"...even if I beat you for hours with a rubber hose, my punishment will be less severe than if I murder you...Would you rather take some lumps in a dungeon for a month, or take a dirt nap forever?"

Such innocence! Obviously, for the writer this is an abstraction. In fact, people do beg for death. I had this shared with me one evening over after-dinner vodka at someone's house, by someone who laughed about it.

Quote: "He begged to be allowed to die, and we said 'no, we won't let you die just yet.'" [Laughs]

Lumps?!

I have seen people who might make the writer piss his pants simply by looking at him. Not a week, but five minutes with these people might very well begin to make him look fondly on oblivion. I'm thinking of Soviet special forces I saw on the streets of Moscow, as they temporarily took over the police functions of the state. If many of us saw them coming we would cross the street to avoid them. I except the fearless ones among us.

Ask the Georgians of Tbilisi of the late 80s, or the Chechens any time.

Or they might simply split your skull from crown to chops with a sharpened trenching tool. Swift, that way.

"...even if I beat you for hours with a rubber hose, my punishment will be less severe than if I murder you..."

Well, no. If a successor regime takes over you will probably be hanged.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 10:54 pm | #

"Would you rather take some
lumps in a dungeon for a month, or take a dirt nap forever?"

The whole point of torture as traditionally practised is to make you wish you were dead.

Can you imagine George Washington or Abraham Lincoln speaking casually about beating people with rubber hoses? I don't hear President Bush talking this way. What has got into some of the rest of us?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 11:06 pm | #

I saw a headline the other day, "The Torture Question." In a mainstream news publication. When did this become discussable on this level? It's just surreal.
Kathy | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 11:13 pm | #

"The whole point of torture as traditionally practised is to make you wish you were dead."

And here I was, thinking that the whole point of it was to extract information.
JonathanR. | 09.29.06 - 11:25 pm | #

"And here I was, thinking that the whole point of it was to extract information."

You're being facetious, no? It's both to make you wish you were dead, and to extract information and/or to afford pleasure to the 'practioners.' And sometimes, to rid the world of witnesses, or to punish to an extreme degree, and to frighten society at large.

But we have been assured by high officials that the United States does not practice torture. No? Yes?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 11:36 pm | #

To be more precise - to extract information etc. by making you wish you were dead.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 11:38 pm | #

It's not torture, Pavel. We call it pressure now.

And does torture give you reliable information? Or just false confessions and the name of some other poor sucker.

Remember when Sadam was a monster because he tortured people? Or the Viet Cong. Or Stalin.

But we were different. Then.
tony c | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 11:44 pm | #

Sometimes, information is required that may not necessarily have anything to do with reality, but it is nevertheless required for extraneous purposes. Show trials, for example. You can think of others.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 11:44 pm | #

The United States does not practice torture, so of course I'm not using our own country as an example. But to me, using torture is like letting loose a pack of wolves in your house before you go to bed, so as to guard against burglars.

Suppose you want to get up in the middle of the night to get a glass of water? Suppose the wolves are hungry in the middle of the night?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.29.06 - 11:49 pm | #

Pavel, I was being sarcastic by calling it by its new name: pressure.

The United States does not practice torture...

Ok. If you say so.
tony c | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 12:09 am | #

The United States does not practice torture...

"Ok. If you say so."

I certainly hope so, tony c. When I say that it's not any kind of authoritative statement. I'm just a news follower, like most of us here.

I understood the sarcasm.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 12:14 am | #

Torture is the province of terrorists. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussien, Chairman Mao, the wild boys of Islam and plenty of others all have endorsed torture as a means to an end (notice that none of these unsavory scallions could even remotely be considered as poster boys for freedom!)

Most Americans hold that we as both a society and as a nation are above such stupidity.

After all, those who endorse terror are those who have either lost or are loosing the fight.

Why the Pres thinks that this isn't so is beyond me. Why He thinks legislated endorsement of torture for any reason won't loose him the backing of those who've fought and suffered for freedom shows a defect in reason and that armchair thomists like myself find it very sad as it taints that which appears noble and good about the man. Logically if we can pretend to justify torture as a tool to combat terrorism, then we can also pretend to justify torture as a tool to combat most any crime. I can't blame the President for this---it is the way people come 'wired'by The Culture of Death these days. There is nothing in public schools, the media, or in any part of our techno-culture that comes right out and says WHY exactly torture is EVIL other than the Church, but of course the teachings of the Church isn't fashionable these days.

There is no shortage of political opponents to say that torture is wrong (while fashionably avoiding the notion that it is because the Church, who has suffered the hands of torture since the scourging of Jesus at the pillar and logically reasons that it is an affront to God) but for some reason the murder of unborn children isn't. They too suffer from an equally bad job of 'wiring' courtesy of The Culture of Death.

If there is a lesser or greater evil among these, I cannot detect it. Humanity has already been robbed of its dignity by abortionists and neo eugeneticists who have spawned the current attitude of Life being a utilitarian convenience. The torturers among us embrace a mindset that in reality is no different in logos.

I don't know enough to offer a solution other than a return to an idealistic vision of who we are and what we stand for as a nation---and make it happen---the "right stuff" that saw us through WW2 and the Cold War.

My 2-cents anyway
John Kasaian | 09.30.06 - 1:23 am | #

Mark, I wonder if you haven't just provided an answer for when torture is justifiable.

If it's okay to kill someone in war when they're trying to kill you, then it should be okay to torture someone who is trying to kill you.

Example: You poison me and have hidden an antidote. I capture you. You are trying to kill me, and will succeed unless I can find out where you've hidden the antidote. Is that any different from if you were firing a gun at me from ten yards away?

It seems to me that this argument can be scaled as well. If I know you've got information regarding a terrorist plot to blow up some building and kill people, then regardless of whether you're in custody or not, you're still at war with me and trying to kill my people.
HokiePundit | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 3:10 am | #

It's not torture if you are lucky to have gotten of out of the "reality-based community" and can embrace "truthiness".

And just this past week I was hammering away at fellow progressive Catholics elsewhere about the dangers of contextual theology and the need to embrace philosophical realism. The torture debate reveals how deeply a least a sister of contextual theology had eaten into the souls of Catholics towards the other end of the spectrum.
Liam | 09.30.06 - 6:48 am | #

The bottom line is that we must discuss torture in America today because the Bush regime is evil.
This is not to say that Americans have never tortured before, under previous regimes. But never before, I think, did an American regime try to make torture normative.
The conclusion should not be difficult for a Christian to arrive at: It's evil.
Rob | 09.30.06 - 7:21 am | #

America is held together by a myth. All countries are. The American myth has to do with hard work, doing good or at least willing the good, generosity, earnestness. Among everything else that torture would do to us and to our victims, it would completely undermine our self-image as a nation. We've had our somewhat troubled childhood; this is our adolescence. No one in the world would benefit from a raging adolescent superpower.
Kathy | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 7:25 am | #

Mark writes: "civilized standards of warfare have always said that once the enemy passes from the status of "combatant" to "POW", the equation changes."

