To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good . . . Ideology—that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others’ eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors. That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquererors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis, by race, and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations. — Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
To this list Solzhenitsyn could add American conservatism: The movement is increasingly becoming a pagan-influenced ideology, providing long-sought justification for evildoing and providing us the steadfastness and determination to do what we know is wrong and the boldness to call evil good.
How else can we explain the willingness of conservatives to not only defend the intrinsically evil act of torture but to also claim that those who oppose such evil have no place in making decisions about war and peace?
That is the jaw-dropping position advanced by Marc Thiessen in (of all places) National Review Online:
Jonah is absolutely right that opposition to waterboarding is an honorable position — but it’s a little more like pacifism than opposition to the death penalty. As I explain in Courting Disaster, the evidence is overwhelming that waterboarding helped stop a number of terrorist attacks. Which means if you oppose waterboarding in all circumstances, it means you are willing to accept as the price another terrorist attack.
[ . . . ]
Those who argue that we should not use enhanced techniques even on the KSM’s of the world are effectively arguing from a position of radical pacifism. They are opposed to coercion no matter what the cost in innocent lives. We should respect their opinion, they way we respect the right of conscientious objectors to abstain from military service. But that does not mean we put pacifists in charge of decisions on war and peace. Same should go for decisions when it comes to interrogation.
It’s difficult to know where to begin on such an embarrassing argument. Let’s start with the bizarre claim that those who oppose torture, specifically in the form of waterboarding, are not just pacifists, but radical pacifists. Such a claim is so patently ridiculous that no one can truly believe it. Indeed, I suspect that even Mr. Thiessen doesn’t really believe his own insult.
Could he truly believe that people like me (a fifteen-year Marine Corps veteran) and Sen. John McCain (”Waterboarding is torture”) are radical pacifists? What about Gen. Charles Krulak, former commandant of the Marine Corps, and Joseph Hoar, former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, who claim that waterboarding is torture and note that such methods “have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy.” Or what about John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, who says “Waterboarding was devised in the Spanish Inquisition. Next to the rack and thumbscrews, it’s the most iconic example of torture.” Are we to really believe that these men are not only radical pacifists but should have never been put in “charge of decisions on war and peace”?
No offense to Mr. Thiessen’s experience as a speechwriter for the former Secretary of Defense, but I would prefer to trust the judgment of these men—these radical pacifists—who are intimately familiar with torture, war, and the best means of keeping our nation safe.
The rest of Theissen’s argument is like a matryoshka doll of false choices. Embedded in his ad hominem false dichotomy (you either accept torture or you’re a radical pacifist) is a false dichotomy between accepting waterboarding and resignation to another terrorist attack.
Contrary to Theissen’s assertion, the evidence that waterboarding helped stop movie downloads a number of terrorist attacks is debatable. While you will find many former members of the Bush administration (e.g., Dick Cheny, Mr. Thiessen) making absolutist claims about its efficacy, those who actually know the most about the subject (i.e., the military, CIA, FBI officials) are generally more skeptical. And for good reason: The claims about the effectiveness of torture have been debated—and proven inconclusive—throughout history.
Fortunately, waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” are not the only means of extracting information from our enemies. In fact, the most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials after 9/11 involved a less dramatic interrogation tool: sugar cookies. Even the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohamed was subjected to waterboarding 183 times in a one month period casts doubts on its utility and shows that it would be completely worthless in the hypothetical “ticking-timebomb” scenarios that torture-apologists tend to favor. Perhaps Theissen should familirize himself with the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses before making such overly broad, and spurious, claims about what is required to prevent future terrorist attacks.
Even weaker than the logic of the argument is the moral justification. Perhaps torture would make sense in a pagan society where the nation-state is of primary importance and all actions are ultimately justifiable if they serve nationalist ends. But in a nation whose ethical foundation is rooted in a Judeo-Christian concept of justice, torture by state agents should always be considered impermissible. The reason that there is a long history of just warfare theory but no corresponding “just torture theory” is because torture is inherently antithetical to justice and morality.
As Russell Saltzman wrote back in April,
[T]orture is wrong because it can never serve a moral purpose. It serves instead only an immoral purpose: the destruction of an individual’s personhood. It is violence against the imago Dei, the image of God carried by every person.
Crucial to the use of torture is the intentional, systematic, step-by-step reduction of identity and selfhood, the purposeful diminution of the person as person, as the image of God cheapened to something less, to something “unperson.” The “other” is depersonalized. It is this process of thinking which gives us license for abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and torture—everything that strips the person of personal humanity.
Despite the weakness of Thiessen’s argument, his position is worthy of discussion. After all, First Things is dedicated to “religiously informed public philosophy” so a position based on religious—specifically pagan—values is deserving of respectful treatment. But the fact that Thiessen feels comfortable making an argument based on pagan ethics in a journal with a long heritage of Christian (and specifically Catholic) influence is a sign of how far we have come in the debasement of conservatism.
Of course, pagans—and Christians who accept pagan ideals when convenient—have always been with us and they deserve their place in the public square. But the global war on terror has allowed them to dominate certain conversations, leading us away from conservative policy proposals that are rooted in Christian principles. Rather than push back, we Christians have remained silent and treated an issue once considered unthinkable—the acceptability of torture—as if it’s a practice that must be accepted under the banner of “realism.” Perhaps we should not be surprised then to find the tables turned on us and the idea that opposition to torture is barely worthy of respect.
But Christians should be unequivocal in our opposition: torture is immoral and should be clearly and forcefully denounced. We continue to shame ourselves and our Creator by refusing to speak out against such outrages to human dignity. If that means that we will be slandered as radical pacifists, then we should wear the label proudly.
Note: As a commenter pointed out, my use of the term “pagan” can be confusing. The term is broad but I intended it in a more narrow sense. Essentially, I meant it to refer to the types of societies and thinkers that Robert Kaplan refers to in Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos: the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Asian warrior-cultures (such as those that produced thinkers like Sun Tzu), the pre-U.N. secular Europeans (such as Machiavelli). The virtues of these types of pagans are the ones that Kaplan, et al., want to replace Judeo–Christian morality.
Addendum: Invariably, such a discussion will lead someone to claim that “waterboarding is not torture.” While I can respect those who wish to claim that there are times when torture is necessary, I have no patience for those who play semantic Orwellian games. Waterboarding has always been considered a technique of torture. The U.S government considered waterboarding to be torture when it was used on our soldiers in World War II—and it would be considered torture if used on our servicemembers today.
For those still unclear on the concept, the legal definition of torture to which the U.S. subscribes can be found in the UN Convention Against Torture:
For the purposes of this Convention,torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
January 4th, 2010 | 9:26 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by First Things, Joe James. Joe James said: RT @ROFTERS: Do you oppose torture? You must be a "radical pacifist." http://bit.ly/75mcMs [...]
January 4th, 2010 | 9:34 am
A very interesting argument, Joe, and I appreciate your words. You rightly point out Thiessen’s false dichotomy that if you oppose waterboarding you’re a “radical pacificist,” but I wonder if, in your own argument, you might have created a sort of false dichotomy as well.
You use the word “pagan” a number of times, referring (as far as I can determine) to the worldview approving of waterboarding. So, do all pagans–whether knowingly or unknowingly, ancient or modern–approve of such techniques? And are those people–some Christians, Jews, atheists, etc.–who approve of it inherently pagan, above all else? Perhaps I misunderstood or misread your argument.
