent the criminal from actively murdering a victim, would he not be justified in doing less violence (torture is less than killing, no?) a criminal who was passively killing his victim?

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 5:15pm

Oh, I’d say that torture is quite effective as demonstrated by the fact that it has been part of human conflict as far back as historical records reach. John McCain was a rather brave Navy Pilot, but as he admitted torture broke him.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml

If the target of the torture has the information, I’d say that almost anyone will talk as a result of torture. I am opposed to physical torture including waterboarding, but I have not the slightest doubt it is very, very effective.

James
James
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 5:30pm
Knuckle Dragger
Knuckle Dragger
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 5:47pm

I think a question that fathers need to ask themselves is “would you waterboard someone to save your child”? Most fathers, I think, would say yes – though I’m sure they wouldn’t be proud of it. So, if it is OK in that circumstance, why isn’t it OK for the president to authorize it to save people he is supposed to protect?

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 6:16pm

John Henry in order to gauge the effectiveness of torture in a particular instance we would have to possess the information elicited and the actions taken based on this information, something neither you nor I nor the New York Times have. My point is that physical torture will obviously force almost anyone submitted to it to reveal whatever they know. It will also do it faster than alternative techniques. The worth of the information gleaned will obviously depend upon what the target of the torture knows.

The interesting part of the Blair story is that the following portions were deleted from the version of his memo released to the media:

“Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

To futher and perhaps resolve this debate all the Obama administration has to do is to allow access as to information gleaned as a result of waterboarding for example and the use made by the US of the intelligence. I realize this may not be possible if the intelligence is sensitive, but it should at least be considered in a few cases so we can all have a better factual basis to determine effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Until we do we have no real way of knowing what was accomplished by waterboarding.

Jay Anderson
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 7:16pm

I am unequivocally opposed to torture – including waterboarding and other so-called “enhanced interrogation” techniques. I have no doubt that torture can be “effective” in getting the subject to tell what he knows, but I am nevertheless of the mind that we should not engage in grave intrinsic evils even if some good may result. In other words, no torture under any circumstances.

That said, I find abhorrent the notion that we should “spin” the issue of torture’s efficacy in order to dupe a consequentialist American populace into thinking torture isn’t really all that effective. If torture has been effective in producing life-saving intelligence, rather than lying about that fact, our argument should be that it is, nevertheless, a price too high to pay.

It’s just like ESCR: even if its proponents could prove that it was a panacea for all manner of health-related problems (and they can’t because it isn’t), our response wouldn’t be to “spin” the science; it would be to say that such research is an intrinsic evil that violates human dignity EVEN IF some good may result as a result thereof.

Joe Hargrave
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 8:12pm

“Should not there be an analysis of the severity and imminence of the harm that could be prevented by torture?”

Sure, analyze away. But it won’t make a difference. Not if we’re Catholic.

First of all, if something is intrinsically evil, there’s no ‘analysis’ that will justify it. There are plenty of people who make elaborate arguments to justify the personal and social utility of abortion and contraception. If the Church isn’t willing to consider those, then why would she consider torture?

“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.” 2297 of the Catechism. Also see 404 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine.

So here it doesn’t specifically say, ‘torture used to get life-saving information’. So is there a gray area?

I don’t think so. There is a hierarchy of values and priorities. If we believe what we say we believe, then we believe in eternal life and a heavenly judgment. It doesn’t make sense to do something so terrible to a human being to save the lives of others if life goes on forever. I’m not saying we must be pacifists, but there is a difference between self-defense and torture. There are simply some cases where we must be ready to accept bad things for the sake of not violating a moral law that will have even worse consequences here-after.

I don’t think people really think about it, though. The old ‘practical man in a practical world’ logic relegates such concerns to monks and women and scholars. “Yes yes, I believe in God and all that, but we have a problem here.”

I can’t accept that. The only relevant question is if torture aligns with the will of God, the goodness of God. If the answer is no then for us to do it anyway is to insult and offend God. What man finds important, Jesus says, God finds abominable.

