At The Corner, Marc Thiessen responded to my contention that his defense of torture is more in line with the tradition of Zeus and Odin than of Moses and Christ. I’m not surprised that he would take offense at such a suggestion, but since he is a Catholic I presumed he would provide a rebuttal based on Christian ethics or on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Instead, his response seems to have come directly from the Catechism of the Central Intelligence Agency.
I suppose that is all that could be expected since torture cannot be defended based on Christian principles. But it at least would have been entertaining to see him make an effort. That would have been preferable to the ill-argued points he makes, which I feel obligated to respond to in detail.
Over at First Things, Joe Carter takes exception to my assertion that those who oppose enhanced interrogation are arguing from a position of radical pacifism — and accuses me of being . . . a pagan. My goodness.
Actually, I never accuse him of being a pagan—only of making an argument based on pagan principles. As we shall see, Mr. Thiessen’s apology for the practical and moral superiority of certain methods of torture fails to convince otherwise.
[Carter] asserts — while presenting absolutely no evidence to back his claim — that enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA are torture;
For anyone that remains unclear on the meaning of the term, I’ve listed seven legal definitions of torture at the end of this post. Now let’s take a look at the list of enhanced interrogation techniques that the CIA employed:
1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning .
The last three indisputably fit the definition of torture under all seven references. Mr. Theissen may prefer to use his own private definition, but it does not change the fact that waterboarding—the technique that we are debating—fits the legal definitions of torture.
. . . that they have been considered torture since the Spanish Inquisition . . . All of this is false.
From The Spanish Inquisition, a book by Oxford scholar Cecil Roth:
The water-torture was more ingenious, and more fiendish. The prisoner was fastened almost naked on a sort of trestle with sharp-edged rungs and kept in position with an iron band, his head lower than his feet, and his limbs bound to the side-pieces with agonizing tightness. The mouth was then forced open and a strip of linen inserted into the gullet. Through this, water was poured from a jar (jarra), obstructing the throat and nostrils and producing a state of semi-suffocation. The process was repeated time after time, as many as eight jarras being applied.
How does this differ from the CIA method?
. . . and that “the U.S government considered waterboarding to be torture when it was used on our soldiers in World War II.” . . . All of this is false.
During the U.S. Army Trials of Japanese War Criminals Conducted in Yokohama, Japan, Yukio Asano was charged with “Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs.” Among the specifications listed were “beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward”
No doubt Mr. Thieseen will regale us with some bit of sophistry about how this “water torture” (simulated drowning) is radically different from waterboarding (which is also simulated drowning).
Then Carter really blunders. He says waterboarding “would be considered torture if used on our servicemembers today.” Really? He seems oblivious to the fact that waterboarding is used on our servicemembers today — by their own government. Tens of thousands of American troops have been waterboarded during SERE training (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape).
Here is what Malcolm Nance, counter-terrorism and terrorism intelligence consultant for the U.S. government’s Special Operations and a former Navy SERE school instructor, said in Small Wars Journal about the difference between waterboarding in training and what was done by the CIA:
The carnival-like he-said, she-said of the legality of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques has become a form of doublespeak worthy of Catch-22. 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.
Also, the CIA’s own Inspector General says that what they did and what is done in SERE training are completely different:
A footnote in the recently released 2004 CIA Office of Inspector General’s review of the government’s interrogation program appears to undermine a key legal justification that allowed the spy agency to use the controversial technique of waterboarding against suspected terrorist detainees.
A central legal—and polemic—argument for use of waterboarding has been the fact that some U.S. soldiers are subjected to the procedure during training. In 2002, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote a memo approving the technique, based in part on the fact that it had produced no long-term ill effects on soldiers who had undergone waterboarding during training. Those memos were later withdrawn by the DOJ.
But the latest review shows the waterboarding technique used on suspected terrorists was different in technique and duration from that administered to U.S. soldiers.
The OIG report says that experts’ initial analysis of waterboarding “was probably misrepresented at the time,” according to the CIA’s Office of Medical Services, because “the SERE [survival, evasion, resistance, and escape program] waterboard experience is so different from the subsequent agency usage as to make it almost irrelevant.”
As a consequence, the OIG found, “according to [the Office of Medical Services], there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe.”
Theissen continues:
[Carter] says “the evidence that waterboarding helped stop a number of terrorist attacks is debatable.” Again, he presents no evidence to back this claim — which is demonstrably wrong.
Here is the testimony of FBI interrogator Ali Soufan presented to the Senate Judiciary committee:
The issue that I am here to discuss today – interrogation methods used to question terrorists – is not, and should not be, a partisan matter. We all share a commitment to using the best interrogation method possible that serves our national security interests and fits squarely within the framework of our nation’s principles.
From my experience – and I speak as someone who has personally interrogated many terrorists and elicited important actionable intelligence– I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a position shared by many professional operatives, including the CIA officers who were present at the initial phases of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation.
These techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda.
Whether Soufan is correct or not, the issue of the techniques effectiveness is certainly—as I claimed—open to honest debate.
The fact is that virtually every impartial investigation into the efficacy of the CIA interrogation program has concluded that it produced intelligence that saved lives.
I’m curious to hear what impartial investigation Mr. Theissen is referring. The only sources that I’ve seen claim that the techniques were effective were . . . the officials who employed the techniques. Considering that they were under scrutiny for violating several laws, I think they would have reason to provide as much justification as possible for their actions.