This is true only for lawful combatants (i.e., soldiers in uniforms). The new legislation applies only to unlawful combatants. Because unlawful combatants' participation in hostilities have always been illegal under the laws of war, they have NEVER been entitled to the status of POW. Rather, throughout history, unlawful combatants have been summarily executed upon capture. Same with spies, etc. This isn't necessarily relevant to the moral calculus per Church doctrine, but it makes your argument in this particular post, Mark, unsustainable.
anon | 09.30.06 - 8:24 am | #

Torture is a thing that evil people do to their fellow man. The moral, political, or ideological status of the man to be tortured is irrelevant to the evil nature of the act itself. By doing what the enemy does, we become that thing that we imagine gives us the right to do it to him. At that point, morality and justice go by the board and what remains is nothing but raw power.
Rob | 09.30.06 - 9:14 am | #

Anon:

You posted in part: “Because unlawful combatants' participation in hostilities have always been illegal under the laws of war, they have NEVER been entitled to the status of POW.”

Right now we have between 120,000 to 140,000 GI’s in Iraq. As in Vietnam it appears about 10% are fighters. We also have about 30,000 armed private contractors in Iraq. There may well be more Americans civilians fighting the bad guys on a particular day than American soldiers. No one can seem to figure out just how lawful the private contractors fighting in Iraq are. Some of the bad guys are former serving officers in the Iraqi armed forces who view themselves as still serving their country. They do not see themselves as unlawful combatants.

What happens when one of our private contractors gets captured by the bad guys?

You are just as dead if you are shot in the head by an unlawful combatant as a lawful combatant. The winners make the laws and write the histories. Right now we are loosing.

We have an obligation to treat everyone taken prisoner in this conflict as a son of Adam and a daughter of Eve. We had better - if we hope to win.

God bless

Richard W. Comerford
Anonymous | 09.30.06 - 9:28 am | #

anon, it doesn't change anything at all in Mark's argument. The point of the "lawful/unlawful" distinction is to specify how combatants should act. Mark's point, however, relates simply to the logic of a situation where someone's trying to kill you, so it hardly matters how the way he's trying to kill you relates to the laws of war.

Also, the term POW only applies legally to lawful combatants, under the laws of war of Geneva; but in the plain meaning of the term, any combatants are POWs when captured, whether they wore uniforms or not. It's the legal status of POW, and the protections under Geneva, that differ. Mark's point isn't about legal definitions, though, but about the moral issues that the laws were drawn up because of. That sentence could be reworded as 'once the enemy passes from the status of "combatant" to "captured person", the equation changes' without the argument being changed particularly.
James A. | 09.30.06 - 9:32 am | #

Respectfully, Mark's point was about "civilized standards of warfare." That is a descriptive argument about what has actually been practiced in the past. Unlawful combatants have never been given POW status. Period. This isn't a moral argument, and I don't think it carries with it any moral force. But if you're going to argue about civilized standards of warfare, you're talking about what the law is and has been, not normative moral statements about what it ought to be.

As for what happens when one of our guys get captured, please. Don't insult everyone's intelligence by arguing that the insurgents will follow Geneva if only we would. That's simply not a viable argument. (I'd also note it's a utilitarian argument, not a moral one.)
anon | 09.30.06 - 10:03 am | #

HokiePundit:

Do you know what "intrinsically immoral" means?
Tom | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 10:16 am | #

I just don't see the factual basis in this whole discussion, i.e. the idea that this law has legalized torture.

As far as I can see, "torture-lite" (waterboarding, etc.) has in fact been banned by this agreement, which adopted the "cruel, inhumane, and degrading" standard used in 1984 when we acceded to the UN convention on torture, not the "organ failure - death" standard desired by the White House.

What has happened, however, is that habaeus corpus rights have been taken away from non-citizens arrested as "unlawful enemy combatants". That's what has human rights groups up in arms about.

To me, it seems like the (mostly obsolete) torture debate is now being used to generate outrage about habaeus corpus rights for non-citizen "unlawful enemy combatants", which is a much less "outrage-able" topic.

Read this in today's NYTimes and you'll see in part why I think this to be the case.
CPA | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 10:46 am | #

Okay, anon, I'll bite. Who defines the "lawfulness" of the combatant? You call yourself a courier but I say you're a spy. You call yourself a scout but I say you're a spy. You call yourself a patriot but I say you're a spy. So now that I've defined you in such a way that I may torture you, then I'm free to torture you. Is that the argument you're making?
Kathy | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 10:50 am | #

anon:

You wrote in part: “As for what happens when one of our guys get captured, please. Don't insult everyone's intelligence by arguing that the insurgents will follow Geneva if only we would. That's simply not a viable argument. (I'd also note it's a utilitarian argument, not a moral one.)”

I or one of my comrades could be one of those guys who gets captured by the bad guys so please allow me to continue to insult your intelligence.

When Saladin took Jerusalem he did not slaughter the city’s inhabitants. The bad guys are sons of Adam and daughters of Eve just like we are. Some of them are scumbags and some of them are very noble. I worked with some of these folks during the Cold War when they were in the main on our side.

If, God forbid, I or one of my friends got lifted by the opposition it would be of great comfort to me to know that my side was treating bad guy prisoners very well. The enemy does not care or recognize or respect our legal system. I do not respect our legal system. Our legal system kills more Americans every day in abortion mills than UBL did on 9/11/01.

On the other hand if we treat bad guy prisoners honorably it is more likely they will treat me honorably. Hitler treated Western POWs very well compared to the way he treated Soviet POWs – may God console their immortal souls.

Finally sooner or later we will have to sit down and talk with the bad guys. That time will come sooner rather than later if we treat their fighters well.

God bless

Richard W. Comerford
Anonymous | 09.30.06 - 11:12 am | #

Of course that's not the argument I'm making. The laws of war make clear that lawful combatants meet -- at least -- the following minimum conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Geneva III, Art. 4(A)(2).

The laws of war have always been designed to create a bright-line rule regarding who is entitled to their protection. Insurgents who wear no identifying uniforms and attack civilians indiscriminately are unquestionably unentitled to those protections, and have always been so.
anon | 09.30.06 - 11:16 am | #

Richard,

I understand your argument, and it's one that's always supported the U.S.'s strict adherence to Geneva (and, in fact, exceeding its requirements). But this isn't a war like any we've fought before, and it isn't an enemy like any we've fought before. It beheads journalists. It blows up civilians. It slaughters the innocent with glee. I'm not going to listen to arguments that, if only we didn't waterboard, they'd stop doing these things. They did them before waterboarding became public.

If you want to oppose waterboarding and all other forms of inhumane treatmant on moral grounds, that's fine. I basically agree with you there. But don't base your arguments on the nobility of our opponents. That's just a non-starter. And at its base, it blames us for their atrocities.
anon | 09.30.06 - 11:23 am | #

Richard,

I understand your argument, and it's one that's always supported the U.S.'s strict adherence to Geneva (and, in fact, exceeding its requirements). But this isn't a war like any we've fought before, and it isn't an enemy like any we've fought before. It beheads journalists. It blows up civilians. It slaughters the innocent with glee. I'm not going to listen to arguments that, if only we didn't waterboard, they'd stop doing these things. They did them before waterboarding became public.