And I too am skeptical about waterboarding’s efficacy (especially after talking to an Army psychologist, someone far more knowledgeable on the subject than myself). And while my intention is not to play any “semantic Orwellian games,” and while you do provide the solid technical definition of torture, questions for me still remain: During interrogation, what then isn’t torture? Extreme temperatures, sleep deprivation, loud music, sensory deprivation, extended periods (hours, if not days) of constant questioning, etc.? You’re probably familiar–more familiar than me, judging from your military experience–with some of the techniques used on military personnel during SERE school training. What about those kinds of interrogation methods?
These aren’t semantic gymnastics, they’re merely the necessary questions required to technically and securely determine what is right and what is wrong during interrogation and imprisonment. Like you, I want to make sure that what we’re doing in the War on Terror is moral and just, but honestly, I’m finding it difficult to come up with a sound determination that will satisfy all (or as many as possible) and will not force us to compromise our moral standards. (While I’ve heard the same as you, that such things as cookies, cigarettes, coffee, etc. are useful during interrogation, my guess is that it’s not always the case.)
Anyway, I appreciate your words.
January 4th, 2010 | 10:06 am
So just where does interrogation end, and torture begin?
January 4th, 2010 | 10:13 am
Mr. Carter:
I can’t even begin to tell you how obnoxious I find your writing. I mean, are you really equating the American conservative movement to the Nazis and Stalinism because many of its members are not convinced that waterboarding is evil?
Your argument that waterboarding is torture akin to pulling out fingernails may have been more convincing had you used a calm and rational tone. However, opening with such a ridiculous accusation against conservatives immediately makes the rest of what you have to say suspect.
Your 15-year career as a marine does not justify such offensive tactics against those with whom you disagree.
January 4th, 2010 | 10:18 am
“my guess is that it’s not always the case”
Do we have any better evidence than our intuitions and guesses? My *guess* would be that torturing an opponent will simply make him talk, without regard for the truth of what he is saying, in order to make the “severe pain and suffering” stop. In contrast, the more subtle mindgames (brainwashing?) involved in convincing a detainee that he should trust an interrogator are oriented toward obtaining *accurate* information.
Instead of starting from the premises of the Yoo “memos” (really advocacy pieces and thus briefs for torture), in which the goal was to justify the most extreme actions possible, perhaps we should start at the other end: what is the *least* we have to do in order to obtain useful, accurate information from detainees? Some are already psychologically weak follower types who will blabber without any inducement. Some require elaborate relationship building. Maybe some will give us good information only when we’ve inflicted severe pain and suffering on them — but who are these?
January 4th, 2010 | 10:21 am
Steve Perhaps I misunderstood or misread your argument.
The fault is entirely mine for the term “pagan” is broad and I intended it in a more narrow sense. Essentially, I’m using it to refer to the types of cultural values of societies and thinkers that Fred Kaplan refers to in Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos: the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Asian warrior-cultures such a those that produced thinkers like Sun Tzu, the secular Europeans such as Machiavelli. The virtues of these types of pagans are the ones that Kaplan, et al., want to replace Judeo–Christian morality.
(Thanks for pointing this out, I added a note to my post to clarify this.)
During interrogation, what then isn’t torture? Extreme temperatures, sleep deprivation, loud music, sensory deprivation, extended periods (hours, if not days) of constant questioning, etc.?
All of those examples are forms of torture that are punishable under the Geneva Convention.
You’re probably familiar–more familiar than me, judging from your military experience–with some of the techniques used on military personnel during SERE school training.
Some of these techniques are used in SERE school training as a mean of teaching military personnel how to survive and endure when being tortured. Oddly, some people use the fact that SERE school uses these techniques as an argument against their being torture. They seem to misunderstand the very purpose of SERE.
. . .I’m finding it difficult to come up with a sound determination that will satisfy all (or as many as possible) and will not force us to compromise our moral standards.
The best approach, in my opinion, is to follow the military’s example: Don’t do anything that is disallowed under the Geneva convention. Despite the debate brought on by the actions of the Bush Administration, the understanding of what is and is not allowed is rather clear-cut.
Khanski So just where does interrogation end, and torture begin?
Interrogation ends and torture begins when the following acts are committed when an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession
January 4th, 2010 | 10:31 am
Joe: As a 27-year Army veteran with legal training, I have to jump in here and ask you to define your terms: what is torture? I think you overstate the “clear-cut” nature of the situation. Moreover, you cannot cite as dispositive the Geneva Conventions when you are talking about a non-state actor who is not covered by the protections afforded by the Conventions – the fact that the Army abides by the “spirit” of the Geneva Conventions means nothing, really. You can rant all you want (especially given your Marine heritage!), but that does not make the situation any clearer – reasonable minds can differ about this issue. Even liberals like Michael Walzer acknowledge that “supreme emergencies” (I think that is his term) change the analysis into something very much more ambiguous. And by the way, the book you invoked was written by Robert Kaplan, not Fred.
January 4th, 2010 | 10:36 am
I mean, are you really equating the American conservative movement to the Nazis and Stalinism because many of its members are not convinced that waterboarding is evil?
No, I am not. Perhaps you should read Solzhenitsyn’s quote again. The idea that people justify evil—something the Nazis also did—does not mean that they are equal to Nazis. Abortion is also “evildoing” but I do not equate women who get abortions to Nazis.
But let’s be perfectly clear on one point: There are members of the conservative movement that are advocating evil. For me to be less than forthright about that would be dishonest.
The fact that many members of the conservative movement are not convinced that waterboarding is evil is merely evidence that they are morally obtuse. Either that or they simply don’t know what they are talking about. Perhaps they don’t know what waterboarding actually entails. Give me a canteen of water, a cotton-rag, and a reclining board and I could convince anyone that waterboarding is evil—at least when it is being done to them.
For any person with functional moral faculties, there is no question about the evilness of waterboarding. That does not make them a Nazi or a Stalinist. But it does make them an apologist for evil.
Your argument that waterboarding is torture akin to pulling out fingernails may have been more convincing had you used a calm and rational tone.
You’ll have to forgive me for not being able to take a “calm and rational” tone when people are advocating doing what it intrinsically evil and calling its opposition “pacifism.”
January 4th, 2010 | 10:50 am
An old Army guy named Bill I think you overstate the “clear-cut” nature of the situation. Moreover, you cannot cite as dispositive the Geneva Conventions when you are talking about a non-state actor who is not covered by the protections afforded by the Conventions . . .
According the Supreme Court decision Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Geneva Convention does apply to non-state actors.
– the fact that the Army abides by the “spirit” of the Geneva Conventions means nothing, really.
The Geneva Conventions are incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So the Army not only abides by the “spirit” of the Conventions but, since they are part of the UCMJ, the “letter of the law.” It is also part of Army regulations (see for example, DA Pam 27-1: Treaties Governing Land Warfare).
reasonable minds can differ about this issue.
I don’t dispute that at all. Reasonable minds can differ about the morality of abortion too, but that does not make it any less evil.
Even liberals like Michael Walzer acknowledge that “supreme emergencies” (I think that is his term) change the analysis into something very much more ambiguous.
If that were the standard then there would have been no justification for our ever having waterboarded terrorists since there were no “supreme emergencies” that justified the use of torture. But if what is meant is, “Let’s torture them to see if we can prevent a ‘“supreme emergencies’” then the standard can be used to justify torturing anyone that the government perceives to be a threat to national security. If that is the standard, then why can’t we torture American citizens.