Carter then pulls out the tired argument, asserting that “waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ are not the only means of extracting information from our enemies.” And he suggests — I kid you not — that we could have broken Khalid Sheikh Mohammed by offering him . . . sugar cookies. And he calls my arguments embarrassing?
Mr. Theissen is just getting desperate now. Here is what I actually said:
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.
Thiessen can add strawman to the list of fallacies he is willing to commit to defend torture.
Finally, Carter questions my credentials for even discussing these matters because I was just a “speechwriter.” Another big blunder. Unlike Carter, I was actually read in to the CIA program. Unlike Carter, I have seen the intelligence it produced. Unlike Carter, I have met and spoken with the actual interrogators who broke KSM and other terrorists. In other words, I know a heck of a lot more about this topic than he does.
Another strawman. Let’s examine what I actually said:
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 men I am referring to are Sen. John McCain, Gen. Charles Krulak (former commandant of the Marine Corps), Joseph Hoar (former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command), and John Hutson (former Judge Advocate General of the Navy). Mr. Theissen may be a speechwriter who had access to the people in the CIA, but I will still trust the knowledge and experience of these men over his. The fact that he has proven himself willing to parrot just about anything he heard from a CIA official in order to defend them makes him less than an reliable, unbiased, non-partisan source.
The fact is, CIA interrogators are good and decent men who went to great lengths to ensure the safety of terrorists in their custody. We should be grateful to them for taking on the thankless and difficult job of interrogating captured terrorists. They elicited information that saved countless innocent lives. Like our soldiers in battle, they took on unpleasant responsibilities so that we could sleep safely in our beds. To call them torturers is not only wrong, it is ungrateful. They are not torturers; they are heroes.
While I have a great deal of respect for the men and women of the CIA, the fact remains that some of them were willing to commit torture. They may have done so with the best of intentions, and because of that I would not want to see them prosecuted for those crimes. But the fact remains that despite Mr. Thiessen’s efforts at sophistry and Orwellian euphemism, the actions are legally and morally considered torture.
Their actions deserve to be defended not just on pragmatic grounds, but on moral grounds as well.
While I will concede that a case could be made on pragmatic grounds, the moral justification is hard to understand. Perhaps my Catholic friends can inform him of the Church’s positions on torture, the treatment of prisoners, and Machiavellianism. Maybe then he can try again, this time presenting an argument based on Christian principles.
See also: Thiessen’s Catechism on Torture (Part II)
Addendum: Legal Definitions of Torture
- Part 1, Article 1 and the US Reservations of the UN Convention Against Torture: The term “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.
- The US Reservations for the UN Convention Against Torture: In order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
- Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
- Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
- Article 7(2)(e) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
- Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish. The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.
- 18 United States Code Title 18, §2340(2)“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control
(2)“severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
January 6th, 2010 | 3:56 pm
[...] Joe Carters offers a response to Thiessen’s reply. Posted in Politics | No Comments » Leave a [...]
January 6th, 2010 | 4:07 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DNC DUDES, Spy Scroll. Spy Scroll said: Theissen's Catechism on Torture: Instead, his response seems to have come directly from the Catechism of th.. http://bit.ly/6EpF3z [...]
January 6th, 2010 | 4:09 pm
Joe, if I understood the arguments you were making in your last post, you would consider all of the “enhanced techniques” torture because they can be viewed as violating the Geneva Convention. You indicated that exposure to hours of questioning or loud music would be torture. While I share your belief that torture is unacceptable, I think that the use of techniques that create discomfort but do not cause physical injury require a little deeper analysis than “it’s torture because I say so”. Do you think the “Attention Grab” or “Attention Slap” are torture?
January 6th, 2010 | 6:43 pm
Since Joe wants to keep digging, I’ll offer a shovel or two.
FIRST I’m confused about your position. In the comments in your last post you claimed that using the waterboard even in SERE training, under carefully controlled conditions, was nevertheless both (1) torture and (2) evil.
That seemed to me to be a rather preposterous claim. But now you are bringing forth testimony by an “expert” who gives good reasons to believe that using the waterboard in SERE training is NOT TOTURE.
Unless I am missing something, according to your own line of reasoning that expert, Malcolm Nance, is himself guilty of committing “torture,” (if indeed he was involved with that sort of thing in SERE school) of submitting to torture (which he admits in his testimony) and most certainly of being complicit in torture. So, could you please explain why you disagree with Malcolm Nance on this issue? I wonder if you consider his involvement in all this as “evil.” I also wonder if Malcolm Nance can be accused of “paganism” or using “pagan reasoning” to defend such “torture” and such “evil” during SERE training? Or could it be that he is less evil because the torture he participated in at SERE school was “torture lite,” or whatever.
SECOND: Joe claims this:
“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.”
I’m afraid this doesn’t pass the giggle test. Of COURSE if sugar cookies will work, go with the sugar cookies (unless the guy has diabetes in which case it might be “torture.”) But the old “sugar cookie method” doesn’t always work and you can bet they don’t work with the most hardened senior AQ members.
So, are you suggesting that sugar cookies would have been effective with, say, KSM? When Theissen claims that the most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative was not the guy fed sugar cookies but rather the successful interrogation using EIT of KSM, are you suggesting that Theissen is lying? making it all up? Woefully misinformed? Are you really better informed on this empirical question than he is?