If you want to oppose waterboarding and all other forms of inhumane treatmant on moral grounds, that's fine. I basically agree with you there. But don't base your arguments on the nobility of our opponents. That's just a non-starter. And at its base, it blames us for their atrocities.
anon | 09.30.06 - 11:23 am | #

Tom,

Doesn't the intent behind the act affect its morality? Cutting off someone's hand is very different morally if a doctor does it.

We've already established that the use of force is not, by itself, immoral. Thus, if torture is intrinsically immoral, then it must be because of either its effect on the prisoner or on the torturer.

War has horrors, but isn't held to be sinful because of trauma inflicted on the participants.

If "outrages on human dignity" is the (nebulous) problem with torture, then we can certainly agree that the use of a putative "truth serum" would be torture, as it denies free will.

I don't think that torture is the most effective argument, and if it's intrinsically immoral then we shouldn't do it, but until we can really figure out both what torture is and precisely why its wrong our argument is just a gut feeling.
HokiePundit | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 11:40 am | #

The issue I think is being confused. This has nothing to do with legal or illegal combatants. It is about the immorality of torture and more specifically about the failure of the higher circles of our government in permitting it's practice.

If we become like our enemies, then who exactly are our enemies? I think that if Bush's PR people really wanted to boost His ratings, a cleverly worded speech "reversing gears" on the torture issue would have supporters flocking to the Republican camp.Considering the Democratic alternatives, even if President Bush isn't morally opposed to torture, such a statement would be the best thing for our nation.
The Demos would come into power with the precedent of torture being OK.
Yeah, thats all we need!
John Kasaian | 09.30.06 - 11:55 am | #

This discussion is really starting to get ridiculous.
I wish all this moral-equivalence/"reciprocity" BSing would just stop. All it's doing is further undermining public morale.

BTW, anyone here heard of "Bojinka"?

http://www.johnreilly.info/Bulle...wtopic.php? t=61
Jayson | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 12:45 pm | #

Doesn't the intent behind the act affect its morality?

Not if the act is intrinsically evil (like abortion and torture, for example). Intrinsically evil acts can never be made good through intentions or circumstances.

Thus, if torture is intrinsically immoral, then it must be because of either its effect on the prisoner or on the torturer.

Like abortion, torture is evil by the nature of its object: which is to say, it is evil because of what one chooses to do, irrespective of what circumstances obtain or what one intends to accomplish by doing it.
Zippy | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 2:23 pm | #

The stifling, self-satisfied smugness of this stuff is just choking.

YOU HAVE A POINT. A GOOD POINT. THERE IS MUCH IN WHAT YOU SAY.

But it isn't true that everything that looks like torture is necessarily torture. THAT is a legitimate question. Whether, when, why people can be waterboarded or beaten with hoses is a QUESTION that can be asked. I'm NOT saying those things are allowable. I am insisting however that certain amounts under certain conditions of them MIGHT be allowable, whether we like it or not. It's an arguable point.

High-handed lumping together of all arguments as "pro-torture" or "utilitarian" simply won't fit the bill. Decibels and emotionalism won't substitute for discussion. And what I rarely see here is DISCUSSION. Mostly I see cattiness, and sarcasm, and rodomontade.

There was once a post in which you talked about John Paul's Christian humanism and how we ought to start thinking about torture in relation to the dignity of man. I thought, "Wow! Mark is ready for a long-term, deep-level DISCUSSION, rather than a finger-pointing, "shut-up-you-torturing-swine!" debate. But nothing much seemed to come of it.

It should. But it requires a different attitude from the Crusading cause-oriented one that you usually adopt. You're a brilliant guy...not everyone who disagrees with you is a moral pervert...I wish you'd consider giving it a try.
Jeff | 09.30.06 - 2:30 pm | #

I agree with Jeff. Let's have a reasonable discussion about whether, when, and why we can participate in utterly evil acts.
Kathy | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 2:41 pm | #

Whether, when, why people can be waterboarded or beaten with hoses is a QUESTION that can be asked.

No, it isn't. Civilized men don't ask those kinds of questions. The deep, abiding horror of the last year or so of debates on this topic is that so many people think that "when is it OK to beat a man with a rubber hose?" is a perfectly legitimate question for a civilized man to ask.

It isn't.

One of the truly terrible things about modern scientific society is that it thinks that every question is a legitimate question: that merely asking the question doesn't place on in the camp of the moral perverts and barbarians, as long as one doesn't presume an answer. But the reality is that sometimes it does. Some questions, when asked in earnest - e.g. "How close to torturing our prisoners can we come without technically torturing" are themselves wicked, by the nature of the question itself.
Zippy | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 2:44 pm | #

Zippy,

So torture is evil because we choose to hurt another person and disrespect his humanity.

Was Joshua wrong for having Achan (and his family!) executed? Achan's sin had resulted in the death of many of his countrymen and threatened to derail Israel's fulfillment of God's command to conquer Canaan. The same logic which opposes torture would seem to argue that Joshua should have kept Achan imprisoned until he returned the goods he stole from Jericho and repented of his sin while either putting the campaign for Canaan on hold or wasting more lives on doomed attacks on Ai.

It seems to me that if war is morally legitimate, then torture in wartime is legitimate as well if used for the purpose of saving lives and establishing peace and justice.
HokiePundit | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 2:49 pm | #

Anon:

Thank you for your kind reply in which you posted in part: “But don't base your arguments on the nobility of our opponents. That's just a non-starter. And at its base, it blames us for their atrocities.”

As I posted earlier some of the bad guys are scumbags. Then again some of the folks on our side are scumbags too. We do not hold the moral high ground in this conflict. We came into this war with a lot of baggage (Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima et al). We are also defending a culture that promotes abortion, artificial contraception, divorce and sodomy. It would be a mistake to say that we are morally superior to our enemies.

Also as discussed earlier the fighting on our side is increasingly being done by people who a generation ago Western governments would have classified as spies and mercenaries. In Iraq all too many of the fire fights are between guys in beards, dressed in civilian cloths and who come from foreign countries and are paid wages to fight. The Geneva Convention simply does not make sense in light of the current conflict. Also said Convention did not prevent Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima et al. Ultimately it is just a piece of paper.

We must seize the moral high ground. It is going to be a long war (As you know the re-conquest of Spain lasted from @ 720 AD to @ 1492 AD). We can best seize the moral high ground by loving our enemies – even as we try to put a bullet in their heads. In my opinion the best to start is for our side to come out and say we will treat everyone in this conflict, friend or foe, with respect for his God given human dignity. Some guys on the other side will respond in kind. A positive response will also open the door for dialogue.