Joe Hargrave
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 8:31pm

I’d also add that the psycho-sexual torture of Muslim men is absolutely disgusting. I can’t see a loving God condoning demonic behavior.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 8:45pm

I imagine that God might have a problem or two with our enemies who behead American captives and make snuff films about it. Compared to the enemy we have been fighting our behavior has been light years better. Just condemnation of abuses is one thing; we must also remember that the jihadists observe no rules of war at all.

Joe Hargrave
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 9:02pm

Should our concern be what God does to people who are manifestly evil, or to us, who believe we have an obligation to be good? If they are evil because of what they do, then how are we not evil in doing the same? Or do we believe that the ends justify the means? Torture for the Republic = acceptable, torture for the Caliphate = bad?

“Our enemies” are Muslims. How God will judge them, I can’t say. But I think I know what Catholic theology says about how He will judge us.

And lets not forget the history of imperial domination and manipulation that caused a widespread resurgence of militant Islam after decades of secular political movements both liberal/constitutional and secular socialist. Not saying that I endorse the latter, but it was nothing like radical Islam.

paul zummo
Admin
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 9:07pm

While it’s understandable to want to add some practical arguments to our condemnation of torture, ultimately I think they should be put aside when we’re trying to make a moral argument about its inherent evil. First of all, if something is wrong, we should be content to just end it right there. For example, I’ve really liked delving into debates about the deterrent effect of the death penalty. I’m against it on principle – why should I get into what is a side debate that to me is really inconsequential?

Also, if we give up the high ground of the moral argument, we could ultimately lose the practical argument. I’m not sure about whether torture really works, but, for example, what if ESCR does actually start fulfilling its promise? What then? It certainly is helpful to our cause that it does not work, but what if it did work? What if torture does work? What if the death penalty does have a deterrent effect? Then we retreat back to the moral argument? Well, that makes us look a little duplicitous.

Jay Anderson
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 9:19pm

Exactly, Paul.

Policraticus
Policraticus
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 9:28pm

Most fathers, I think, would say yes – though I’m sure they wouldn’t be proud of it. So, if it is OK in that circumstance, why isn’t it OK for the president to authorize it to save people he is supposed to protect?

For a couple of reasons…

First, torture is an intrinsic evil, so if one accepts that water-boarding against the will for coercive purposes is torture, then water-boarding is intrinsically evil. If water-boarding is torture, then whether or not most fathers would do it does not change the moral status of torture. Would it affect the moral status of abortion if you took a poll and discovered that most fathers would encourage their wives to abort a baby that will have severe disabilities and a short, painful life?

Second, you cite an example that simply doesn’t work for two reasons:

1) It is highly improbable that a father would have to link water-boarding to saving his child, which means a general position on water-boarding as policy would only have to make slight exceptions for the sort of periphery case you cite. Torture as a governmental policy, on the other hand, would not be periphery but normative and formal. In other words, an unlikely (though possible) periphery case can be accommodated by general principles, that is, approval of water-boarding to save a child’s life in a rare circumstance does not mean that normative, governmental policy would likewise have to be approved.

2) You seem to be arguing by analogy between father-son, president-country. However, this is clearly a false analogy, which is a logical fallacy. For an analogy to work as an argument, the formal structure of both terms must be equivalent, that is, the material of the terms can differ but the form must be identical. The form of the father-son relationship is natural, absolute, and familial. The form of the president-country relationship is political, contingent, and governmental. Because the forms of the terms are obviously different, then you may draw an analogy for heuristic purposes but you cannot draw an analogy as an argument. So your argument (it’s not wrong in A, and A is like B, therefore it’s not wrong in B) contains a logical fallacy. For more on this, any logic textbook will have a section on logical fallacies and how to avoid them.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 9:50pm

Well John Henry, Cheney has called for the release of CIA memos showing the results of the interrogations. I hope the Obama administration will do that, but I am not holding my breath, just as I would not hold my breath that the anti-torture policy of this administration will last 12 hours beyond the next big jihadist attack on this country.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/20/cheney-calls-release-memos-showing-results-interrogation-efforts-1862515294/

Knuckle Dragger
Knuckle Dragger
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 9:59pm

Policraticus,

Thanks for your comments. How about this one:

Most fathers would be willing to shoot someone who was about kill their child. Most of us would also expect a police officer to do the same thing. I think this would be standard operating procedure for the police officer. Killing is more evil, or at least as evil, as torture. So why wouldn’t torture also be an acceptable option to save the child?