THIRD
Joe says:
“I’m curious to hear what impartial investigation Mr. Theissen is referring. The only sources that I’ve seen claim that the techniques were effective were . . . the officials who employed the techniques. Considering that they were under scrutiny for violating several laws, I think they would have reason to provide as much justification as possible for their actions.”
I’ll let Theissen speak for himself on the investigations, but it is worth noting, once again, the following comment by Gen. Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA (who I suspect knows just a little bit about the investigations at issue). Again, here’s what Gen. Hayden told Chris Wallace:
=====================
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.
=================
It does indeed take courage to say that these techniques worked, that they were effective, in ways that sugar cookies were not, in saving innocent lives. It takes courage to say that the waterboarding of KSM saved many innocent lives, but then go on to say that the death of many civilians is the price American civilians will need to pay to keep our intelligence personnel from using enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding. But it seems to me just preposterous to suggest, against such testimony, that KSM would have spilled the beans, and the deaths and attacks prevented, if only the interrogators had tried a kinder-gentler “sugar cookie” method of interrogation.
So, Joe, can you explain to me what you think of General Hayden’s testimony on this? What information or expertise on these matters do you, or say, Gen. Krulak or Gen. Hoar have on these matters that Gen Hayden does not?
(Let me add that Gen Hayden became CIA director long–2006- after waterboarding was discontinued in 2003.)
January 6th, 2010 | 7:28 pm
robert moody Joe, if I understood the arguments you were making in your last post, you would consider all of the “enhanced techniques” torture because they can be viewed as violating the Geneva Convention.
Yes, that’s true. But to keep from getting the discussion sidetracked, I decided to focus only the last three.
I would also say that the while the first three fit the legal definition of torture, they may not fit the moral definition. While getting slapped on the belly would be an abuse of a prisoner, I’m not sure that it would do lasting damage so it would be more general abuse than torture.. (I also don’t see how aids in the interrogation.)
Keith But now you are bringing forth testimony by an “expert” who gives good reasons to believe that using the waterboard in SERE training is NOT TOTURE.
I don’t think a person has to agree with me that waterboarding in SERE school—when it is voluntary—is torture for them to consider it torture when done on prisoners. So I’ll concede that for the sake of argument in order to keep the argument on the essential points.
I wonder if you consider his involvement in all this as “evil.”
I do, and I suspect Nance might also. But let’s be clear—I think they were involved in an evil action because they thought it was for a greater good. It’s essentially a Machiavellian justification that I don’t think Christians should make.
So, are you suggesting that sugar cookies would have been effective with, say, KSM?
No, I don’t. But I suspect non-torture methods would have broken him faster. I truly believe that if KSM had been interrogated by the FBI rather than the CIA that we would have got the same information out of him sooner, making it even more actionable.
are you suggesting that Theissen is lying? making it all up? Woefully misinformed?
No, I don’t think he’s lying. But Thiessen seems to believe anything the CIA tells him. I have doubts that waterboarding (or other EIT methods) were the only things that caused KSM to talk. I think when it came out that they could have been prosecuted for using those methods they needed to get public opinion on their side. The fact that the CIA gave up the use of waterboarding without a fight shows that they didn’t think it was an essential technique.
but it is worth noting, once again, the following comment by Gen. Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA
Again, this is not exactly an unbiased source. The fact that a former Director of the CIA would defend the CIA is to be expected.
It does indeed take courage to say that these techniques worked, that they were effective, in ways that sugar cookies were not, in saving innocent lives.
Why is it that the FBI and military say they are ineffective yet the CIA—facing prosecution for the actions—suddenly found them to be the only thing that worked?
So, Joe, can you explain to me what you think of General Hayden’s testimony on this? What information or expertise on these matters do you, or say, Gen. Krulak or Gen. Hoar have on these matters that Gen Hayden does not?
Honestly, I don’t think Hayden has any more expertise than the other generals. In fact, I suspect that had he been with the Air Force rather than with the CIA, that he would have been critical of the actions too. I think Hayden was covering for his people (and himself) by believing them when they said the techniques work. I don’t think he had any more to go on than memos that claimed they method worked.
(Let me add that Gen Hayden became CIA director long–2006- after waterboarding was discontinued in 2003.)
So he came on after the techniques were used, after all the CYA had occurred, and continued to parrot the line that would keep his people from prosecuted. I’m not sure how that helps his expertise on the matter.
Are there any non-CIA sources that claim to know that waterboarding is effective? Also, if Hayden thought the techniques were so effective, why did he not push Congress to let him use them?
January 6th, 2010 | 8:16 pm
…torture cannot be defended based on Christian principles.
Precisely.
January 6th, 2010 | 8:40 pm
Can the “simulated drowning” of waterboarding be reasonably distinguished from a mock execution?
I ask because mock executions of captives are forbidden by the U.S. Army field manual.
January 6th, 2010 | 11:35 pm
God bless you, Joe. Fight the good fight!
January 7th, 2010 | 8:45 am
[...] got Joe Carter in a bit of a lather that resulted in a blogging exchange. After one round, Carter responded in a post that begins this way: At The Corner, Marc Thiessen responded to my contention that his defense of torture is more in [...]
January 7th, 2010 | 8:47 am
Joe, this post is brilliant. I am not a frequent reader of First Things blogs, but this is the best post I have ever read on this site.