God bless

Richard W. Comerford
Anonymous | 09.30.06 - 2:51 pm | #

HP

While it may seem to you, it does not seem to the Church. You are free to follow what you seem; you are not free to credibly deem it consonant with what the Church follows.
Liam | 09.30.06 - 3:06 pm | #

The same logic which opposes torture would seem to argue that Joshua should have ...

Since I don't know what you are referring to when you say "the same logic which opposes torture" I have no idea what else it would imply.

It seems to me that if war is morally legitimate, then torture in wartime is legitimate as well ...

Why does it seem that way? Torture and killing are different acts. There are several categories of killing: execution, self-defense, wartime, murder, etc. War isn't an act, it is a whole ensemble of acts.

You may be interested to know that according to St. Thomas Acquinas it is immoral to intend to kill in self-defense, acting as an individual on your own behalf. It may be licit if your attacker dies by accident, when you respond with deadly force to halt his attack, but you musn't intend to kill him as a means to your defense. Only the competent authority may intend to kill, as in execution and in wartime (and then under very circumsacribed conditions, of course).

I recommend Proportionalism and the Natural Law Tradition by Christopher Kaczor as a fairly short text which can help you get a handle on a lot of this stuff. Far easier than trying to work through the Summa.
Zippy | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 3:12 pm | #

From time to time I think of William Buckley, not the founder of the NR, but the American intelligence officer who was seized by Islamic militants in Beirut and eventually tortured to death.

Anyone who has ever been at risk of something similar must react to it. There is always a little splinter of terror in the brain which never goes away. This psychological inflammation must be ignored for a time. But that doesn't mean it disappears.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 5:06 pm | #

But where is the borderline between torture and "rough interrogation?" It seems like those in favor of using some physical force are willing to do most anything to get information and are willing to endorse anything called torture--which is cruel. On the other hand those against torture seem to be against anything the slightest bit physical being done to get information which could save lives--which is absurd.
Part of the problem, I think, is that the media keeps mixing apples, oranges, lettuce and peanuts.
For example, these terrorist caught on a battle field dressed as civilians are Not covered by the Geneva Convention, but the media talks and writes as if to do anything to them would be against the G. Accords.
And every reporter, network, and commentator seems to have their own definition of everything under debate including "terrorist," "torture," "spies," and POW.
And, frankly, I think this constant scrambling around of words by the media is to help defeat anything being done.
Pardon me, but I am far more cynical and suspicious of the intentions of the media than I am of George Bush & Co. who I am convinced wants nothing more than to leave office without another 9-11 taking place on his watch and he will accept the legal advise that gives him the most leverage to achieve that goal. In otherwords I think he has a psychological ghost haunting him from 9-11 that leads him to push much harder in many areas than some like. Or is it his opponents who "don't get it" and are being led around by the ghost of Viet Nam?
Deacon John M. Bresnahan | 09.30.06 - 5:41 pm | #

Deacon John M. Bresnahan:

You posted in part: “where is the borderline between torture and rough interrogation?"

I never heard of the term: rough “interrogation”; but then again there is a lot I have not heard of. I do not think that there can be a borderline.

How do you rough interrogate a subject who does not speak English?

What do you do when under rough interrogation the subject starts screaming out in pain words that the interpreter cannot understand?

If the subject looses control of his bowels and bladder during rough interrogation is that a sign he is telling the truth in a foreign language or is it a sign that he is lying in a foreign language or is it a sign that he so frightened he no longer knows the difference between truth and falsehood?

I can hardly wait to get recalled to active duty and get my hands on a subject so that I can do a little rough interrogation and help win the war on terror.

God help us.

Richard W. Comerford
Anonymous | 09.30.06 - 7:05 pm | #

So if it's Jonah Goldberg, then he is raising "interesting questions"...

Everyone else is a combox apologist for torture.

Riiiight
Squiboda | 09.30.06 - 7:39 pm | #

The impression President Bush has created in the last three weeks is what wanted most this month was to leave office with immunity from prosecution under the War Crimes Act.
Liam | 09.30.06 - 7:41 pm | #

Ah, the clear lines drawn by the non combatant "torture prohibitionists" with those eagle eyes. With the cheering that went on by such, far and wide when a neatly placed 500 lb bomb was executed on a rather remote spot solely on one man (with perhaps another at same location) and with a not impossible capture situation - who then LIVED through it to stare his "torturer" in the face before suffering to his demise, I can see a certain truth in Jonah's statement:

Yet, according to the torture prohibitionists, there must be a complete ban on anything that even looks like torture, regardless of context, even though we'd never dream of a blanket ban on killing.

and it is then a bit difficult to rationalize those neat lines of demarkation between the two. And it was simply justified by the torture prohibs as a good thing because it was naively seen as bringing an end to a lot of future deaths. Hmmm - we now have proof of that good, or rather simply a replacement perhaps even worse?? Why not then just release a captured terrorist, known for his responsibility in bombings that have killed many innocents, but just who isn't coming through with more info - release him in some remote spot and then just blow him up?? Yes, the fog of war can cause a lot of confusion in reasonings - even for the anointed moralists.
anontoo | 09.30.06 - 8:02 pm | #

Do you think The New England Journal of Medicine will let me write an article on brain surgery? I've never done it, and I've never watched it, but I'm clever and willing.

How about it?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 8:11 pm | #

anontoo:

You posted in part: “Yet, according to the torture prohibitionists, there must be a complete ban on anything that even looks like torture, regardless of context, even though we'd never dream of a blanket ban on killing.”

Torture: Torturing prisoners for information that can be processed into actionable intelligence simply does not work. Do a goggle search. See if you can find a verifiable case, with real names, dates and places, where a prisoner who was tortured produced solid information which was processed into actionable intelligence which resulted in a battlefield victory. If you do find a hard case please tell me. When I was a young soldier learning the counter intelligence ropes my masters, some of whom had been POWs, knew of no verifiable case. Torture psychologically ruins the subject for further exploitation, and it morally ruins the interrogator and it produces a rot which infects your whole organization.

Killing: I support of blanket ban on killing – but not the use of force. I was recently asked by a private security company to draw up very simple rules of engagement for a 54 man Special Response Team which was charged with securing an evacuation point for American citizens. This us what I came up with;

A weapon is fired –

1. As a final option
2. In the immediate defense
3. Of innocent human life

I know it seems stupid but it works. The objective is not to kill but to protect. If you drop a bad guy and he survives you still have a responsibility to take care of him. I have been accused of having a lot of blood on my hands. I have heard myself described as a professional killer. I was once accused of purportedly executing three guys who murdered a US serviceman. However I never had trouble sleeping at night. After 35 years of carrying a gun I still do not drink or use drugs. I think this is because I never murdered or tried to murder. I never tortured or tired to torture. I never abused or tired to abuse someone. (All credit goes to my wife).

If we continue with this stupidity of torturing prisoners a lot of guys will not be able to sleep at night. A lot of immortal souls will be placed in danger. The enemy will win.