Joe Hargrave
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 11:11pm

“Killing is more evil, or at least as evil, as torture.”

Tell that to the guy being tortured. He might be begging for death!

Eric Brown
Eric Brown
Thursday, April 23, AD 2009 11:47pm

“Tell that to the guy being tortured. He might be begging for death!”

PRECISELY!

Torture is intrinsically evil. Capital punishment, according to the Church, is not. That seems as if it should be backward, but it isn’t.

It’s simple to kill someone; it is an entirely different thing, an even worse thing, to make someone wish they were dead.

Imagine how sadistic, how against your nature you are forced to behave, and the length of time you have to hold up the banner of justification for your actions — convincing yourself that what you’re doing is morally licit versus how long you have to pretend you don’t know killing is wrong to commit the act of killing.

This might be going in an entirely different direction, but this reminds me of what Benedict XVI said a long while ago: we should really ask ourselves, seriously, “given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.'”

The Holy Father doesn’t explicitly answer the question. I don’t think he has to, nor is his personal position entirely relevant. The question — profound as it is — speaks for itself.

Sure, the cause one is fighting for may be just and noble. But we really downplay the effects of war, what it means for our humanity particularly those directly involved. There’s an old saying, “in times of war, the laws are silent.”

And look at what we begin to justify — torture being the obvious.

I’ve actually found it absolutely horrible that torture is downplayed as a non-negotiable issue, just as evil in its horror as abortion and euthanasia, perhaps, not in scope and gravity, but surely in the fact that it contravenes in itself the basic dignity due to a person by their humanity. And it rather disturbs me, particularly when Catholics, buy into the word gymnastics of “interrogation” et al, as if it is no different than when mainstream liberals try to call abortion something other than what it really is.

Thank you, everyone.

Bob Cheeks
Bob Cheeks
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 4:42am

I’m a flawed Christian.
I must confess I would never stand back and allow a mujahadeen to attempt to kill my family, friends, or neighbors. I would either kill him, if that were necessary, or torture him to gain information that would relieve any threat of death or injury to family, friend, or neighbors.
Reality demands it, and I will humbly stand in God’s judgement for my actions.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 6:37am

John Henry the article you linked to was written by Ali Soufan. He was FBI not CIA. The article struck me as more of the unending turf wars between FBI and CIA that has hampered the fight against the terrorists. If all the information is released we will see.

One of the odd things about the article is that Soufan has worked for Giuliani Security since leaving the FBI.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/73371

When Giuliani ran for President he was the most vociferous of all the Republican candidates in supporting “aggressive interogation techniques”. Soufan contributed 2300 bucks to his campaign. Odd for a person who wrote the article yesterday. Wheels within wheels, as usual, when dealing with someone from the FBI or the CIA.

Jay Anderson
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 7:18am

Here’s the deal: I share Don’s skepticism that the Obama Administration won’t resort to the same tactics should the “need” arise (clearly, the Administration sees some benefit to “enhanced interrogation” as evidenced by his retaining the extraordinary rendition polices of his predecessors in office). And for what other reason would they do so other than that they see torture as at least somewhat “effective” under certain circumstances?

I’m afraid the “One Ring” (to borrow an analogy from Shea) is just too tempting a tool for those in power to forego using. And the argument against using the One Ring was never that it didn’t work. Of course it worked, which is why those in power were to tempted to use it. The argument against the One Ring was always that using it turned you into something you didn’t want to become, eventually giving Evil mastery over you.

I don’t think we should even be countenancing “effectiveness” arguments. Because the risk of turning out to have been wrong on that issue (what if someday we learn that another catastrophic terror attack was stopped on the basis of information obtained via torture?) is that our moral and ethical arguments are thereby undermined.

Knuckle Dragger
Knuckle Dragger
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 8:00am

Bob,

Thanks for your honesty. I’m in your camp, and I suspect most fathers/family would do the same. Hopefully God would forgive us.