January 7th, 2010 | 10:19 am
Joe, you were right that Thiessen does accuse you of radical pacificism. It was I who misread him.
I find the debate over the efficacy of “enhanced interrogation” very interesting. You would think that no one would ever use these methods, which at the least are distasteful, legally problematic, and morally debatable, unless they clearly worked. But then I remember that our government agencies, the CIA being a perfect example, typically display incompetence that defies all common sense. It would not necessarily be surprising to see the government persist in using methods that demonstrably did not produce the desired results.
January 7th, 2010 | 11:19 am
But Joe, you spent your posts on this subject using legal definitions of torture as your guideline. You begin your response to me by conceding that all the interrogation techniques meet the legal definition of torture in the Geneva Convention but then posit a difference between “legal” and “moral” torture. Can we question terrorists at all? What would you suggest for a guideline on moral grounds?
January 7th, 2010 | 11:46 am
[...] First, I will point you to Joe Carter’s llatest takedown. [...]
January 7th, 2010 | 3:08 pm
If torture is an ineffective means of obtaining information that would save innocent lives, then of course there is no utility in it that could justify the harm it inflicts.
The assertions that torture is ineffective that I have read usually argue “people will say anything to stop their suffering”. This is clearly an argument that confessions extracted through torture are not reliable evidence to use in convicting someone of a crime. The U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court have already excluded use of such statements from evidence, so they have no utility for that purpose. However, that does not dispose of the issue as to whether statements rendered under duress (of whatever degree) might have value in preventing intentional harm to innocent persons, either by confederates of the person being interrogated or some mechanism (like a time bomb) that he set in motion before his capture. The validity of the statements can only be determined after the fact, by using them to take action or obtain further information, such as going to the location of a bomb, or capturing a confederate of the prisoner and finding physical evidence of their conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack. We cannot say a priori that a specific statement has no value, or that it has value, is true or false. The possibility that it may be true enough to prevent harm to innocent people is the only justification possible for torture in interrogations.
This is a terrible choice, but it is not the only kind of terrible choice we are faced with in warring against a vast conspiracy of terrorists. Yesterday two Oregon Air National Guard F-16s were scrambled to follow a plane whose pilot decided to divert from his planned route and land the plane because of a disturbance among the passengers. If it turned out that the plane were hijacked, and being directed at downtown Portland, the pilots were prepared to execute an order to shoot down the passenger plane before it took innocent lives on the ground.
That is the choice that the passengers of United Flight 93 made when they attacked the hijackers of their plane, to be prepared to kill themselves and the other innocent passengers in order to prevent the use of their plane as a missile against the White House or US Capitol Building.
Terrible choices are made when US forces are informed that a terrorist leader has been located, in a place where killing him will also entail the death of less culpable supporters and even innocent civilians. While protocols are followed to try to limit collateral deaths as much as possible, they still will take opportunities to kill men who, left alone, would willingly kill thousands of Americans.
We are prepared to assassinate people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, even with some additional loss of life. We are prepared to kill dozens of innocent hostages in order to save more innocent lives on the ground from a hijacked airliner. Surely homicide is just as morally objectionable as torture. But I believe that most Americans believe that it is justificable homicide when it prevents the deaths of even more innocent people.
If homicide can be justifiable to protect the innocent, what moral calculus makes it unjustifiable to use torture against a terrorist conspirator for the same purpose? Even if there is only a 10% chance that the information extracted from the terrorist will prevent innocent death, isn’t there a point at which the torture is morally justified, especially if the number of innocent lives saved increases from one to a thousand, and the torture involves suffering but no permanent physical harm?
If we take a position that our morality does not allow us to inflict suffering short of permanent injury or death, even if our reluctance leads to the death of a thousand innocent people, then how do we justify sending fighter planes to shoot down hijacked planes, or send armed drones to assassinate terrorist leaders?
The plot of the recent movie Angels and Demons posits a nuclear bomb hidden beneath the Vatican. The conspirator who has kidnapped and murdered several cardinals is killed by his co-conspirator, but if he were captured, would it be justified to torture him to discover the location of the bomb to save the lives of thousands of people in Rome? A law enforcement agent who had the person in custody, and who knew about the nuclear time bomb, would have two main choices: To use whatever means possible to force the criminal to disclose the location of the bomb, or to allow innocents to die, with his consent. To claim that one is not the active agent of the innocent deaths, and thus to claim innocence for oneself, seems to me to be a sophistry. By intentionally allowing the terrorist to keep his secret, you have become a co-conspirator in his plot.
January 7th, 2010 | 4:29 pm
If homicide can be justifiable to protect the innocent, what moral calculus makes it unjustifiable to use torture against a terrorist conspirator for the same purpose?
And if torture against a terrorist conspirator can be justifiable to protect the innocent, what moral calculus makes i unjustifiable to use torture against a terrorist’s family members if he does not respond to his own torture?
If we take a position that our morality does not allow us to inflict suffering short of permanent injury or death, even if our reluctance leads to the death of a thousand innocent people, then how do we justify sending fighter planes to shoot down hijacked planes, or send armed drones to assassinate terrorist leaders?
1. I’m not certain assasinations are justified.
2. Shooting down the airplane may be justified through the principle of double effect where the desturction of the plane is an unavoidable and unintended consequence of my action to save the billing.
It is impossible to torture someone without intending to harm him.