God bless

Richard W. Comerford
Anonymous | 09.30.06 - 8:36 pm | #

Do a goggle search. See if you can find a verifiable case, with real names, dates and places, where a prisoner who was tortured produced solid information which was processed into actionable intelligence which resulted in a battlefield victory.

Mr. Comerford, I doubt if Google would have that information!!

Then again (even though you haven't really defined your terms), you could actually talk to those now actively involved with the captured - and more than likely discover that different personalities give forth in all kinds of various levels of interrogation!

In answer, I reply "When do you get to kill people?" In war, the answer is: "When they are trying to kill you." However, civilized standards of warfare have always said that once the enemy passes from the status of "combatant" to "POW", the equation changes. They are not equally killable after they surrender.

I always find in the general population of human nature (includes all) that when the moral book as the formerly quoted basis for the high ground fails, you can then always refer to the civil books for justifications! Pretty convenient for the anointed moralists again.
anontoo | 09.30.06 - 8:55 pm | #

For example, these terrorist caught on a battle field dressed as civilians are Not covered by the Geneva Convention, but the media talks and writes as if to do anything to them would be against the G. Accords.

That is a controversial interpretation. Common Article 3 applies to non-signatories, non-state powers, and those out of uniform. And in any case, as a moral matter it makes no difference. Torture is intrinsically evil, like abortion. It is not possible for an act of torture to be morally licit, ever.

I love the errant nonsense from the other commenter that the difference between torturing a captive and killing a combatant on the battlefield is oh so subtle and difficult to understand. Postmodernity has truly overtaken the political Right.
Zippy | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 8:59 pm | #

There's an article in this week end's Zenit (Catholic) news service about how Christianity is dying in Britain. For instance, less than 10% go to church in the 20-29 age group, 5% in the 15-19 age group.

As this process continues in the West, we will become more and more vulnerable to the social diseases of moral decay, lack of solidarity with each other, social breakdown. It's as if the social organism were losing its immune system and becoming vulnerable to infection.

*This* is our greatest danger. If we are strong, morally, it would take a lot more than the force that violent Islam can muster to bring us down. Look at the beating some countries took in WWII - and still survived.

Strength comes from inside first, from the soul.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 9:39 pm | #

Jonah's coming at this from a conservative, Jewish, respectful toward religion but not particularly serious about it, perspective. As such, he doesn't much care that he is basically voicing the typical, utilitarian, end-justifies-the-means argument with which most Americans are at home.

Utilitarian, yes. Jewish, no.
Christopher | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 9:43 pm | #

Don't know whether this thread has passed the point of reasonable discussion (assuming such was ever possible), but two comments above raise interesting questions, and I wonder whether they might be entertained out of intellectual curiosity, without being treated with the same I-don't-care-if-I-persuade-you-
because-you-are-wrong approach that this torture debate seems to generate.

Pavel:

The whole point of torture as traditionally practised is to make you wish you were dead.

Who defines the "lawfulness" of the combatant?

I've been trying to say since the beginning of this thread that I - and others here - have seen the face of diabolic evil in the human face.

If you have never had this experience - though I think most of us have at some time in our lives - you will understand that, as a Chicago detective put it, 'the devil walks the Earth like a natural man'.

This countenance is like a second face that can be put on over that face which every human being was born with. Once you put it on, only Christ Himself can remove it, and even then it will not come off easily or painlessly.

Suffering is the lot of all human beings, but the suffering in regaining one's humanity is perhaps the most terrible agony of all.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 11:18 pm | #

" Pavel:

"The whole point of torture as traditionally practised is to make you wish you were dead.



"Categorically false. The whole point of torture is to make the victim wish it would stop. Death might be one route to that cessation. Does this matter? Well, it certainly feels as if there ought to be a distinction (whether or not entirely on the side of the spectrum past evil) between an act that offers only the escape of cold death and one that offers a return to peace and perhaps even forgiveness."

Indeed? You speak from experience, Justin? Have you tortured people? Been tortured? Watched torture?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 11:24 pm | #

I'm sorry, Pavel, I was under the impression that we could have a discussion about moral principles deriving from the consciences that God grants to all of us regardless of our proximity to horror. If that is not the case — if God allows us moral insight only once we've personally suffered moral outrage — then I'll book my flight to Iran tomorrow.

If, on the other hand, I am blessed with even the mildest ability to discern moral law without having had my fingernails wrenched out, I'll refer you back to my observation above. If it helps, I'll add this: my observation, based on things I've experienced, seen, and imagined, is that the total view is always significant. That is to say that the outcome (which would, of course, include irreparable harms) is relevant in shaping the nature of the experience.
Justin Katz | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 11:41 pm | #

Justin, I think you misunderstood my statement, taking it where it was never intended to go.

"If, on the other hand, I am blessed with even the mildest ability to discern moral law without having had my fingernails wrenched out, I'll refer you back to my observation above."

I am sure you are blessed with an ability to discern moral law. But that's not where I'm coming from.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 10.01.06 - 12:15 am | #

Christopher:

My point is that, as a Jew, he is not bound by the Christian condemnation of consequentialism found in Romans 3:8. I don't know if Jewish ethics embraces that condemnation, so my intention is to cut him slack and not hold him to Christian standards.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 10.01.06 - 2:15 am | #

Fantastic the pretzels the human mind will twist itself into in order to try to make the words "intrinsically immoral" not mean what they mean.

And so to bed!
Mark Shea | Homepage | 10.01.06 - 2:32 am | #

anontoo:

Thank you for your kind reply.

If you cannot find a single verifiable case on goggle then how do you know torture works as an intelligence tool? I am told that we have 4,000 years of recorded history. However no one can produce a single documented, verificable case that torture works as an intelligence tool.

No case from the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Gulf War I or Gulf WAR II.

So how do you know torture works as an intelligence tool?

God bless

Richard W. Comerford
Richard W. Comerford | 10.01.06 - 5:30 am | #

Mark--
To my knowledge, Jonah Goldberg is not a Jew in the religious, or even especially in the cultural sense, and his mother is of Christian heritage. His religion is politics, and his bias is conservative, and that is where he is coming from on this issue. With him, torture *is* a utilitarian issue, first and foremost, and what is "moral" to him in this regard is what is good, in his estimation, for the nation-state.
Rob | 10.01.06 - 8:59 am | #

To be clear, I understand that Jonah Goldberg, whose father is Jewish, was raised in the Jewish faith, but I've seen him describe himself in print as agnostic. Maybe he's since returned to the fold?
Rob | 10.01.06 - 9:09 am | #

My point is that, as a Jew, he is not bound by the Christian condemnation of consequentialism found in Romans 3:8. I don't know if Jewish ethics embraces that condemnation, so my intention is to cut him slack and not hold him to Christian standards.

I understand your point, Mark. I was just making the minor observation that distinctly Jewish ethics were not present in his moral deliberations as conveyed in that column, that being "conservative, Jewish" did not necessarily imply a utilitarian perspective.