Knuckle Dragger
Knuckle Dragger
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 8:19am

Bob,

One other thing – I would also want the government or police to protect my family in the same way.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 8:24am

A few other points:

Even if torture “works” in the sense that it extracts important strategic information, we should not assume that it is the ONLY thing that works for that purpose. There are alternatives (just as there are alternatives to abortion, contraception, the death penalty, etc.)

Also, remember the saying that “hard cases make bad law.” The example of the father who resorts to torture to save his child’s life reminds me of the oft-cited example of abortion to save the life of the mother. It’s one thing if an individual resorts to illegal or immoral measures in a situation of extreme duress; they can be forgiven or their punishment can be mitigated or removed. That does NOT, however, mean these measures should be endorsed or approved by law or as a matter of policy. That’s how legalized abortion got started — by first legalizing it only for “hard” cases like rape, incest, life of the mother, etc. We all know how that ended up. Allowing torture only for “extreme” cases could very well end up the same way.

Bob Cheeks
Bob Cheeks
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 8:41am

K.D.,
Yeah, I figure it’s just common sense. Re: the gummint
“protecting” my family I’m a bit ambiguous, for example, say we elected a pro-Muslim, left-wing socialist who had a chip on his shoulder for the white bourgeoisie who he believed has been oppressing his people for the past four hundred years? I sure don’t want him deciding who’s going to be “interrogated!”

Rich Leonardi
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 9:02am

Tell that to the guy being tortured. He might be begging for death!

Is anyone seriously suggesting that the interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration had anyone “begging for death”? I know this post isn’t just limited to those techniques, but they’re certainly what sparked interesting in the topic. It’s also worth noting that some of those techniques reasonably fall under the category torture, e.g., waterboarding, while others arguably do not, e.g., sleep deprivation, prolonged questioning, etc.

Policraticus
Policraticus
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 9:41am

Most fathers would be willing to shoot someone who was about kill their child. Most of us would also expect a police officer to do the same thing. I think this would be standard operating procedure for the police officer. Killing is more evil, or at least as evil, as torture. So why wouldn’t torture also be an acceptable option to save the child?

Same problem if you are arguing by analogy. Your two analogies can be used for heuristic purposes (e.g., the president is “like” a father; a police officer acts “like” a father). But you seem to want to make an argument by analogy using terms that do not have the same form. The matter of each term is the same (i.e., water-boarding and killing a threat), but the formal structure of each term is different (i.e., nature of relationship and duty). That’s what makes your two examples false analogy. Like I said, you can draw an analogy with anything for heuristic purposes. But be careful when you draw analogies for arguments. You are confused by the fact that the matter in your examples is the same (i.e., the action), but you are missing that the form–which is the key for argument–is different. Hence, you have drawn two false analogies according to logic.

Tom
Tom
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 11:40am

My two cents, it’s silly to claim anymore that enhanced interrogation has not produced actionable intelligence– it clearly has, and the only way to deny it is to impugn the honesty of the several individuals documenting this efficacy.

Much ink has been spilled hand-wringing over the use of enhanced interrogation methods. And while there may be abuses, as in any human endeavor, the proportionate use of physical or mental stressors to discover life-saving intelligence is entirely consistent with Catholic moral principles, in my humble opinion. Just as in self defense, where the force used to repel the attack has to be proportionate with the threat, or in just war theory, where the means of executing the war must be proportionate (which is why we have issues with Sherman and Hiroshima), or in criminal punishment, where punishment must be proportional to the offense.

Catholic moral theology has long understood and applied the notion of proportionality. If, and only if, the action proposed is intrinsically evil, is the action per se morally impermissible.

The Church certainly never has in the past condemned forcible interrogation as intrinsically immoral. To the contrary. And even now, with Veritatis Splendor #80, there is great ambiguity about 1) what it is that is actually being termed intrinsically evil under the word “torture”; and 2) whether, given that many other actions appear to be termed intrinsically evil practices which are in no sense at all intrinsically evil (e.g., deportation), the document can be said to be trying to lay out definitively binding specific moral precepts as opposed to presenting examples the concrete moral implications of which the document doesn’t seek to address.