A law enforcement agent who had the person in custody, and who knew about the nuclear time bomb, would have two main choices: To use whatever means possible to force the criminal to disclose the location of the bomb, or to allow innocents to die, with his consent.
Why is the choice between torture and do nothing? The agent has an entire menu of options at his disposal that span the spectrums of both morality and probable effectiveness.
To claim that one is not the active agent of the innocent deaths, and thus to claim innocence for oneself, seems to me to be a sophistry.
So, if I knew I could threaten a terrorist’s innocent children and get him to foil the plot, and I made the decision not to do that, that would make me just as complicit in the plot as he was?
The choice is not “torture or let thousands die.” The choice is, “should I try torture or some other means?”
Yes, we face “terrible choices.” And the correct answer to some of those choices is, “No.”
January 7th, 2010 | 4:31 pm
No, an omission of an act to prevent an evil act is not the necessarily the same as consent to or even formal cooperation in such evil act. You cannot colllapse the two into one, for to do so is to deny the fact that the evil actor has a separate will, and the act is judged distinctly.
Americans are a fairly utilitarian/consequentialist people when it comes to warfare. It may be American, but Catholics cannot rest comfortably in that. Not one bit.
January 7th, 2010 | 6:37 pm
Torturing the family of a terrorist to extract information from the terrorist is harming the innocent. It cannot be justified. The terrorist, however, is not innocent.
The more difficult question is what moral calculus draws a line in the spectrum of torture. Why is the issue of whether the coercion causes “permanent physical or psychological harm” relevant if the only thing being weighed is the pain and discomfort of the terrorist vs. saving thousands of innocent lives? In other words, who cares if he loses a few fingers or toes if innocents can be saved?
Another question: If the Japanese had caught an American soldier with knowledge of when and what route the Enola Gay would be taking to drop the bomb, such that that information would allow them to focus their defences to shoot down the plane, would they be justified in torturing him for the information? Catholic doctrine holds the atom bomb attack as being evil. Would Thiessen hold the torture of the American to be justified, even morally required?
January 7th, 2010 | 9:25 pm
Info, Marc Thiessen has previously accused Ali Soufan of not merely being mistaken about the effectiveness of traditional interrogation methods, but of lying about them as they pertain to Abu Zubaydah. July 19, 2009:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDU2MmU4MjVhYzZhNTllOWRkNmNjNWNhZTIxODFlYjU=
(I do not have any opinion of my own on the matter.)
January 8th, 2010 | 9:54 am
Torture?
Torture is knowing that 50% of weekly Catholic goers voted for a President whose position against the ‘sanctity of life’ is more extreme than NARAL. Torture is knowing Catholics voted for a President who advocates the baby die AFTER the initial abortion failed.
In addition, torture is knowing Catholic voters continually vote into power Roman Catholic pro-abortion politicians.
Yet the only thing Catholics bitch about is ‘waterboarding’.
Torture is seeing and hearing Catholics preen themselves about how they defend the ‘sanctity of life’ while they consistently empower the The Party of Abortionists.
Catholics, when it comes to the topic of torture your Catechism is schizophrenic evil.
January 8th, 2010 | 9:58 am
Joe (and any other commenter): have you read Thiessen’s book? Just wondering.
January 8th, 2010 | 10:54 am
Interesting.
When preaching to the choir, resorting to facts is not always necessary.
Comparing CIA waterboarding to the Spanish Inquisition is not only inaccurate, it’s dishonest. Please do yourself a favor and do more research.
I know it’s not necessary to entertain your regular readers; but for the occasional “off the reservation” viewer that stumbles upon your writings, it will preserve the chance that that particular reader may return.
January 8th, 2010 | 11:47 am
Joe, I’m an average Catholic who tries to follow this issue on blogs. I don’t know all the ins and out of Catholic moral theology, Church history and papal pronouncements. But my gut tells me we shouldn’t be waterboarding.
However, again as your basic Catholic, what Thiessen says seems simple and understandable. “An intrinsic evil is an act that it, of its own nature, evil regardless of circumstances. This is not true of waterboarding. The circumstances matter.”
Abortion is an intrinsically evil act, no matter the circumstance. It is per se wrong no matter if aborting a particular baby (and using it’s stem cells) could cure all cancers.
I believe this is your position: waterboarding is an intrinsically evil act, no matter the circumstance. It is per se wrong no matter if WB could save many lives.
Joe, as I said, my “sense” is that the Christ and the Church would never allow waterboarding, but I sometimes bump up against some good arguments, logic and the fact that many, many otherwise faithful Catholics are not completely in the WB=torture camp. On the other hand, many Catholics don’t realize they are descending into the “ends justify the means” trap of the pro abortion camp.
Please, in all sincerity, address these issues here or in another format (maybe a book) with decency, dignity and class. I am sincerely seeking answers and maybe you can write the definitive and comprehensive analysis of this issue. I think there are more Catholics like me who are somewhat conflicted. When we ask questions on other blogs, we get shouted down and our motives are questioned. I want to follow Christ and the Church. Can you help? This is too critical an issue for our Church in these perilous times. Our Church needs to step up and guide it’s flock. God bless.
January 8th, 2010 | 12:15 pm
[...] [Note: For more on this topic, see here and here] [...]