Perhaps I'm just nitpicking. If so my apologies.

Religious Jews appear conflicted on the issue, juding by this article in the Jewish Week by Michael J. Broyde who authors The Bounds of Wartime Military Conduct in Jewish Law: An Expansive Conception -- emphasis on "expansive" in the title; contrasted with various statements issued by Rabbis for Human Rights.
Christopher | Homepage | 10.01.06 - 10:32 am | #

-- Oops, forgot to close the HTML link there. Pardon.
Christopher | Homepage | 10.01.06 - 10:34 am | #

Mr. Comerford, look up the "Bojinka" plot in the Philippines.
Jayson | Homepage | 10.01.06 - 12:17 pm | #

I was just making the minor observation that distinctly Jewish ethics were not present in his moral deliberations as conveyed in that column, that being "conservative, Jewish" did not necessarily imply a utilitarian perspective.

Fair enough.

Thanks for the bibliography tip. I'm not surprised there's division of opinion in Jewish moral thought. This is a classic case where the old adage "Two Jews, three opinions" is likely to obtain, given its complexity.

My goal, as I mentioned, was simply to make sure that Goldberg was not unfairly blamed for not holding to Christian, much less Catholic, premisses of moral reasoning.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 10.01.06 - 12:23 pm | #

Well I'm against intrinsically immoral acts of torture. Whatever they are.

Now.

Can we please define in legal terms what they are? We don't want torturers to go free because of the law was vague.
mudsack | 10.01.06 - 4:42 pm | #

Some issues to consider regarding govt torture:
http://video.google.com/ videopla...316845773056069

This one is hard to listen to but important. (start at 37 min. in):
http://video.google.com/videopla...8098&q=mk- ultra
tim | 10.01.06 - 6:10 pm | #

Jayson:

Thank you for your kind reply.

The little of know of the case is that the subject survived some two months of alleged torture. He finally talked when he was told that he was purportedly being sent to Israel.

Please correct me if I have the fact wrong (as usual).

If an agent can hold out for two months of alleged non-stop torture than it would apper that torture is not a very good intelligence tool.

God bless

Richard W. Comerford
Richard W. Comerford | 10.01.06 - 6:54 pm | #

mudsack:

You posted in part: "Can we please define in legal terms what they are?"

In my pompous opinion you cannot define torture. You can define humane treatment.

God bless

Richard W. Comerford
Richard W. Comerford | 10.01.06 - 6:56 pm | #

OK, here's one more. I should warn you about the one listed above regarding mk-ultra. She mentions the church, but keep in mind this is from the interpretations of a child subjected to this. It would be like the children at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo's use of the Koran. It is basically anything used to break a person down. It (I think) shouldn't be directed at the actual religions.

So, there is also this one:
http://video.google.com/videopla...8062& q=franklin

If you are going to discuss torture, best know what is meant by it.
tim | 10.01.06 - 6:56 pm | #

As for what happens when one of our guys get captured, please. Don't insult everyone's intelligence by arguing that the insurgents will follow Geneva if only we would.

It seems to me that (1) the other guys will torture our guys if we follow Geneva, and (2) the other guys will torture our guys if we don't follow Geneva. So, by not following Geneva, we gain nothing, but lose our soul as a nation in the process.
c matt | 10.02.06 - 9:39 am | #

c. Matt:

There is a lot of sense in what you wrote however...

In WWII both the USA and Gemrmay treated each other's prisoners remarkably well. Indeed compared to most beligerents in most conflicts the two countries went out of their way to treat POWs humanely. At the same time the Germans, when they were not wiping out the European Jews, were happily starving Sovient POWs to death. While the USA was busily bombing civilians in Germany and Japan.

THe enemy does not have to be perfect in order to dialogue with him.

The enemy can be dealth with. In the recent conflict Hezbollah wanted to trade the two IDF soldiers it lifted for the prisoners Israel held. Israel would not, it appears, even consider the offer, and instead launched a bloody and failed attempt to rescue its soldiers by main force. They are still MIA.

We have to try and dialogue with the enemy. If only for the sake of any future American POWs.

God bless

Richard W. Comerford
Richard W. Comerford | 10.02.06 - 9:54 am | #

It's not just Jewish consequentialism v. a Christian prohibition on it here. The argument that because killing is permitted, anything less than killing must be permitted--I will almost guarantee you that Jonah does not actually believe this, has not actually thought about it, is just trying it on because it sounds good.

I am only fake Jewish, but even I know that the commandment is not actually "thou shalt not kill" but "thou shalt not murder".

It is not, in fact, permissible to summarily execute prisoners once they are prisoners--once they are "hors de combat," have laid down their arms and been handcuffed and are sitting a cell. It's different on the battlefield because they might shoot you. And even if they are unarmed civilians--you are not supposed to shoot them knowing that they're unarmed civilians.

Well, torture intrinsically involves someone who is unarmed, handcuffed, and in your control. As much as pain, it's all about absolute power and absolute powerlessness. In that, it has more in common with rape than with killing--and it's no coincidence that being raped or tortured creates a much higher incidence of posttraumatic stress disorder than being shot at in a battlefield setting.

You can kill in self-defense. You cannot rape or torture in self-defense .

I mean, I bet Jonah supports the legality of the death penalty. Does logic demand that he also thinks the state should be given the power to impose sentences of torture and rape? I doubt it...
Katherine | 10.02.06 - 9:57 am | #

Mark:

1) To touch briefly upon our last exchange at Rod's blog, it is not that my feelings were hurt with your vicious remarks that were directed toward Kathleen Reilly, it's that I think they were very out of synch with Christianity. There are times when it seems you're merely defending a group and its bylaws (the Catholic church and its catechism), not living and defending a life of love.

2) It's not that people are trying "to make the words 'intrinsically immoral' not mean what they mean." It's that we do not accept as gospel the assertion that torture is intrinsically immoral; please try to understand our position before attacking it.

3) I'm not sure Romans 3:8 can be invoked without exposition or commentary, since in the context of the rest of the letter, that verse seems to be criticizing the idea of letting sin continue so that grace may abound (cf. Rom 6:1). Paul furthermore writes, in Romans 13:4, that the government does not bear its sword in vain. If the government can use the sword while individual civilians are to turn the other cheek, is it clear that the government cannot employ torture if doing so may save hundreds or thousands of lives?

If ultimately your arguments reduce to mere feelings of moral outrage, they're not arguments; they're rants. And if your arguments reduce to "the Catechism says so", you must realize that the arguments are going to be unpersuasive even to some Christians who cling to sola Scriptura.
Bubba | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 10:05 am | #

Katherine, to invoke the hypothetical that Hokie mentioned and to which there have been few responses, if an evil man has poisoned you and knows where the antidote is, it's not the case that he is absolutely powerless.

Even in custody and restrained, his refusal to talk is an expression of power that, if it is not countered, would result in your death.