Without VS#80, which is the sole magisterial basis for the position of those who argue that “torture” is intrinsically evil, we take up the traditional task of moral theology, assessing the specific uses of these methods, and coming to terms with whether the methods and their implementation are proportionate to the end sought, namely, actionable intelligence that may save innocent life.

I fear that since this is a much more delicate task that calls for patience and prudence, it will be eclipsed by the need for some to have a simple rule that removes all such effort and doubt.

The Quakers and Waldenses also sought such a clear rule, which is why they condemn any war or use of force whatsoever.

But as Catholics, we are called to engage our reason enlightened by our moral principles.

Knuckle Dragger
Knuckle Dragger
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 11:43am

Poli and John,

I’m learning something about logic from both of you. However, it seems to me that the primary purpose of the state is to protect its citizens. That’s why abortion should be illegal. The government should protect innocent life. I want my government to do what it takes to protect my innocent child. If that involves waterboarding or killing the criminal, so be it. I expect the government to use less lethal means if possible, but in this fallen world sometimes it’s necessary to do more to protect the innocent. I’m not willing to sacrifice the life of my innocent child in order to protect the dignity of some criminal.

j. christian
j. christian
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 11:54am

One thing about the “ticking time bomb” scenario: I do think it’s a different breed than the typical reality of torture. If someone has a literal finger on a trigger to kill, and it is morally licit to use force to stop that person from killing, then it’s possible to conjure a scenario in which a person has a figurative finger on a “trigger” — i.e., you know with certainty that this person is imminently going to give a signal to detonate a bomb and kill many, and you know with certainty that using physical force (torture?) would stop him from doing so… then it’s quite analogous to a situation in which force is applied to stop an aggressor — again, a licit action according to the Church.

Big “however”: The ticking time bomb scenario is mostly a fiction from the likes of “24.” I don’t think it represents the reality at hand. Torture used to glean information is clearly not analogous to stopping an aggressor with force: the act is too far removed from the consequence, and there’s too much uncertainty involved. The only way I could conceive of something akin to “torture” being acceptable would be in the (mostly implausible and fictitious) ticking time bomb scenario.

I think that’s what many have in mind when we apply the analogy of the “protective police officer.” It doesn’t really fit, though.

j. christian
j. christian
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 12:00pm

Knuckle Dragger,

Take a look at my most recent post. I think that’s what you have in mind when you’re thinking of torture saving lives. I’d argue that you’re correct in the instance of an aggressor who is imminently going to take innocent life, that a proportionate response with force can be justified. However, I don’t think that’s how torture is typically applied. Using force to stop an aggressor directly is permissible, but using “force” (such as enhanced interrogation) to get information on your enemies is not.

Gabriel Austin
Gabriel Austin
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 12:29pm

It seems to me that confusion arises when “suppose” cases are used. Suppose you are with your wife and mother in a plane that is about to crash, and with only one parachute. To whom should you give the parachute? Your mother, of course. You can always get another wife.
The instance underlines the absurdity of “suppose” cases. The Church does not go in for “suppose” cases.
The question of torture was debated ad nauseam in the Inquisition.
In a polity such as the U.S. which encourages abortions [the painful killing of innocents] discussions about torture seem disingenuous.
An overlooked and overarching consideration is the simple fact that the Church does not consider death to be an “intrinsic” evil.

Knuckle Dragger
Knuckle Dragger
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 12:35pm

j. christian,

I guess I’m thinking of the “ticking time bomb” scenario. If the government has some credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is about to happen in my town, but they don’t know exactly where or when, I would not be opposed to waterboarding someone who is very likely to know these facts. This would be a rare circumstance, but definitely possible.

It shouldn’t be used to get general information on your enemies.

trackback
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 1:44pm

[…] box that President Obama has opened with the release of the torture memo’s has caused quite a stir in the Catholic blogosphere.  Nonetheless the stealth Catholic, comedian Stephen Colbert has […]

e.
e.
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 1:57pm

Knuckle Dragger:

Would you, then, finally protest the outright crucifixion of those individuals who just might’ve actually saved our families from yet another terrorist attack on U.S. soil?