January 8th, 2010 | 3:29 pm
Joe, et. al., as is apparent from some comments above, some of us are getting tired of the felt need of some critics of waterboarding to craft absolutist arguments — freeing them to compare so-called torture to abortion and other inherent evils. I respect your position that “the US government’s use of waterboarding on three captured terrorists, and its willingness to entertain using it on others, is wrong based on your reading of Catholic dogma and your moral perspective.” It is certainly a defensible position; defensible by reasonable argument.
The problem, at least to this person, is your unwillingness to accept a continuum where 1) waterboarding as used by the US is nowhere near as “bad” (whatever that might mean) than either the methods of the Inquisition or the behavior of many Japanese soldiers during WW II; 2) waterboarding per se is not one thing, but is a generalized term that could range from throwing a glass of water in someone’s face (a favorite tactic of my mother-in-law with screaming young children) to dramatically brutal treatment (see again the Inquisition).
What I cannot understand is why you feel the need to mount this absolutist high horse, dismissing out of hand any who deign to feel other than you. In a more reasonable setting, I believe that your “honorable” perspective (see my first paragraph) could influence my current stand. I lean toward allowing limited use of waterboarding, but remain open to dialog. When you force a all-or-nothing decision, however, I just wave goodbye.
Finally, I’m completely unswayed by the torture-doesn’t-work school. Work for what? Could an effective torturer, say that Inquisition fellow, get me to “admit” that I’m actually a Smurf planning to take down Mickey Mouse? Probably. I’m a mid-50s wimp, so he’d probably succeed before even burning through one cigarette.
Could he also, by contrast, get me to reveal something actually true and VERIFIABLE, like the combination to my gym locker and its cache of reeking clothing. Absolutely. And he could get into your locker, too.
January 8th, 2010 | 3:46 pm
Nick Palmer waterboarding per se is not one thing, but is a generalized term that could range from throwing a glass of water in someone’s face (a favorite tactic of my mother-in-law with screaming young children) to dramatically brutal treatment (see again the Inquisition).
No, no, no. Waterboarding is not a continuum that includes “throwing a glass of water in someone’s face.” Making such a claim is morally and rhetorically unserious.
Waterboarding is simply a technique that causes drowning—suffocation by water. Suffocation by water is morally wrong whether done by Japanese soldiers, Spanish Inquistors, or American CIA agents.
What I cannot understand is why you feel the need to mount this absolutist high horse, dismissing out of hand any who deign to feel other than you. In a more reasonable setting, I believe that your “honorable” perspective (see my first paragraph) could influence my current stand.
No offense, but when people think that waterboarding includes throwing water in someone’s face its easy to dismiss their arguments. But as I’ve said before, I’m willing to engage anyone that is willing to admit waterboarding is torture but that torture is sometimes acceptable.
I lean toward allowing limited use of waterboarding, but remain open to dialog. When you force a all-or-nothing decision, however, I just wave goodbye.
So you’re position is that allowing torture is sometimes acceptable. Is that what you mean by taking a non-absolutist approach?
Could he also, by contrast, get me to reveal something actually true and VERIFIABLE, like the combination to my gym locker and its cache of reeking clothing. Absolutely. And he could get into your locker, too.
But how do you distinguish between information that is true and information that is false? As every interrogator knows, a person will say anything to stop the torture. Since its just as easy to come up with a lie as to tell the truth, that is often what they do.
January 8th, 2010 | 4:43 pm
Joe, you may feel free to dismiss my spectrum argument, but take Marc’s citations [see below, from NRO] on the Inquisition and say with a straight face that what was done to three individuals (I know, the numbers don’t matter if it’s wrong…) and the Inquisition were “the same thing.” My “glass” comment was hopefully obviously a bit sarcastic. I’ll try to avoid the technique in the future. My point, however, is that 1) there is a spectrum; and 2) the less-heinous end of that spectrum may not constitute an “absolute evil,” at least in the minds of some reasonable, well-intentioned people. Dismiss me if you wish, it’s your call.
Per Marc, including excerpts from Henry Charles Lea’s 1906 book, A History of the Inquisition in Spain:
“The patient was placed on . . . a kind of trestle with sharp-edged rungs across it like a ladder. It slanted so that the head was lower than the feet and, at the lower end was a depression in which the head sank, while an iron band around the forehead or throat made it immovable. Sharp cords, called cordeles, which cut into the flesh, attached the arms and legs to the side of the trestle and others, known as garrotes, from sticks thrust in them and twisted around like a tourniquet till the cords cut more or less deeply into the flesh, were twined around the upper and lower arms, the thighs and the calves. . . .
The cords on the rack, Lea writes,
were carried to a maestro garrote by which the executioner could control all at once. These worked not only by compression, but by traveling around the limbs, carrying away skin and flesh. Each half round was reckoned a vuelta or turn, six or seven of which was the maximum, but it was usual not to exceed five. Formerly the same was done with the cord around the forehead, but this was abandoned as it was apt to start the eyes from their sockets.
Once the “patient” was secured to the rack, Lea explains,
An iron prong, distended the mouth, a toca, or strip of linen was thrust down the throat to conduct water trickling slowly from a jarra or jar, holding usually a little more than a quart. The patient strangled and gasped and suffocated and, at intervals, the toca was withdrawn and he was adjured to tell the truth. The severity of the infliction was measured by the number of jarras consumed, sometimes reaching six or eight.”