To bring it back to the real world, the captured leader of a terrorist organization would have the power to stop the murder of innocents were he to reveal the organization's ongoing plots. His refusal to use that power is itself an powerful act. In custody he (thankfully) has less power, certainly, but let's not pretend that he's as powerless as a victim of rape.
Bubba | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 10:12 am | #

It changes the nature of the first person's behavior, however, if he intends to inflict so much pain that the other will choose death or if he wants desperately for the villain to give up the information and return the family.

First, I do not think you have clearly identified two different ends - in fact, you have not identified a true end for the first situtation. Unless the guy is just some sicko, all you have identified is that his method is more severe. Why does he want to inflict so much pain that the other will choose death? To get some information? If that is the case, then the two "intents" are no different - only the severity of the means differ.

Even if there is some difference in intent, both are using the person as a means to an end rather than respecting the dignity of the indivdual - which means respecting a person's humanity as an end in itself (something that seems to be directly supported by Genesis where God indicates man is the only earthly creature God willed for man's own sake - i.e., not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself). A lot of sin has its origin in treating other people as means to an end.
c matt | 10.02.06 - 10:18 am | #

Richard:

I have no doubt you are correct. My point was really directed to those who believe we should go ahead and torture because the other guys will do it regardless. If you take such premise to be true, all it shows is that we gain nothing by employing torture vis-a-vis what the other side will do, so why do it?

As you point out, we might gain something by sticking to humane treatment. So why not treat humanely? Seems our choices are do evil with no hope of reciprocity, or do good with some hope of reciprocity. Seems like a no-brainer.

(And yes, this is at least a quasi- utilitarian argument).

I suppose there is a third possibility - that if we torture, it will scare the other guys into stopping their torture so we will stop ours. Somehow, I find that the least likely of all. More likely, it would just cause the torture on both sides to escalate.
c matt | 10.02.06 - 10:28 am | #

c Matt:

Thank you taking the time to clarify your thoughts for me...not that they were not clear I am just dense.

You posted in part:

"I suppose there is a third possibility - that if we torture, it will scare the other guys into stopping their torture so we will stop ours."

I think history shows tha torture may not be a viable intelligence tool but it is great for hurting, punishing and intimidating people. The problem in this war is that the players on the other side want to be martyrs. In an onther related combox a reader kindly directed me to a case in which an enemt agent held out for @ 67 days to torture until finally tricked into confessing by threat of extradiction to Israel.

This would not be a good option for your side.

God bless

Richard W. Comerford
Richard W. Comerford | 10.02.06 - 10:39 am | #

Bubba--

well, a rape victim could have information too.

In both situations, the only power they have left is over their mind, and you are trying to break that. It may be that they are concealing information that could save innocent lives. Or it may be that they are entirely innocent and have nothing at all to tell you. Or somewhere in between. But it is a situation where they are physically powerless and physically at your mercy.

The antidote hypothetical is clever, but it is clever because:
1) you know the prisoner is guilty
2) you know he has information that will save a life
3) you have an immediately verifiable way of knowing if he has given you true information.

I am not actually so interested in moral philosophy 101 debates involving these hypotheticals. I am not Christian, and I am not 100% anti-consequentialist, but I know that however often the ends actually justify the means, they justify the means a hell of a lot less often than human beings think at the time.

I just know too much about the actual use of these policies. When you read about Dilawar, and Maher Arar, and many of these other cases, it just becomes obscene to sit here and debate this like we're watching 24 or sitting in a law school class being given hard hypotheticals by our professors.
Katherine | 10.02.06 - 10:46 am | #

I agree with Richard on the inadvisability of torturing to scare the enemy out of doing it themselves.

The best example of someone even getting close to doing that to a Muslim autocracy was Vlad Tepes. Can I assume that nobody here wants to go there?
Ed the Roman | 10.02.06 - 10:51 am | #

It's that we do not accept as gospel the assertion that torture is intrinsically immoral...

It isn't just the Catechism. It is in the encyclical Veritatis Splendour and in Gaudium et Spes from Vatican Council II. Dissent on the intrisic evil of torture is on the same level as dissent on the intrinsic evil of abortion.
Zippy | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 10:52 am | #

So, Zippy, abortion is morally impermissible even to safe the life of the mother?

You're missing my point: citing Catholic encyclicals in addition to Catholic catechism doesn't mean a whole lot to non-Catholics.
Bubba | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 11:13 am | #

So, Zippy, abortion is morally impermissible even to safe the life of the mother?

Yes.

You're missing my point: citing Catholic encyclicals in addition to Catholic catechism doesn't mean a whole lot to non-Catholics.

Are you Catholic?
Zippy | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 11:32 am | #

Katherine:

You posted in part:

"I am not Christian"

And may I ask "why not"?

God bless

Richard W. Comerford
Richard W. Comerford | 10.02.06 - 11:42 am | #

"I'm not sure Romans 3:8 can be invoked without exposition or commentary, since in the context of the rest of the letter, that verse seems to be criticizing the idea of letting sin continue so that grace may abound (cf. Rom 6:1)."

Isn't Romans about justification by faith in the salvific sacrifice of the blood of Jesus Christ?

"Paul furthermore writes, in Romans 13:4, that the government does not bear its sword in vain."

But that sword also severed Paul's head from his neck because he disobeyed it. "...it [the government, authority] is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer." Romans 13,4.

So was Saint Paul an evildoer?

In any case, in no way can Romans 3 be intepreted, IMHO, as an encouragement to do evil so that good may come of it.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 11:50 am | #

Richard, I don't mind the question, but the answer is too long and personal to post here.
Katherine | 10.02.06 - 12:00 pm | #

"Isn't Romans about justification by faith in the salvific sacrifice of the blood of Jesus Christ?"

'Blood' being metaphor for 'life'. And yet, metaphor and literal description flow seamlessly into one another, for God's creation is a poem.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 12:06 pm | #

"Isn't Romans about justification by faith in the salvific sacrifice of the blood of Jesus Christ?"

Exactly right, Pavel, which is why I doubt Romans 3 has anything definitive to say on the subject of whether the government has the authority to torture in limited circumstances.

I agree that Paul doesn't encourage in Romans 3 (or anywhere else) doing evil for good results, but what he writes about the government and the sword suggests that the individual's moral responsibilities and the government's aren't identical; the former should turn the other cheek, the latter should punish criminals.

Paul wasn't an evildoer: Rome abused its authority to bear the sword, but it has that authority nevertheless.


To answer Zippy's question, I'm not a Catholic: I'm a Baptist, so while I grant that the writings of the Catholic church should be taken as seriously as any other Christian work, I do not hold that they are inspired or authoritative.
Bubba | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 12:11 pm | #

"Paul wasn't an evildoer: Rome abused its authority to bear the sword, but it has that authority nevertheless."

Can we put it this way: Authority has the power to bear the sword, but neither authority nor any individual has permission from God to do evil.

We may be looking at a linguistic ambiguity here - as we know, 'authority' can be used in the English language in more ways than one.