And by the way, the book you invoked was written by Robert Kaplan, not Fred.
Ah, you’re right. Thanks, I fixed that in the post.
January 4th, 2010 | 10:52 am
Joe,
I read a WSJ editorial a while back, pointing out the irony that it would have been “moral” to have killed KSM (say, with a Predator strike). But, capturing him and subsequently leading him to believe that he was going to drown, was “immoral.”
If I recall the thrust of the argument, the editorialist was arguing in favor of torture. I took it as validation of my own pacifist views.
Can you explain why we are allowed to kill people but not let them think we are going to kill them, morally?
Adam
January 4th, 2010 | 11:07 am
Adam Can you explain why we are allowed to kill people but not let them think we are going to kill them, morally?
Excellent question. I don’t think I can provide an answer that would convince a committed pacifist like yourself (that would require first providing an argument against pacifism) but I think I can give a solid response for the non-pacifist Christian.
My friend and philosopher John Mark Reynolds proposes what he calls the “Argument from Soul Liberty”
January 4th, 2010 | 11:24 am
I would venture that a contributing factor to some conservatives’ continued justification of torture is the fear of what would happen if they conceded that a) interrogation measures such as waterboarding are, in fact, torture and b) as such, they are immoral: the extremely likely proposition that the current administration and its supporters would go all-out in order to bring legal action against all involved in such acts over the last 8+ years, from Cheney on down to individual operatives.
I advocate the following solution: I understand that such techniques were used in the attempt to protect this nation. However, doing the wrong thing for the right reason does not justify the action. Such techniques are torture, and, from this moment forward, their use will not be permitted or tolerated. Past employment of these techniques will not be prosecuted, however: I am interested in the correction of the problem, not reprisals, punishment, or racking up political points by engaging in prosecutorial crusade that would tear the country apart.
I think it is a good possibility that a sizable portion of those still justifying the use of waterboarding, etc. would be willing to agree to the ceasing of such tactics if there were to be no reprisals for what went on prior to firm and public disavowal and disallowance or their use.
Just my two cents.
January 4th, 2010 | 11:31 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by ROFTERS: Do you oppose torture? You must be a “radical pacifist.” http://bit.ly/75mcMs…
January 4th, 2010 | 12:07 pm
[...] Joe Carter at First Things Possibly related posts: (automatically [...]
January 4th, 2010 | 12:15 pm
Joe, Thanks very much for this post. Your willingness to take other conservatives to task for complicity with evil has been duly noted.
January 4th, 2010 | 12:29 pm
Also, Joe, you didn’t really need to distance yourself from radical pacifists, at least of the Christian variety, and at least in one respect. Thiessen is right—Christian pacifists agree with you (and the rest of traditional Christianity) that evil should never be done that good may prevail.
That it is better to be killed and to suffer defeat than it is to embrace evil or abandon the faith is one of those basic convictions that, if allowed to inform decisions about the limits of killing in times of war, quickly reveals the uninteresting nature of modern political divisions.
January 4th, 2010 | 1:27 pm
Technically, it was “sugar-free cookies” not “sugar cookies.” But a better description of what softened up the Islamo-nazi terrorist portrayed in the Time article was something akin to the “Good Cop / Bad Cop” technique. He was incarcerated for over a year before the cookies were offered.
Should we sit the Undie-Bomber in a comfy chair with a nice cup of tea and some biscuits in order to get information out of him? After all, as the Time article implied, it was the cookies that led the Islamo-nazi terrorist to realize he was dealing with “human beings,” and nothing else. Should we treat the Christmas bombing as a criminal enterprise and attempt a plea deal in order to get information, as the Obama administration wants to do (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/03/AR2010010302191.html)?
I’d like to drop the entire use of the word “torture” from discussions about how we deal with combatants in the war against Islamo-nazism because it immediately polarizes the discussions into “my side is the good, righteous and the morally superior side, and anyone who differs is intrinsically evil.” This gets us nowhere.
January 4th, 2010 | 1:40 pm
I would like to add that I really couldn’t care less what the UN defines as torture. That organization is so morally corrupt that any of its mutterings are suspect.
But since it is presented here as the definition of torture I think this line is important concerning waterboarding: “It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
The legal analysis that led to waterboarding, as well as sleep deprivation and other intensive interrogation techniques led to the conclusion that the practice was lawfully sanctioned.
I’m sure I’ll be ripped for bringing this up, but there it is. Now are we going to give up American national sovereignty and that which we lawfully sanction over to the bureaucrats running the United Nations? I certainly hope not.
January 4th, 2010 | 1:54 pm
Daniel I would like to add that I really couldn’t care less what the UN defines as torture. That organization is so morally corrupt that any of its mutterings are suspect. . . .But since it is presented here as the definition of torture . . .
The definition presented is not from the U.N. but from the Third Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War. It is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions and was first adopted in 1929, almost two decades prior to the development of the U.N.
. . .I think this line is important concerning waterboarding: “It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
The legal analysis that led to waterboarding, as well as sleep deprivation and other intensive interrogation techniques led to the conclusion that the practice was lawfully sanctioned.
No, actually, it didn’t. The argument made was that the Geneva Convention didn’t apply at all. That phrasing is intended to exclude such activities as forcibly removing a resisting prisoner from a cell, not for torturing them during an interrogation.
Now are we going to give up American national sovereignty and that which we lawfully sanction over to the bureaucrats running the United Nations? I certainly hope not.
I think you misunderstand the concept of American national sovereignty. Article VI, paragraph 2, of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Congress must ratify a treaty, therefore adopting it as part of our own legal structure. We exercise our national sovereignty by deciding to adopt or reject a treaty in the first place.
January 4th, 2010 | 2:28 pm
“Invariably, such a discussion will lead someone to claim that “waterboarding is not torture.” While I can respect those who wish to claim that there are times when torture is necessary, I have no patience for those who play semantic Orwellian games.”
Uhh this is part of the problem. I noted earlier this week the polls on waterboarding and it appears the anti waterboarding folks have not gained any ground. Part of the problem I respectfully put forward is the above attitude. I have honest questions on waterboarding and other “enhanced” methods. When I put these forward often in the combox my motives and allegiances are attacked. It is sort of like the fay marriage issue and the Maine vote. Many same sex marriage advoicates were shocked. I was not many people that had honest concerns and issues just learned to keep their mouth shut because of the treatment they received. Same thing here.
Of course part of the problem was everything was waterboarding waterboarding waterboarding. Are all enhanced interrogation methods the same? That and the underylying principle is one we never really got too.
In one of the comments you quoted someone:
“Torture removes the internal free will of the combatant by forcing him to a mental submission that should not be in the power of humankind. We should allow his mental defiance, even if we cannot allow his physical defiance. In this way, we honor his reason (one aspect of the divine image), while also protecting the innocent.”
THe question is does the terrorist have an absolute right to keep shut up in his pretty little mind everything. If so lets say we get a wimpy terrorist that breaks after two days of deprivation. I don’t consider two days of sleep deprivation torture. Yet under the above definition it is perhaps.
These issues of what is and not torture are important. But I got tired of trying to even discuss them because suddenly I was accused of not being a true Catholic and just being a GOP sellout or whatever.