January 8th, 2010 | 5:05 pm
Now Joe, as to your other points, if you refuse to acknowledge or accept a spectrum, you and I are speaking different languages. If you define “waterboarding” as “the inherently evil as defined by the Catholic Church and other indisputable moral authorities practice of doing inherently evil things to people,” then I guess the discussion ends.
I believe that a CIA agent possessing a nearly indisputably guilty terrorist suspect faces a range of approaches from clearly not-torture to absolutely verboten. Yelling, threatening, and the like feel to me to be within the pale. Pushing and shoving can range from totally acceptable to completely wrong. “Waterboarding,” using a definition that accepts a spectrum of severity is where this debate centers. It feels to me that you perspective is that even given a spectrum, any point on that spectrum falls to the “inherently evil” side of the divide, and (I believe) that anyone who disagrees is a moral degenerate or a fool.
I disagree with you. And I may indeed be either or both. So, by “non-absolutist” I mean accepting 1) a spectrum of moral severity, and 2) that attenuated waterboarding could fall to the not-inherently-evil side of the divide. You disagree. Fine.
Finally, on “how do I distinguish,” the key word is “verifiable.” Despite recent Keystone Kops events, I’m willing to allow that our folks can and do take actions beyond waterboarding to verify, and if necessary, act on intelligence from these sessions. Intelligence gathering and analysis should involve connecting dozens or hundreds of dots. While President O won’t release the information, quite a few sources allege that the US government’s use of waterboarding, and other less-coercive methods DID provide actionable information that both prevented other terrorist attacks and helped to identify, track and neutralize other baddies.
I suppose that you could contend that these agents and their superiors are just sick, amoral sadists. I’m afraid I don’t buy that. While not perfect, I believe that there are checks in the system, and that this approach worked. And, that I and my family are safer for it.
Am I taking some things on faith? Sure. Might I be too accepting or trusting of the government? Yup. Could my moral lines be drawn in the wrong place? Absolutely.
What frosts me in your replies, though, is what strikes me as a smug, imperious dismissal of me as a fool or an unredeemable sicko. It may not be your intent, as the written word can be a dangerous means of arguing. Once you’ve vilified and condemned those who disagree, the discussion is pointless.
January 8th, 2010 | 5:40 pm
Nick Joe, you may feel free to dismiss my spectrum argument, but take Marc’s citations [see below, from NRO] on the Inquisition and say with a straight face that what was done to three individuals (I know, the numbers don’t matter if it’s wrong…) and the Inquisition were “the same thing.”
In my reply to Thiessen’s post (see Part II) I pointed out that he is adding two different techniques—water torture and the rack—and passing them off as if they are all part of water torture. Whether this was intentional or just sloppiness on his part, a comparison of the Spanish technique and the CIA technique reveal there are no significant differences. Both work on the same principle—suffocation by water.
My “glass” comment was hopefully obviously a bit sarcastic. I’ll try to avoid the technique in the future.
Sorry, I didn’t catch that. I’ve actually hear people describe waterboarding as “splashing water on someone’s face” so I thought it was possible that you were serious.
My point, however, is that 1) there is a spectrum; and 2) the less-heinous end of that spectrum may not constitute an “absolute evil,” at least in the minds of some reasonable, well-intentioned people. Dismiss me if you wish, it’s your call.
We may be in more agreement than we realize. If you are saying that there is a spectrum of behavior and that some of it may be torture and some many not, then I agree. If you are saying that there is a spectrum of torture techniques, some less-heinous and some unquestionably brutal, I would disagree—but I could respect that opinion.
But if you are saying that waterboarding belongs on the “less-heinous” end of the torture spectrum, then I would question whether you are really familiar with what the technique entails. I’ve known people that went through SERE school and I can’t think of a one that would think that if that technique were used on them by the enemy that it would be anything less that brutal torture.
January 8th, 2010 | 6:21 pm
Joe, thanks for the clarification. I have no desire for a depends-on-what-the-definition-of-is-is argument. My perspective is that there are a range of things one can do in an attempt to extract information from (or simply to cause suffering to) another human being. While not simply unidimensional, I’ll use a line as a proxy for a more complicated assessment (given different types of pain and damage). Somewhere along that line there is a point beyond which the actions are “inherently evil” (IE). There are also other points along that line, prior to IE that also represent (admittedly gray and fuzzy) thresholds. There is a threshold beyond which I wouldn’t, and shouldn’t go to find out where my sixteen-year-old daughter was last evening. There is, I would argue, a different threshold beyond which one shouldn’t go to get information even from a know terrorist. That second threshold is further along the line toward IE than the daughter threshold, at least I feel it is.
Now, if you define “torture” a priori as lying beyond the IE threshold, fine. Then, if you take the next step defining “waterboarding” as torture, you’ve already won the “argument” through semantics. So, I think we should dispense with the word “torture” and merely discuss “waterboarding” with respect to the IE threshold. It saves time and confusion.
I disagree with your assessment of waterboarding as inherently beyond IE. Based on what I have read and heard, I believe that there is a range of waterboarding choices, and that IE lies somewhere along that range.
As to your “I’ve known people” point, I don’t know what to say. Would I want it done to me? No. Would I want it done to a terrorist, knowing that he would suffer no permanent damage beyond an awful experience? Maybe. I’ve actually sat through a Streissand movie. And live to tell the tale — older but wiser.
January 8th, 2010 | 8:22 pm
Joe, you lie. You dissemble. Why? Cannot your point be made with the truth? IF you need details of the lies:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODBmYmNkN2YxN2MzNTg5OTBlM2Y0YmIwNTFhMTA5NWY=
January 8th, 2010 | 9:08 pm
Bill Johnson Joe, you lie. You dissemble. Why? Cannot your point be made with the truth? IF you need details of the lies:
Perhaps if you had read my follow-up post you wouldn’t have made such a silly claim.
January 9th, 2010 | 10:06 am
Bill, I don’t think it’s fair to call Joe either a liar or a dissembler. He’s neither, at least on this issue. The rub with Joe (and Mark Shea, over at Inside Catholic) seems to be around the very challenging question of gradations of morality. Joe either can’t bring himself to accept them, or sees what he defines as “waterboarding” (and what he defines as “torture”) as being completely past the point of “inherent evil.”
Here’s how I think the disagreement plays out (I hope the “graphics” work in translation):
The scale is to assess the “morality” of an activity
G=goodness
B=badness
IE=the point beyond which an activity is inherently evil
A=abortion
D=the furthers I could go along the scale to compel my 16-year old daughter to tell me where she went last evening (actually, she and my wife were at the mall — ugh!)
W=waterboarding defined as a single thing (a characterization with which I disagree, as does Marc T)
wwwwwwww=a spectrum for different “degrees of waterboarding
So:
the basic spectrum:
G——————————IE—————–B
adding abortion:
G——————————IE—————-AB
for my daughter:
G—-D————————-IE—————-AB
what I perceive as Joe’s point of view (could be wrong, here… Joe?):
G—-D————————-IE—–W———-AB
my view of “waterboarding”:
G—-D—————wwwwwIEwwww———-AB
another possible, and perhaps defensible veiw of waterboarding (definition is important):
G—-D————————-IE-wwwwwww–AB
Joe (and others), does this fairly frame the discussion and the disagreements involving Marc T, Joe, Mark S, and me? What am I missing (on this issue only, please, there are far to many other areas where I’m clueless, too…)?
January 9th, 2010 | 2:32 pm
Nick Palmer Joe (and others), does this fairly frame the discussion and the disagreements involving Marc T, Joe, Mark S, and me? What am I missing (on this issue only, please, there are far to many other areas where I’m clueless, too…)?
Thanks, Nick, that’s helpful to me in trying to understand your position. Your view:
G—-D—————wwwwwIEwwww———-AB
. . . is one that I hadn’t considered because I see waterboarding as a single type of act rather than one that has gradations along a spectrum.
Just so we’re all all clear on what we are discussing, waterboarding is suffocation by water, a mock execution that employs drowning and that can cause permanent psychological damage.
This is what waterboarding is in real-world interrogations. Now if the question is whether waterboarding as a technique can be done in real-world situation in a way that does not fit this definition, I would say “no.” Anything other than this and it isn’t really waterboarding at all.
The second question, though, is whether this same technique can be applied and have different moral outcomes. Again I would say no since I cannot imagine a scenario in which drowning someone is morally licit. In my view is in inherently evil to drown someone just as it is inherently evil to put someone through a mock execution.
Now, of course, there are gradations along the spectrum after the point that something becomes inherently evil. Abortion is obviously a greater evil than waterboarding. But I think that once people (at least Christians) understand exactly what waterboarding is that they should consider it inherently evil.
January 9th, 2010 | 3:34 pm
Joe, thanks for clarifying your point. I understand, and certainly lack the moral authority to call your position “wrong” in any objective fashion. While we disagree:
Nick:
G——————-wwwIEwwwww——–AB
Joe:
G————————-IE—wwwww—–AB
I think we start from a common understanding of morality.
And, thanks for the respectful dialog! (Oh, and given that you never saw my mother-in-law with a glass of water, per my earlier comment — not a pretty sight! — I may still see hers as at least a near relative of waterboarding….) ;-)
January 14th, 2010 | 6:18 pm
Joe, would holding a loaded gun to someone’s head and telling them that you would shoot them if they didn’t give you the life-saving info constitute torture, even if you were bluffing and had no intention of killing them? I guess this is the mock execution you refer to above. You are coercing their will through the threat of violence but not committing or intending to commit any violence.
January 16th, 2010 | 11:58 am
Frank,
Joe Carter can answer your question for himself, but I believe he already provided an answer in his Addendum, point 7:
18 United States Code Title 18, §2340(2)“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control
(2)“severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death.
A review of that section of U.S. Code was done by the Office of Legal Counsel in 2004:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm.
Please see especially the last couple of sentences before the signature block and footnote 28:
“Thus, for example, the fact that a victim might have avoided being tortured by cooperating with the perpetrator would not make permissible actions otherwise constituting torture under the statute. Presumably that has frequently been the case with torture, but that fact does not make the practice of torture any less abhorrent or unlawful.
…
…we do not believe that the statute requires that the defendant actually inflict (as opposed to act with the specific intent to inflict) severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”
January 19th, 2010 | 9:17 am
You’re not intending to inflict pain on anyone. It’s a pure bluff.
I’m not even sure that it qualifies as mental pain or suffering. You’re offering them a choice (or so they think): Lose your family or save the lives of innocent infidels. I say tough titties if they find that choice a difficult one.
January 19th, 2010 | 9:19 am
oops, sorry matt. I revisited this thread without reading my example again. My response would be the same, except now the choice is “die or save innocent infidels”.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact