Mark:

Everything yous say is absolutely right. We must not torture and waterboarding is popular. But, the problem in my opininion seems to be that the majority of the American people; aka the voters; want to be safe at any cost. They do not want another 9/11 or any other terrorist attack to take place in the USA. So, the voters want the government to do whatever it takes to keep this from happening, even if it involves torture. If you will notice, not too many Democrats really come out that strongly against torture.
What needs to be articulated by somebody is how can terrorism be fought with out involving torture.
Bob | 10.31.07 - 3:18 pm | #

In the year 2000 Americans who knew what waterboarding was simply assumed that it is torture. Now, though, they come up with tortured rationalizations (yes, pun intended) to make it permissible for certain Americans to waterboard others. Disgusting.

I was relieved about the Mukasey nomination. The thought of having a competent professional at the helm of the DOJ after the disastrous tenure of Gonzales (Bush's yes man) was truly encouraging. Now, though, I am saddened. An intelligent lawyer and judge trying to weasel out this waterboarding business. It reminds me of Clinton's sleazy, "it depends on the what the meaning of the word 'is' is." But the moral stakes for the US are even higher now.
Phil | 10.31.07 - 3:29 pm | #

Mark,

You missed another choice quote right below that one from the SWJ website - fantastic! Note the second sentence and the care with which this guy states his understanding of the situation.

snip

Having been subjected to them all, I know these techniques, if in fact they are actually being used, are not dangerous when applied in training for short periods. However, when performed with even moderate intensity over an extended time on an unsuspecting prisoner – it is torture, without doubt. Couple that with waterboarding and the entire medley not only “shock the conscience” as the statute forbids -it would terrify you. Most people can not stand to watch a high intensity kinetic interrogation. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure watching or causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you to question the meaning of what it is to be an American.

endsnip

Has the Abolition of Man so much affected our countrymen that they can't recognize the evil this is?

Tim
Tim H | 10.31.07 - 4:20 pm | #

I just e-mailed my senators last night to protest the use of torture. I'd like to see a few dozen people post here saying that they've done the same thing, perhaps referring their elected officials to this blog and essay?
Chris Chan | 10.31.07 - 4:29 pm | #

"The Wall Street Journal (aka Pravda for the Rubber Hose Right) ..."

I guess that makes the National Review the Isvestia of the "Rubber Hose Right."
Hapax Legomenon | 10.31.07 - 4:47 pm | #

After reading it I can say I am a partisan of Jimmy Akin's insights into this issue with all due respect to Mark.

Objectivity is the goal.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 10.31.07 - 5:33 pm | #

What manner of men were they
Who looked upon the face of God
Manacled and stripped
And scourged Him
For the Security of the State—
Because it was their job.
Oh, bleeding Jesus – so dangerous!

What manner of men are they
Who cannot see the faces
Of those they seize
And torture
For the Security of the State—
Because it is their job.
Oh, bleeding Jesus!

They cannot see You
In the faces of their brothers.
They have crucified You in their hearts,
And emptied their mirrors of humanity.
Oh, blessed Jesus,
Hear our prayer, You
Who taught us to pray for the captor, too
freddy | 11.01.07 - 10:18 am | #

Moving, freddy, but not really pertinent to the issue at hand. After all, we can see our Lord in a murderer and yet put him in jail for life (become his captors) if we believe that to do so is just. And if we extract life-saving information from a terrorist, we see Christ in the lives that we save.

By the way, and I ask this without knowing the answer, does the Church have a position on the intrinsic morality of corporate punishment -- the whole spectrum from spanking your children to public floggings in Singapore?
frank sales | 11.01.07 - 1:05 pm | #

I of course meant corporal punishment!
frank sales | 11.01.07 - 1:05 pm | #

"extract"?

With what, a syringe?
Tim J. | Homepage | 11.01.07 - 1:35 pm | #

Mr. Sales,
The point I was trying to make, in my (admittedly!) ham-fisted way, is that the Church cares as much for the soul of the captor as well as captive and victim.

And that when one party objectifies another, the result is grave evil.

A murderer must see his victim as an object. In doing so, he destroys his own soul.

The guard at a prison, on the other hand, can treat his prisoners with respect, or he can treat them as sub-human, and lose his soul.

Directives and practices that objectify human beings, for *whatever* reasons, even to save lives, must be rejected.
freddy | 11.01.07 - 3:54 pm | #

http://jimJimmy Akin's thoughts on this subject are the best I've seen. He takes it on from the objectivity of a moral theologian. I highly recommend these links.

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/ def...ing_tortur.html

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/ def...g_tortur_1.html

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/ def...g_tortur_2.html

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/ def...g_tortur_3.html

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/ def...nta_corpor.html
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 11.01.07 - 5:01 pm | #

"And if we extract life-saving information from a terrorist, we see Christ in the lives that we save."

Well, there's your problem right there. Try seeing Christ in the guy you are torturing.
Franklin Jennings | 11.01.07 - 10:27 pm | #

FYI:

Consider this thoughtful criticism of Nance's piece:

"My opinion is fact, period: On rhetoric, waterboarding, and torture"

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2u56m8
Jayson | Homepage | 11.01.07 - 10:44 pm | #

From all the criticism of torture, I assume there is certainly no way that a soldier can ever, ever take a life. That would be worse than torture, and it involves us "sinking to their level" in using bombs, bullets and other *nasty* things. Gee, I wish I lived in such a simple world, and didn't have a hired gun (the police) waiting in sinister looking cars, ready to swoop down at the whim of dialing 911 on a telephone! Do some people just not want anyone armed and yes, dangerous on the good guy's side?
And if yes, then will they pleeese stop being so very, very surprised that training people to be killers (that's the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) may result in them killing people and things that may stop short of killing them? For the sake of our well being? Grow up. Your grandfathers didn't win World War II with silk gloves on. This war won't be either.
bob | 11.02.07 - 2:03 am | #

Bob

Actually, no. Read up on basic Catholic morality. Murder is grave sin, as is torture. Killing is not necessarily. THere is a difference between murder and killing. You've made a simplistic hash of it.

Torture is a not a lesser-included item in the non-murder part of killing, as it were.

And the fact that World War II and this "war" may or may not be "won" is not dispositive of the morality of the means used. At least if you're Catholic before being American. If not, join the consequentialists over at Planned Parenthood.
Liam | 11.02.07 - 9:04 am | #

Liam, I assume you will never, ever call 911 with the exception of a medical emergency? You cannot use force, period. You cannot risk hurting someone.
bob | 11.02.07 - 1:01 pm | #

Bob:

If your stupid remarks took into account something resembling just war teaching or elementary Catholic morality and were not a reiteration of the idiotic straw man remarks of the Rubber Hose Right, you might have a point.

Try familiarizing yourself with the teaching of the Church before saying something as crack-brained as "Killing in wartime is okay, therefore *anything* is okay in wartime".
Mark Shea | Homepage | 11.02.07 - 2:20 pm | #

Bob

I can only assume you are someone who is caricaturing a position, because there is no substance in what you wrote. It's more like a middle school pretend-debate quip.
Liam | 11.02.07 - 3:00 pm | #

There are saints of the undivided Church whose icons have them in armor, with a sword. Footage of WWII
soldiers in battle, on warships about to go ashore and fight receiving communion, frequently their last. Clearly the killing in warfare is not being *blessed*. The men are. They will be doing some pretty hideous things to protect others. Most of what they did doesn't make the footage for every good reason. I cannot imagine people theorizing about this to the point you are. No one is trying to *glorify* any part of it, certainly not me. All I'm saying is that awful things have been done to protect us and will be done. If that really bothers anyone, be very grateful you don't have to do it yourself. Don't pretend it hasn't been done or that it wasn't worth doing. That is part of the fallen world and I don't like it either, but unless you want to give up, it's going to happen. Otherwise if you see a skinhead or some other bright fellow with a swastika on his arm, go up and surrender. I'm not a Catholic so I don't know or have interest in Just War theory. Wars don't come along in discreet quanta of Just and Unjust, only in terms of suffering and death.
bob | 11.02.07 - 5:12 pm | #