So I expect none of us shall make any progress on this issue till we all start rethinking how we debate each other on this topic.
Let me say Mr Carter I am not accusing you of these worst excesses. THere were some big Catholic Apologist I interacted with that were anti waterboarding and anti torture that were far worse than your comparable genetle jabs
January 4th, 2010 | 2:28 pm
“According the Supreme Court decision Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Geneva Convention does apply to non-state actors.”
Does that mean they wear uniforms now?
January 4th, 2010 | 2:28 pm
Joe, The conversation that our nation has been having about this subject is important and necessary as a matter of principle. There is something about it though that reminds me of our ribbon mania.Next up, a towel dripping with water with an X through it stuck on our lapels. Fine we’re against torture and finally we have something that the world has been waiting for, finally America might stop torturing people and join with the rest of the world in recognizing the rights of humanity.I’m sorry for the sarcasm but this is the stage that this is being played out on and it is why it is being played and played ad infinitum. What would satisfy the left in this country and our many admirers abroad all of whom in their purity have done their best to make it more likely that the circumstances that created the pressure to waterboard in the first place will happen again. Most would be overjoyed, ecstatic even, to see Mr. Cheney et al spend the rest of eternity in the deepest circle of hell.So talk about torture, have commitees ad hoc and other but most of this is about politics, domestic and international with a lot of moral preening thrown in to confirm us in our righteousness.
January 4th, 2010 | 3:16 pm
jh I have honest questions on waterboarding and other “enhanced” methods. When I put these forward often in the combox my motives and allegiances are attacked.
As I mentioned in my post, I can respect when people say, “But why shouldn’t we be allowed to torture?” If that is the type of question you have about the method then I am all for addressing those. It just irks me that the debate has sparked an interest in redefining a technique that for hundreds of years has been considered a “torture technique.” I’m just flabbergasted by that move.
If a foreign army were to waterboard a U.S. soldier, our government would charge them with the war crime of torture. If a police officer were to waterboard a suspect, he would be charged with torturing a prisoner. If I were to hold you down and waterboard my neighbor (without their consent) I would be charged with the crime of torture. So I’m at a loss to understand why when it done to terror suspects it somehow becomes questionable whether it is torture or not.
THe question is does the terrorist have an absolute right to keep shut up in his pretty little mind everything.
No, he doesn’t have such an absolute right. But he has a positive right against being tortured. An interrogator can use every trick in the book—short of actually torturing a suspect—and it would be legitimate.
If so lets say we get a wimpy terrorist that breaks after two days of deprivation. I don’t consider two days of sleep deprivation torture. Yet under the above definition it is perhaps.
But sleep deprivation is a form of torture. The general rule should be, if we’d prosecute someone for a war crime if it was done to one of our soldier, then we shouldn’t do it to them.
These issues of what is and not torture are important. But I got tired of trying to even discuss them because suddenly I was accused of not being a true Catholic and just being a GOP sellout or whatever.
I’m not a Catholic but according to the Cathecism (“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.”) waterboarding would seem to fit the definition of torture.
I don’t think people who have questions about what is and is not torture are wrong to ask the question. But it does concern me when they seem to disregard the many voices who claim that is is torture in order to justify an action that the Bush administration wants to defend
January 4th, 2010 | 3:17 pm
Joe, you ought to be careful about blanket assertions that those who disagree with you about an absolute prohibition of waterboarding are “morally obtuse.” The “ticking time bomb” scenario may be unlikely, but it is not utterly implausible. And in such a situation–where a responsible government official has good reason to believe that without the use of waterboarding or its equivalent thousands of innocent people might die in a terrorist attack–there is for that official an agonizing moral dilemma. I’m surprised that you are so quick to assume that those who disagree with you are morally unserious people.
January 4th, 2010 | 3:25 pm
No, Mike, it doesn’t, and don’t confuse the conversation with inconvenient information. It muddles some people’s sense moral superiority to those who believe something a bit tougher than a plate of sugar free cookies might be required to keep Americans safe from Islamo-nazi terrorists smuggling explosives in their BVDs.
January 4th, 2010 | 3:56 pm
James Nuechterlein Joe, you ought to be careful about blanket assertions that those who disagree with you about an absolute prohibition of waterboarding are “morally obtuse.”
Just to be clear, my point was that those who don’t think “waterboarding is evil” are being morally obtuse. My contention is based on the idea that if it were done to them they’d have no doubt that it was evil. The problem I have is with trying to shift the argument onto easier ground. They know it is evil (in some circumstances) but think that it is not evil when done to terrorists. I’d have more respect for their position if they’d simply admit that it was evil but that evil is sometimes necessary to do good.
The “ticking time bomb” scenario may be unlikely, but it is not utterly implausible.
There are two reasons why I don’t think conservatives should use the “ticking time bomb” scenario when talking about waterboarding. First, it’s essentially a values-clarification argument: nothing is truly good or evil, only the circumstances make it so. We normally reject such arguments (and rightly so) which makes it odd that we’d reference it this case.
Second, if you were to get interrogators to admit the truth (perhaps by waterboarding them?) I don’t suspect that a single one would ever say that waterboarding is the best method for extracting information in an emergency situation. KSM was waterboarded an average of six times a day for thirty days before he talked (assuming that was the technique that broke him). How long would the bomb have to tick before we had enough time for waterboarding to work?
And in such a situation–where a responsible government official has good reason to believe that without the use of waterboarding or its equivalent thousands of innocent people might die in a terrorist attack–there is for that official an agonizing moral dilemma.
The discussions about waterboarding are like the old joke about prostitution. Once we accept that torture is okay in ticking timebomb scenarios then why not use more extreme—and potentially more effective—measures? What if the government official had good reason to believe that raping the terrorist’s wife in front of him would cause him to break instantly? Should we do it? If not, why not?
I’m surprised that you are so quick to assume that those who disagree with you are morally unserious people.
Naturally, I don’t think that all people who disagree about the use of torture are morally unserious. Some may have a different value system or use a different ethical system (e.g., advocate a Benthamite utilitarianism). They could be morally serious and be wrong.
But I think a large number of people—particularly Christians—simply are not being morally serious. If we were having this debate for the first time and it was Obama who wanted to use torture when the military and FBI was saying it is ineffective, many of these same advocates for waterboarding would be completely against it. Other people, with the best of intentions, may think there is a exemption for Christian ethics when it comes to the treatment of our enemies. That somehow the “Two Kingdoms” approach means that anything goes in the worldly kingdom.
I think a morally serious case for the use of torture can be made—just not on Christian principles. (If one can be made I’ve never seen it.) If you start with pagan assumptions, though, then it is certainly easy to make a case for torturing to prevent greater evil.
January 4th, 2010 | 4:22 pm
For Catholics involved in this debate, there’s another section of the Catechism that’s rarely cited, but that would clearly forbid torture, or, indeed, virtually all of the coercive and degrading acts that are lumped under the rubric of “enhanced interrogation”:
“Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions.” (2313).
It’s easy to justify torture or degrading coercion if you’re willing to be a consequentialist, and argue that it’s morally acceptable for an enemy to suffer for the sake of our national security. But that path (call it the “Caiaphas principle”, if you like) is clearly forbidden to Christians.
January 4th, 2010 | 5:04 pm
It may be that there are, for responsible public officials, situations where there is no clear morally right behavior but only the hope of avoiding the worst moral evil. War and war-like conditions are filled with such situations.