For folks to actually provide such protection to even these terrorists who would have me and my loved ones suffer another major loss of even more innocent lives in addition to those several precious we’ve already lost on that fateful 9/11 day is downright wicked.

It isn’t enough that we’ve already suffered such tremendous tragedy but that even certain Americans themselves would actually provide safe harbor for the terrorists and, by so doing, serve to advance their murderously sinister agenda in successfully orchestrating even more ominous disasters on innocent American people!

President Obama on Monday paid his first formal visit to CIA headquarters, in order, as he put it, to “underscore the importance” of the agency and let its staff “know that you’ve got my full support.” Assuming he means it, the President should immediately declassify all memos concerning what intelligence was gleaned, and what plots foiled, by the interrogations of high-level al Qaeda detainees in the wake of September 11.

This suggestion was first made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who said he found it “a little bit disturbing” that the Obama Administration had decided to release four Justice Department memos detailing the CIA’s interrogation practices while not giving the full picture of what the interrogations yielded in actionable intelligence. Yes, it really is disturbing, especially given the bogus media narrative that has now developed around those memos.

SOURCE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124035706108641065.html

Policraticus
Policraticus
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 2:55pm

However, it seems to me that the primary purpose of the state is to protect its citizens.

Yes.

The government should protect innocent life.

Yes, through just and moral means.

I want my government to do what it takes to protect my innocent child. If that involves waterboarding or killing the criminal, so be it.

That’s your subjective sentiment (“I want…”). It does not change the moral status of torture (“Torture is…”).

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 2:55pm

Again I raise the question: if it’s OK to torture someone in order to save your child’s life, would it be OK to perform an abortion on your wife or your daughter in order to save HER life?

I do realize that in the latter scenario there are instances in which the principle of double effect would apply — e.g. removal of a cancerous uterus or repair of a fallopian tube ruptured by an ectopic pregnancy. In that case, the death of the child (assuming he or she is not yet viable) is an undesired “side effect” of a procedure whose primary aim is to save the mother. So it’s not a case of killing the child to save the mother, but saving the mother instead of simply allowing BOTH mother and child to die.

However, these scenarios are extremely rare in modern medicine and most doctors never run into them. What did happen, however, was that the notion of abortion to save the life of the mother became one of the means by which abortion rights activists got the public to agree to the liberalization of abortion laws in the 60s and 70s.

Could the double effect principle also apply in the case of torturing or killing someone in order to save a loved one in imminent danger of death? In other words, you really want only to save your loved one and you would do it by more peaceful means if it were possible; it just so happens that in this particular case, there is no alternative and the perpetrator “happens” to end up dead or severely injured. The alternative would be for your innocent loved one to die and the perpetrator to get away with the crime; if you resort to torture or deadly force, at least the innocent person is saved.

So I will argue as I did earlier, that applying torture in individual instances as a last resort is an entirely different matter from endorsing it as a matter of policy or law. In the same way, back when abortion was illegal, individual doctors may have performed banned medical procedures in individual desperate cases and gotten away with it; but that didn’t mean abortion was endorsed or allowed by law as it is today.

Knuckle Dragger
Knuckle Dragger
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 5:10pm

Elaine,

I think we agree. I’m absolutely with the Church on the abortion issue and the principle of double effect. And I also agree that torture is a last resort that should only be applied in the ticking time bomb scenario. I think that is in line with Church teaching, but I may be wrong. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong.

Thanks,
KD

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 7:54pm

Thanks KD. I should point out, as a way of heading off a potential objection, that there is of course a huge moral difference between using force against a GUILTY party (terrorist, convicted murderer) to save potentially many innocent lives, and using deadly force against an INNOCENT party (unborn child) to save one other innocent life (mother). A terrorist is not deserving of the same absolute protection as an unborn child, and to kill or inflict pain on a terrorist would not be as evil as doing it to an unborn baby.

That doesn’t change my main point, though, that neither legally sanctioned torture nor legalized abortion should be official government policy.

e.
e.
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 8:19pm

“[N]either legally sanctioned torture nor legalized abortion should be official government policy.”

People indulge in such seemingly grand & noble rhetoric now with so amazing a confidence in the fabric of their moral self-righteousness in this regard; yet, should (and God forbid this actually happens) another (or even worse) devestating terrorist attack occur on American soil and the toll of innocent American lives is even (and overwhelmingly) larger than of that horrible day then — when your family members, your own loved ones, your very children are amongst the dead, can you really be so self-righteously sure that the vast number of dead whose very lives you might have saved by engaging such measures of information extraction — but did not — was actually the right thing to do?

Eric Brown
Eric Brown
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 9:10pm

Pope Benedict XVI is on the record stating that “the prohibition against torture cannot be contravened under any circumstance.” The Holy Father is not exercising papal infallibility because the truth of the matter is presumed. In natural law moral theory, as we all know, something that cannot be done under any circumstances whatsoever is an action that in and of itself is morally evil, i.e. no intention or situation, no matter how difficult, makes such a course of action morally permissible. Therefore, if torture is an activity that cannot be done whatsoever, that the “no” to torture is so absolute that it “cannot be contravened under any circumstance,” then it seems that torture is regarded — in this philosophical statement — as an intrinsic evil.

Therefore, if the methods of “interrogation” are in fact torture, then, it rightly follows that even the desire to protect one’s family and one’s nation — noble and good intentions — cannot justify such an activity.

The only argument, it seems, that can be made in such a regard is that “interrogation methods” do not constitute torture.

The question, then, of “what can we do to terrorists in custody?” — as sincere as it may be — strikes me in the same way as the teenage question, “how far is too far?” In other words, you want to see the bar and get as close to it without crossing it, which, I think is a dangerous game.

Rather, we should ask “what rights do these men have, based on their human dignity, that cannot be contravened regardless of how angry we are or desirable we are to quickly attain justice?”

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Friday, April 24, AD 2009 9:33pm

In regard to the Ali Soufan piece which appeared in the New York Times, here is a rather searching analysis.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/levels-of-enhancement.html

As I observed above, whenever a source is FBI or CIA, there are always wheels within wheels. Time to release more solid information.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Saturday, April 25, AD 2009 7:05am

Ok then, e., what if embryonic stem cell research DID prove capable of saving thousands of lives, would you then be saying we were too “self-righteously sure” about it and indulging in “seemingly grand and noble rhetoric”? What if (granted, this is still a big if and may prove not to be true) ESCR turned out to be the key to curing some fatal disease you or your loved ones had? Would you then say the Church was wrong and should never have condemned it?

I think torture of some kind will ALWAYS take place in extreme situations, even if it is illegal or not sanctioned by the government — just as abortions still went on even when abortion was illegal. I’m sure that some of those super secret CIA operatives and others aren’t above applying a little extra force when they feel the need to, and always have been, and if there was sufficient justification for what they were doing, they were able to get away with it. However, the government didn’t officially APPROVE it. That would only have encouraged and expanded the practice.

Blackadder
Blackadder
Saturday, April 25, AD 2009 8:06am

Donald,

The upshot of the blog post you linked to seems to be that there are potential conflicts between the different accounts of Zubaydah’s interrogation, which given the nature of the case is understandable. Most interesting to me, though, was the following bit:

Zubaydah gave up perhaps his single most valuable piece of information early, naming Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, whom he knew as Mukhtar, as the main organizer of the 9/11 plot.

So depending on who you believe, we may or may not have tortured a guy, and the best we can show for it is that we found out that KSM (who we already knew was a bad guy) was involved in a plot that had already happened. And of course, if this information was extracted through coercion, that means that KSM can probably never be prosecuted for his role in the 9/11 attacks. If this is what fans of “enhanced interrogation” consider a success, we can probably do without it.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Saturday, April 25, AD 2009 8:09am

The obvious way to clear all this up Blackadder is for the Obama administration to accept Cheney’s challenge and release the relevant documents:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/24/wapo-release-of-torture-memos-political/

For too long this debate on torture has been relatively fact free. Let’s get all the evidence out and on the table.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top