What was it that Rome held against Paul? Perhaps it sincerely considered Paul to be a subversive trying to unsettle the rightful authority of the Emperor and the basis of society by proclaiming the singular supremacy of Jesus Christ over the human soul and human destiny. Paul was one of the first to suffer for this, but not the last. The fate of St. Thomas More comes to mind, for example.

Not doubting the sincere wish of the Imperial Roman government to uphold the basis of social stability - what it considered a right and proper respect for the Emperor and the gods of the Empire - in executing Paul, Rome sets itself against the true God by executing His apostle.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 12:25 pm | #

Pavel, I think we can both agree that "neither authority nor any individual has permission from God to do evil," but that doesn't solve any problems unless one relies on the Catholic teaching that torture is always immoral.

There is the possibility that the authorities and the individual have different responsibilities: what would be considered an act of vengeance and vigilantism if performed by an individual might be considered justice if performed by the courts.
Bubba | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 12:56 pm | #

Katherine:

Thank you for your kind reply.

Some of the best Christians I have ever met were not Christians. When I was a young soldier a Rabbi took the time to expalin the Cathoilc faith to I and a couple of other paratroopers. He knew our Faith inside and out. When asked why he was not a Catholic he simply responded "I do not have the gift of faith".

(He also knew a lot about historical incidents which are usually trotted out to beat the attack the Church - Crusade, the Inquisitionet et al and he explained them in a very human way that showed the Chruch to be not nearly as dumb as it looked.)

In any case God loves you. Christ died for you. If you have the gift of faith the Church awaits you.

God bless

Richard W. Comerford
Richard W. Comerford | 10.02.06 - 1:08 pm | #

And if you don't have the gift of faith yet, the Church waits just the same.
Ed the Roman | 10.02.06 - 1:44 pm | #

"...what would be considered an act of vengeance and vigilantism if performed by an individual might be considered justice if performed by the courts."

But unless we transfer the power to decide and execute judgments to machines, the judgment and the execution of the judgment has to be carried out by human beings, who have souls which will be judged by One who is perfect truth and perfect light, from whom it is not possible to hide our inmost thoughts and feelings.

Perhaps someone who sincerely thought he was justified will not be condemned, even if he was not justified. In Catholic teaching you have to be aware that you are committing a mortal sin (a sin that separates you from God) in order to be held morally responsible for it. But an evil act is still an evil whether or not the agent of it knows and understands the evil. And that evil has to be expunged by God's precious blood.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 1:52 pm | #

Pavel, the question is, is some particular act -- such as an execution -- evil? Look, the same Mosaic law that forbade murder commanded capital punishment for murderers. I find it hard to believe that an officer of ancient Israel would have to atone for doing his job (i.e., executing a convicted murderer) when he was given that job by God Himself.
Bubba | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 3:43 pm | #

Bubba: Thanks for the answer. Your question makes more sense to me now. I have been mainly concerned with addressing dissenting Catholics on the issue of torture. The topic of why one ought to be a Catholic in the first place and accept the Catholic understanding of moral theology is, as I am sure you are aware, a much larger topic.
Zippy | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 4:13 pm | #

"Pavel, the question is, is some particular act -- such as an execution -- evil? Look, the same Mosaic law that forbade murder commanded capital punishment for murderers. I find it hard to believe that an officer of ancient Israel would have to atone for doing his job (i.e., executing a convicted murderer) when he was given that job by God Himself."

As a Catholic, though this is personal because I am by no means an authoritative spokesman, because I believe that everything is and will be known to God when He judges our souls, I believe that there will be no evasion and nothing hidden, including our inmost motivations and our state of self-knowledge of the quality of our acts.

Then we shall see. We shall stand naked before Him. And I believe that our self-judgment will be harsher than His glorious mercy, as long as we acknowledge the truth. But we will stand before Him not as representatives of an organization or a collective or other social body, but as individual persons. We do not have collective souls. We are not social insects. No one is responsible for your soul, asuming that you are competent, but you.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 4:33 pm | #

Zippy, I agree completely, but (it seems to me) if one needs to accept the authority of Catholic teaching to accept the idea that torture is intrinsically evil, maybe the latter isn't quite as obvious as some people seem to believe.

Pavel, I agree with the principle that we Baptists call soul competency, but just because we are individually responsible for our own souls, it does not follow that our moral responsibilities are identical: we are each to love our neighbors, certainly, but our duty to love may manifest itself differently depending on our positions in society -- as mother or father, as pastor or congregant, as boss or employee, as soldier or doctor.

The idea is that we are the body of Christ -- the body, not a homogenous mass of interchangeable cells, but eyes and ears and hands and feet. Each organ is to care for the others, but how they care for each other might not always be symmetrical.
Bubba | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 5:39 pm | #

...but (it seems to me) if one needs to accept the authority of Catholic teaching to accept the idea that torture is intrinsically evil, maybe the latter isn't quite as obvious as some people seem to believe.

One needen't accept the authority of the Roman Church to conclude it. As with contraception or any number of other moral topics, a natural law argument can be made. Whether these arguments are "obvious" or not is more a matter of the listener than the speaker. (C. Matt commented somewhere that many sins are rooted in treating human beings - sometimes really bad or really inconvenient ones - as if they were mere objects, a-personal means to an end. I would probably start even further up the chain than that, with the notion that some sorts of relations must necessarily be unconditional).

But many non-Catholics (either implicitly or explicitly) reject deontological moral reasoning - very roughly that there are certain categories of things we must never do, no matter what the consequences of not doing them - entirely. So it is inherently a much, much longer discussion; one which usually begins with figuring out just where the heck a particular person is coming from to begin with.
Zippy | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 11:31 pm | #

Zippy, I'm probably heading out of this here thread, but let me say this: if there's a persuasive natural-law argument against not torture, not only in general (which I think most of us can agree on, despite the tendency of some to paint others as sadists) but absolutely, the discussion would benefit from our hearing it.
Bubba | Homepage | 10.03.06 - 8:54 am | #

(I mean to say, "a persuasive natural-law argument against torture." There was a random "not" in there.)
Bubba | Homepage | 10.03.06 - 8:55 am | #

Richard,

If we can't define it, then we can't prohibit it.

When law is involved, everyone needs to be on the same page. Without definitions, that is not possible.

How are we going to prosecute people who torture if we can't define 'torture'?
David Davies | 10.03.06 - 9:03 pm | #

David Davies:

Thank you for yoru kind reply.

In the old days we were instructed to treat POWs humanely. We were told to treat them as we ourselves would wanted to be treeated if taken prisoner.

We even had a drill for battlefield captures called the "5 S's"

Seach & Secure
Segregate
Silence
Safeguard
Speed to the rear

If a solider mistreated a POW then he was liable for punishment. Maybe this drill was not good enough for a lawyer; but it made sense to dumb grunts like me.

God bless

Richard W. Comerford
Anonymous | 10.04.06 - 12:18 am | #

Richard,

You are welcome, and thank you. I do think it needs to be good enough for the lawyers.

David
mudsack | 10.04.06 - 10:46 pm | #