I do not for a moment believe that “nothing is truly good or evil, only the circumstances make it so.” We are obviously speaking of extreme circumstances. There really are situations of moral tragedy. Think of Harry Truman and the decision to drop the atom bomb.
The argument “if waterboarding, why not rape?” is a form of slippery-slope point-making that avoids the point at issue. No one is advocating the rape of innocents, or pulling out people’s finger nails, or threatening to boil terrorists’ children in oil. Going there obscures the argument.
As Reinhold Niebuhr insisted, Christians involved in public life will on occasion find themselves in situations of deep moral ambiguity. The ticking time bomb scenario IS a possibility. (And are you really prepared to argue that waterboarding will NEVER produce accurate information?) I simply cannot see that, given such a situation, the choice for the Christian is morally self-evident.
January 4th, 2010 | 5:33 pm
Joe seems to believe:
(1) in every instance waterboarding is “evil”
(2) that anyone who denies (1) is morally obtuse
I believe , on the other hand, that some instances of waterboarding are not evil. One example of non-evil waterboarding is when our own military personnel are subjected to the technique as a part of SERE training (which has occurred regularly for decades). Hence, I and many others believe
(3) when students at SERE school get waterboarded, this is not “evil.”
A few simple question for Joe:
A. Do you believe that when students at SERE school are subjected to waterboarding, that this is always “evil?”
B. Are all those who deny that it is “evil” to subject SERE students to waterboarding morally obtuse?
January 4th, 2010 | 6:09 pm
Mr. Nuechterlein,
If your reference to Truman’s decision implies an affirmation of that decision—however tragic you also concede it to be—then Carter’s slippery slope argument is apropos. Boiling children in oil, incinerating them in a nuclear fire ball: potAYto, potAHto. You’ve taken the slide.
Also, your appeal to extreme circumstances only reinforces the sense that you think context (to wit, extreme context) trumps principle when the chips are down.
So perhaps you could say more about the category of intrinsically evil acts. Does it exist? If not, Carter’s point about context is also on point. And if it does exist, then in appealing to Reinhold Niebuhr are you affirming a “lesser evil” argument? Lesser evil arguments are much more problematic, and I can imagine some pro-choice advocates who would be very interested to find out that “lesser evil” arguments are being put into play by Christian conservatives when it comes to (other) matters of life and death.
January 4th, 2010 | 9:52 pm
@jh:
“I noted earlier this week the polls on waterboarding and it appears the anti waterboarding folks have not gained any ground.”
So what? The military has long considered it torture and grounds for war crimes. They didn’t run a poll first.
January 4th, 2010 | 9:54 pm
Keith, you managed to be even more obtuse than Joe insinuated. Military people learn to kill too, but when they do it illegally — say shooting someone at a bar because they hit on his girl — it’s still evil.
January 4th, 2010 | 9:54 pm
—First, killing a combatant actually honors his free will. He has chosen to take up arms and the minister of justice is honoring that choice by meeting him as he has chosen to be met. [snip]
The moral justification for killing someone is that they accept the risk? Do you really want to be going down the road of “two consenting adults” in any area of moral theory?
And, since al Qaeda types come from unjust nations where torture is expected for revolutionaries, signing up for the revolution is equivalent to accepting the risk for torture (part of the accepted “rules of engagement”). Do we get a pass on torturing people from these countries because they knew what they were getting into?
January 4th, 2010 | 9:56 pm
@James – Joyn Yoo testified that it’s legally acceptable to crush a child’s testicles in order to get the parent to “confess.” The slippery slope started years ago.
January 5th, 2010 | 12:08 am
Joe, great article. Thank you for calling out the Bush administration and torture supporters for “pagan-influenced ideology” that they rely on to de-humanize The Other.
And I hadn’t thought of the argument of utility (or lack thereof) with the 183 water-boardings of KSM. Good point. Your detractors here should read this part again:
Great point, I hope it goes viral.
January 5th, 2010 | 12:16 am
“Your argument that waterboarding is torture akin to pulling out fingernails may have been more convincing had you used a calm and rational tone. ”
I suggest a reading portions of Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago” to discover what mundane techniques can be used to torture individual. Simple things like forced standing, forced sitting on a stool, etc. can be used to hurt the body and torment an individual. Torture need not be the pulling of finger nails or the crushing of testicles.
January 5th, 2010 | 2:02 am
Thank you, Joe, for your article. The phrase in “Norwegian Shooter’s” comment “The Other” reminded me of District 9 (http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/district9/). I hardly ever go to movies, but I went to that one. It was very difficult for me to watch and I thought of things like the War on Terror.
I have also started your read-a-book-of-the-Bible-20-times routine – not sure how far I will get :-) I took your advice and started with the very smallest. I did 3 John, then 2 John, now working on Philemon. I confess I am doing it a little harder as I read Greek and Hebrew – so first I read it in English 20 times, then in Greek 20 times (for the New Testament).
But I have found this very rewarding – so far!
jj
January 5th, 2010 | 2:29 am
James Nuechterlein Think of Harry Truman and the decision to drop the atom bomb.
I’m hesitant to cast judgment on Truman’s actions in dropping of the A-bombs. I can’t say that he was absolutely wrong, but I have my qualms about the action. I used to be stationed near Hiroshima and I could never bring myself to visit the city—the horror is just to much to deal with.
I do, however, have to agree with Charlie Collier: invoking Truman’s action opens the gate that leads to the slippery-slope. What if instead of dropping an atomic bomb, the war could have ended by raping a single Japanese POW. Would such an action be justifiable.
The argument “if waterboarding, why not rape?” is a form of slippery-slope point-making that avoids the point at issue. No one is advocating the rape of innocents, or pulling out people’s finger nails, or threatening to boil terrorists’ children in oil. Going there obscures the argument.
But that assumes that waterboarding isn’t all that bad. Drowning someone is at least on part with pulling out their fingernails. When people downplay the effect of the technique it makes me wonder why they think it is so effective.
The ticking time bomb scenario IS a possibility.
Perhaps. But the fact that we’ve never had one should caution us against making too much of it.
(And are you really prepared to argue that waterboarding will NEVER produce accurate information?)
I would say that any information that could be obtained by waterboarding could likely be obtained by a non-torture method. I suspect most interrogators would back me up on that one.
I simply cannot see that, given such a situation, the choice for the Christian is morally self-evident.
How about a Girardian concession: We will allow torture only in ticking timebomb scenarios but after the emergency the torturer must sacrifice their own life as a scapegoat.
Keith A. Do you believe that when students at SERE school are subjected to waterboarding, that this is always “evil?”
I was wondering when you were going to show up. ; )
I thought about your question for several hours before deciding on my answer: Yes, I do believe that when waterboarding (and other forms of torture) are done in SERE school that it is evil.
I think this is a prime example of where good intentions lead us to do evil in order that good may come. The intentions behind SERE school (in its current form) are well-meaning but outdated. It trains servicemen for the conditions of Korea and Vietnam rather than for the war against Jihadism. Islamic terrorists have never waterboarded our POWs so why do we still train for that? Instead we should train for real-world conditions.
B. Are all those who deny that it is “evil” to subject SERE students to waterboarding morally obtuse?
No. But only because I believe that volunteering to be tortured for a very limited time under very strict and controlled conditions is not the in the same moral category as torturing prisoners. Personally, I’m convinced that it is still evil. But I can see how there could be some honest disagreement on that point.
January 5th, 2010 | 8:59 am
[...] Two against torture (and the right), here and here. [...]
January 5th, 2010 | 9:00 am
[...] Two against torture (and the right), here and here. [...]
January 5th, 2010 | 9:25 am
[...] Carter has written an excellent post on torture, pacifism, and the moral legitimacy of “enhanced interrogation.” var [...]
January 5th, 2010 | 9:41 am
You make your own errror in refuting the argument of Thiessen. He does not say that anti-torture absolutists are pacifists. He says they are like pacifists in their absolutism. Your argument that there are military men who are anti-torture absolutists and are demonstrably not pacifists therefore addresses a point that Thiessen does not make.
January 5th, 2010 | 10:49 am
Frank Sales He does not say that anti-torture absolutists are pacifists. He says they are like pacifists in their absolutism.
Actually he says we are “arguing from a position of radical pacifism.” How is that not saying that anti-torture absolutists are pacifists?
January 5th, 2010 | 10:58 am
Just to be clear then. Joe is making the following claims:
1. That the US practice (for decades) of waterboarding SERE students:
(a) constitutes “torture”
and
(b) is evil.
2. That those who deny (a) and (b) are nevertheless not “morally obtuse.”
I’m happy to note that Joe does not believe that those (like me) who reject (a) and (b) might have AT LEAST a plausible case.
But I’m still unclear as to why he so firmly holds to (a) and (b). The moral and ethical issue can’t possibly turn on this claim:
“The intentions behind SERE school (in its current form) are well-meaning but outdated. It trains servicemen for the conditions of Korea and Vietnam rather than for the war against Jihadism. Islamic terrorists have never waterboarded our POWs so why do we still train for that? Instead we should train for real-world conditions.”
What Joe has to argue is that waterboarding was immoral even if it WAS EFFECTIVE IN TRAINING SERVICEMEN FOR CONDITIONS OF KOREA AND VIETNAM. That is, Joe’s burden is to prove that waterboarding was “evil” even the training WAS EFFECTIVE and is “evil” even if he is wrong (which I’m inclined to think he is) about the current effectiveness of the training. His position must be that EVEN IF this (and other “harsh training techniques”) effectively prepare military personnel for these real life contingencies, they are “evil” or “immoral” and should not be done.
But what makes such “harsh training” techniques “evil” and “immoral.” I’ll bet at the end of the grueling USMC Infantry Officers Course (and IOC is extremely grueling these days) if you ask a young Marine Lt. if he would rather go through that again or be subjected to a little bit of waterboarding, he would go through the latter in a heartbeat. So, what makes the latter “evil” and “torture” but the former permissible? Merely the fact that a service member “volunteered?” That can’t possibly render the action non-evil because we can think of all kinds of evil actions that would be clearly immoral even if someone volunteered for it. It can’t have to do with the mere fact that “pain” is inflicted. That would rule out all military training (not to mention your average high school wrestling or football practice.) So what is it, exactly, that warrants calling this sort of training “evil?”
BTW–This assertion by Joe is simply false:
“I would say that any information that could be obtained by waterboarding could likely be obtained by a non-torture method. I suspect most interrogators would back me up on that one.”
It is also a moral dodge.
Here’s how General Michael Hayden, former CIA Director put it in an interview last Spring with Chris Wallace:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517158,00.html
=========
WALLACE: What does that tell you about President Obama’s approach to the war on terror?
HAYDEN: It’s difficult for me to judge the president. I don’t think I would do that. But Mr. Gibbs’ comments bring another reality fully in front of us. It’s what I’ll call, without meaning any irreverence to anybody, a really inconvenient truth.
Most of the people who oppose these techniques want to be able to say, “I don’t want my nation doing this,” which is a purely honorable position, “and they didn’t work anyway.” That back half of the sentence isn’t true.
The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work. The president’s speech, President Bush in September of ’06, outlined how one detainee led to another, led to another, with the use of these techniques.
The honorable position you have to take if you want us not to do this — and believe me, if the nation says, “Don’t do it,” the CIA won’t do it. The honorable position has to be, “Even though these techniques worked, I don’t want you to do that.” That takes courage. The other sentence doesn’t.
==============
THE HONORABLE POSITION IS TO SAY THAT “EVEN THOUGH THESE TECHNIQUES WORKED, I DON’T WANT YOU TO DO THAT.”
Which is to say, simply, that it is better to suffer even a catastrophic enemy attack, regardless of the cost in innocent lives (hundreds of thousands?, millions?) than ever to waterboard one senior level member of Al Qaeda for so much as a second, even if authorites have every reason to believe such an attack could be prevented if that senior member of Al Qaeda could be coerced into spilling the beans.
I’ll leave for further discussion whether someone is “morally obtuse” if they think in this instance waterboarding that particular senior Al Qaeda guy is permissible.
January 5th, 2010 | 11:00 am
He could have been more clear, but I still think you are mis-reading him. He starts out by saying anti-torture absolutist are more like pacifists than “anti-capital punishmentists” in that they are against torture even if it demonstrably saves innocent lives. Just like pacifists would rather have Russia annex the US rather than commit resistance by force, so an anti-torture absolutist would rather see New York and Los Angeles incinerated than waterboarding KSM. His argument is that it is morally justifiable to disregard both of these absolutist positions.
January 5th, 2010 | 11:05 am
Joe,
While I constantly go back and forth myself on the question of water boarding and the intrinsic evil involved in such acts, it seems to me that you totally sidestepped the argument about the Geneva Conventions not applying to non-state actors by invoking an awry decision by the Supreme Court. If you didn’t notice the mistake in your logic, it is actually the same argument that the pro-abortion crowd uses to continue the legality of Roe. “Because the Supreme Court says so…” There is a specific reason that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to non-state actors, mainly because the Conventions recognize that there must be a certain base level of order even when it comes to war in order for there to be an eventuality of peace. The current brand of terrorist does not seek eventual peace, but rather terror and confusion and fear. If you are going to continue to maintain that torture is instrinsically evil, you ought not do so through the ruse of the Geneva Conventions because I don’t think that Al Qaeda and their minions are signatories.
January 5th, 2010 | 11:41 am
All interogation is torture. Why else would a person, against his will, give up information, but for some form of anxiety or discomfort.
My father use to say, “You cannot pick up a terd by the clean end.” Lets be honest; waterboarding is torture, as is putting a gun to one’s head, shining a heat lamp in one’s face, depriving one of sleep. The classification of an act as torture should not be a binary conclusion, but rather a analog assessment. It’s use should must be weighed against other analog assessments: the likelyhood of its success and the benefits of its results.
It is, in my opinion, an over-simplification to declare it as intrinsically evil. There is no clean end.
(BTW, the church has not declared the intentional infliction of pain as intrinsically evil, recognizing also that there is not a clean end to this issue)
LO
January 5th, 2010 | 11:54 am
Mr. Pavlischek’s example of SERE training is important. Clearly, context matters. But it doesn’t matter in the way that we might think. A change of context does not, that is to say, make torture legitimate. Rather, significant changes in context problematize the description of an act. (That statement is tautalogous once we admit that descriptions of acts are not value-neutral, but raise precisely the question of “significance”.)
Examples: The surgical removal of a limb is therapeutic in certain circumstances but an instance of bodily mutilation in others. Sex in handcuffs is S&M in one context, rape in another.
That SERE participants know what they’re getting into, choose to get into it freely, trust the people who are administering their training, know that they will not be killed, believe they need to undergo it for the sake of the country’s security, possibly have a safe word that ends the whole thing if they need it, and so on and so forth—all of this is sufficiently different from what enemies occasionally do to one another in wartime that calling SERE training techniques “torture” stretches the meaning of that word beyond the breaking point. It even stretches the meaning of “waterboarding,” for “waterboarding” someone in the true sense of the word does not involve any of the above qualifications.
But this does not evade the challenge of the category of intrinsically evil acts. It just means that the intrinsically evil act of waterboarding, if it does belong in this category, does not occur when the above details are taken into consideration.
I’m not sure what to think about Carter’s conclusion that what happens in SERE training is still evil, even if of a lesser variety. I take his point that this sort of training played a crucial role in enabling the flip over into advocacy for and the practice of torture. However, whatever they do in SERE training—and I’m not voluteering to under go it, as I’m sure it’s very tough and awful in many respects—I think it’s a mistake to call it waterboarding. But my main point here is that taking context into account doesn’t evade the challenge of the ban on intrinsically evil acts. The real mindblower with SERE is how anyone could overlook the aforementioned details in making the justificatory leap from SERE training to torture.
And when we move from waterboarding to nuking innocent civilians, such evasion is even more difficult and problematic. There’s no SERE-type program for subjecting U.S. civilians to direct nuclear attacks. No matter what else is going on in the decision to intentionally kill innocent human beings, one is still intentionally killing innocent human beings. And that is murder, and that is intrinsically evil. As it was on 8/6 and 8/9/45, so it was on 9/11/01.
January 5th, 2010 | 12:07 pm
Pavlischek: “THE HONORABLE POSITION IS TO SAY THAT ‘EVEN THOUGH THESE TECHNIQUES WORKED, I DON’T WANT YOU TO DO THAT.’”
I agree, and I would only point out the flip side of taking this honorable position—it means that literally anything can be justified in a crisis. Even abortion can be countenanced under extreme circumstances (which is not really hypothetical, think only of pregnant women in Hiroshima and Nagasaki). So we come to the bizarre conclusion that those who currently seek to make abortion illegal would reserve the right to practice abortion—and anything else—if and when an emergency demanded it.
January 5th, 2010 | 12:23 pm
Keith,
Thank you for posting the interview with Hayden. When I watched it live, I thought that it was the best defense/explanation that I had seen from a Bush administration official yet.
January 5th, 2010 | 1:04 pm
And, for Catholics, it is important to remember that we not only have a proscription of torture but a prescription of humane treatment of prisoners. The latter is often ignored in these discussions.
January 5th, 2010 | 3:15 pm
Charlie Collier writes:
===================
“That SERE participants know what they’re getting into, choose to get into it freely, trust the people who are administering their training, know that they will not be killed, believe they need to undergo it for the sake of the country’s security, possibly have a safe word that ends the whole thing if they need it, and so on and so forth—all of this is sufficiently different from what enemies occasionally do to one another in wartime that calling SERE training techniques “torture” stretches the meaning of that word beyond the breaking point. It even stretches the meaning of “waterboarding,” for “waterboarding” someone in the true sense of the word does not involve any of the above qualifications.
But this does not evade the challenge of the category of intrinsically evil acts. It just means that the intrinsically evil act of waterboarding, if it does belong in this category, does not occur when the above details are taken into consideration.”
=====================
I think this is exactly correct. But this means that the permissibility of the act of “waterboarding” (and whether it is “torture”) is contingent on the surrounding context as well as the “intent” of those applying the technique. If the mere act of “waterboarding” (label the procedure whatever you like) is permissible under one set of surrounding contexts, might it not also be permissible under another set of surrounding contexts (and impermissible in others).
What might be other set of surrounding contexts that would render waterboarding permissible? Or are the contexts in SERE training that Charlie enumerated so well the ONLY set that would render waterboarding permissible? Or can we imagine others?
It is also worth noting that there are some acts that the US government would NOT perform on SERE students, EVEN IF THEY EXPLICITLY CONSENTED TO IT. What makes waterboarding different from those other acts that would NEVER be done regardless of consent, trust etc.?
January 6th, 2010 | 11:51 am
Blog posts and comment streams are probably not the place to do much serious reflection on matters. No sooner do conversations get started than people are moving on to some new thread, leaving the old ones dangling in mid air.
But I have some remaining questions for Pavlischek, if anyone is still interested in tying up the loose ones here.
To Keith, if I may, while I felt like I was on a roll—having gotten two First Thingers to agree with me, the radical pacifist!, on different matters—I’m not actually sure you agree with me about action and description. Your parenthetical remark (“label the procedure whatever you like”) suggests that you missed my point (or that I didn’t make it clearly enough). My point is that there is no intelligible action (or procedure) that precedes description, such that you can “label the procedure whatever you like.” A “boob job” is not “reconstructive plastic breast surgery”. It is a fundamentally different action (and indeed very questionable as medical practice). That some very highly paid surgeons want us to think of their “aesthetic improvements” of men and women as consistent with the practice of medicine doesn’t make them so. And just because they were trained in a skill set that was designed for genuine medical practice doesn’t mean they cannot abuse that skill set.
Likewise, the surgeon who uses his training to steal organs from poor people or from prisoners is not practicing medicine on them—he’s committing a crime against them. In other words, these are two different procedures, two different actions, not one procedure under two different descriptions. I’m claiming that there wasn’t one procedure being used by both SERE and the Khmer Rouge. Rather, they were fundamentally different actions. One was clearly torture, the other was a training exercise.
With regards to waterboarding, I think you’re trying to think of it as one procedure under a variety of different descriptions, and you’re doing so because of the significance context can play in determining what is going on in a given situation. But I think this continues to evade the challenge of the category of intrinsically evil action.
What we need from you is a set of clarifications. Are there intrinsically evil acts—acts that are always evil and never to be done, no matter what additional circumstances might be added tot he picture (in saying they can never be done, I presume for the moment that you don’t believe evil can be done that good may prevail)? If not, the conversation ends here, I think. If you do accept the existence of such a category, then do you believe torture is one such intrinsically evil act? If not, it would be good to know why, as this would represent a significant departure from the line staked out by Richard John Neuhaus (may he rest in peace). If you do believe torture is intrinsically evil, and thus not to be undertaken in any circumstance, what are the defining features of torture? What makes torture intrinsically evil? And lastly, why would the U.S. categorize waterboarding as torture for so long, only to backtrack when it its own case when it was deemed convenient or necessary?
If you could answer these questions, we could perhaps clarify the nature of our disagreement. Some people think evil can be done that good may prevail. Some don’t think that, but they don’t believe there is such a thing as intrinsically evil action. Some believe there are intrinsically evil acts, also refuse lesser evil arguments, but think that torture isn’t intrinsically evil. Some think that there are such acts, that torture is one of them, but that waterboarding is not torture. It would be helpful to know where you are in all of this.
Lastly, I’ve thought more about your resistance to Carter’s language of “moral obtuseness.” I’m not sure why you cared about that. After all, if Carter is right about waterboarding, should it really make us feel better to be considered morally serious if we are in fact complicit with evil? Can one even be morally acute and complicit with evil?