Bob:

Perhaps before writing, you should really attempt to acquaint yourself with Just War teaching, since it is basically a synthesis of moral principles derived from Scripture. If you Google the Catechism of the Catholic Church and start at paragraph 2309, you'll get the basic gist. It's not that hard to understand.

If you are a Christian, your motivation is found in Romans, where Paul says that they are justly condemned who say "Let us do evil that good may come of it". A Christian who says this risks the fires of hell if the evil he advocates is grave.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 11.02.07 - 5:37 pm | #

"All I'm saying is that awful things have been done to protect us and will be done."

And some of those awful things are sinful, some gravely so. The fact that they have been and will be done to protect us does not change the morality of it from the perspective of Christ.

Read John 11:50. Caiaphas means that as the world means it and as you appear to mean it. That is incompatible with being Christian. There is, of course, a specifically Christian way of meaning it - but it is limited to the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of God's people, not to deny the sinfulness of what those who put Christ to death did.

Meditate on John 11:50. Substitute "be tortured" for the word "die". Think and pray hard about that.
Liam | 11.02.07 - 7:04 pm | #

Emotions are irrelavant. Jimmy Akin was right. We have to look at it objectively according to the moral law.

It's not black & white OTOH it doesn't mean everything our goverment is doing is moral either.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 11.05.07 - 12:41 pm | #

Your grandfathers didn't win World War II with silk gloves on. This war won't be either.

And the Nationalists didn't save Spain from Communism without doing some horrific things, either, but it was still wrong.
Seamus | 11.06.07 - 11:07 am | #

Wow. Shea, I have read one of your books and listened to your pieces on EWTN with quips on Kresta in the afternoon.

Up to this point, I had respect for your intellect and politeness. I can understand how you think the GOP is foolish or idiotic. However, here (of course on it is your blog) you treat Bob and others who raise objections to you, very rudely.

I did not see Bob being rude at all. Also, I agree with him. Even worse, I am a Catholic.

In fact, you jump Bob et al, and call them 'idiots.' Not too far after your 'bullshit' arguments.

What does the bible say about calling people idiots, if we are going to play this game?

Sorry Mark, but I'll torture a Jihadi with waterboarding and rubber hoses and whatever else, if it came down to it, in order to save 1 or many innocent lives that they would squander. I'll answer to God for that one. I'd rather answer to God for protecting innocents than for watching while innocents die, and I had the ability to stop it.

Of course, in your absurd world, this is really never necessary.

Don't try to paint me into any kind of a corner with a 'who says you will be saving lives with waterbording...' - it's weak. It's a very real possiblity.

If necessary - and don't try to tell me sometimes it may not be - it should be an option.

But then, at this point, you sound an awful lot like one of the angry move-on'rs, or Daily Kos folks.

Not so much because of your opposition to torture, but because of your super-rude way of dealing with those who challenge your interpretation of what is and is not torture.

Simply rude, dude. Up 'til now, I thought you were wayyyyy above this.

Thanks be to God whimps like you aren't in charge of our security.

Stick with the pen and paper, er, I mean keyboard and monitor.

I suppose it would be too much to thank the tough bastards who kicked ass in the name of your country and provided you the ability to sit on your ass and enjoy what you do, ranting and typing.

I don't think you can blame Israel and our support (to which I also object) for 1,400 years of Muslim aggression.

Also, you had better start complaining about Lepanto as well! Just for starters.

Too damn bad.
Z | 01.02.08 - 9:20 pm | #