January 6th, 2010 | 11:54 am
In the proper context — a terrorist holding the weapon of information — waterboarding is no more torture than is shooting dead someone about to attack a school. The line of sight here is through the concept of asymmetrical warfare. Terrorists are not captured soldiers. They are active combatants until they have surrendered their weapon, which is the information they have about their terror outfit. Terrorism is not a battle line forming up in a conventional battlespace. It is a string of information formed in the mind of the individuals committed to the terrorist cell.
Waterboarding is a mild and effective approach to disarming those individuals.
January 6th, 2010 | 1:06 pm
[...] divergent views on waterboarding. Joe Carter responds to Marc Thiessen’s original post, and Thiessen replies. Posted in Politics | No Comments [...]
January 6th, 2010 | 1:21 pm
Joe:
As I note in my Southern Appeal post, the problem with Thiessen’s argument is that its crudely consequential. Here’s what I write:
And here’s my follow-up in the combox (#20):
January 6th, 2010 | 1:28 pm
Keith nails it: if waterboarding is intrinsically wrong, then consenting to it cannot make it right. In fact, to claim that it is permissible to waterboard in certain situations (as in military training) is to concede it is not intrinsically immoral.
January 6th, 2010 | 2:02 pm
I agree with, and appreciate, everything Fracis Beckwith has added, up to but not including his brief second post. “Consent” is no part of the definition of waterboarding. To introduce consent into waterboarding is to introduce a different action and thereby change the subject.
You can’t introduce consent into the practice of waterboarding any more than you can introduce consent into rape or murder. What Christopher Hitchens allowed himself to be subjected to for Vanity Fair was enough for him to call it torture, but it was not in fact waterboarding, but rather a simulacrum. The real thing is as definitionally opposed to consent as a practice can be.
In other words, it’s one thing to say that a simulacrum of waterboarding is not intrinsically evil, an entirely different thing to argue that waterboarding itself is not.
January 6th, 2010 | 2:23 pm
Is it intrinsically evil to stop one person from murdering another? Of course not. In fact, it is intrinsically good and a moral duty to do so.
Is it intrinsically evil to insist that a man who knows where his fellow murderers are planning to murder next to reveal that information? Of course not. It is a moral duty to demand that information from him.
Is it intrinsically evil for that man to refuse to reveal that information? Yes, it is.
Then how could God be offended by the use of what is really the physiological trickery of waterboarding (the terrifying inducement of the gag reflex) to induce Murderer A from revealing where his fellow murderers will strike next? The answer is that God would not be offended. His beloved creature Murderer A has become intrinsically evil and in order to stop the evil that he is a part of he can, with good conscience on the part of the induceres, be induced to reveal his intrinsically evil information.
This is not a difficult question.
January 6th, 2010 | 2:29 pm
Typing in haste, my above comment went to the moderator without a close proofreading. Apologies for that. Make the appropriate adjustments when reading it. MMcP
January 6th, 2010 | 8:25 pm
Is waterboarding torture? If you define torture as inflicting intense pain, then yes, waterboarding is torture. Is torture intrinsically wrong? No! And no, Veritatis Spendor #80 does NOT teach that torture is intrinsically wrong any more than it teaches that deportation (which is listed right along with torture).
Moreover, if we are to say that waterboarding is intrinsically evil, we are in a real quandry. After all, if it morally licit to inflict death on someone as a means of defense, then how can we say that waterboarding a terrorist to extract actionable intelligence (which is defensive in nature because it saves innocent lives) is intrinsically evil, especially when waterboarding leaves no permannent damage?
KSM was waterboarding 183 times? So, what? It happened to help thwart a 9-11 style attack on Los Angeles. It doesn’t matter if it took 183 or 183,000 times to get that intel. I say waterboard him until he grows gills if that’s what it takes.
January 6th, 2010 | 10:57 pm
“KSM was waterboarding 183 times? ”
Phrase was supposed to read:
KSM was waterboarded 183 times?
January 7th, 2010 | 8:55 am
Veritatis Splendor section 80 does teach that torture is an intrinsic evil as it does deportation (which is not the same thing as extradition, if that is what you were thinking). Here is the link to the document:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html
An excerpt:
~Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. … The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: … whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; ~
Et cetera.
Regarding deportation, here is a link the Vatican website for the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/index.htm
Numerous Church documents on the Vatican website discuss the evil of deportation, including these:
http://tiny.cc/0vFXV
January 7th, 2010 | 4:20 pm
Matt:
I am aware of VS 80. But it does not teach what you think it does.
First of all, to say that deportation and extradition are not the same is a distinction without a difference if there ever was one.
But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there was a difference. You mean to tell me that it would be intrinsically evil for the U.S. to deport one of its citizens to another country regardless of the dangers he may pose? Remember what “intrinsic” evil means. It means that it is evil withuot regard to intention or circumstance.
As I pointed out in a previous comment, if the use of torture, such as in the case of waterboarding, was intrinsically evil, then Catholic teaching would contain an internal contradiction. If we can impose the death penalty on a dangerous malefactor if it is deemed necessary as a defensive measure, but not waterboard (while unpleasant but leaves no permanent damage and involves no sexual degradation or anything like that) a terrorist when it is likewise deemed necessary to obtain lifesaving intel (also defensive in nature), that is a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction, something the Holy Spirit prevents Church teaching from doing.
Like the death penalty, the morality of the use of torture is fact dependent (i.e. determined by the needs of the circumstance in question).
When reading Church documents, this is the paradigm through which they must be read in order to avoid the errors that many Catholics (including yourself Matt) fall prey to on issues like this.
January 7th, 2010 | 8:19 pm
[...] Do Only Radical Pacifists Oppose Torture? [...]
January 8th, 2010 | 12:02 pm
[...] For more on this topic, see here and [...]
January 8th, 2010 | 2:52 pm
Torture comes from the word root of “torque” – both latin and Greek usage included the device known to us as the ‘rack’ – the use of which was intended to literally pull a person apart.
Thus, the classic definition of what constituted ‘torture’ was PERMANENT injury to a person’s body, mind, or soul.
If the pain, terror, or trial does not provoke permanent injury then as unpleasant as it is, it is not torture.
Simple as that folks. Which is why definitions are so vital both to philosophy, theology, and ethical debates.
As for what others ASSERT to be torture or not, I’m afraid we find a case of missing quotes “”. So someone stuck in an aircraft for 3 hours without water or bathroom breaks describes the ordeal as “torture”. Or being forced to listen to some politician drone on and on about how brilliant he is while being clear as mud immediately after saying “let me be clear” could be described as “torture”. But TECHNICALLY, and thus, for purposes of ethical debates, such ordeals were not torture.
This doesn’t mean less than permanent damage is OK willy nilly. Or that it’s not subject to the moral law. Of course it is. And some things that are less than torture can be illegal and ought to be proscribed for civilized people. But again, we must stick to definitions least we inherit the curse of Babel.
After all, two can play the “let’s redefine terms” game.
February 19th, 2010 | 9:22 pm
Machiavelli was a pagan? Which pantheon of gods did he worship? Can you be most specific in your use of the word ‘pagan’?
Pagans invented democracy and Epicurus (a pagan) articulated ideas of natural law and the golden rule (due unto others) long before Jesus lived. The ancient Delphic Maxims give clear guidelines for pagan ethical behavior, these guidelines are very clear that murder and harming others is wrong. Torture is no more of a pagan value than it is a Christian value.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact