In a New York Times column today, Mark Oppenheimer reviews the controversy surrounding former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen’s efforts to square waterboarding with Catholic moral doctrine. Mr. Thiessen has some ill-informed views, and Mr. Oppenheimer seems to have failed to do his homework.
First error: Thiessen mishandles the principle of double effect.
The principle of double effect tries to distinguish the goal or intention of an action from its likely outcome. Let’s say that a woman’s life is threatened by a cancerous tumor in her uterus—and she is also pregnant. The principle of double effect allows us to distinguish between what the doctor intends to do as he removes the cancerous tumor, which is to cut it out, from what he foresees to be a result, which is not just the removal of the cancer but also the likely spontaneous abortion of the fetus.
St. Thomas applies this principle to self-defense, not because killing an unjust aggressor is wrong, but because Jesus seems to prohibit killing in self-defense when he tells us to turn the other cheek. Here is how the reasoning works. A man attacks me in the dark. In order to protect myself, I grab a pipe and hit him over the head. I intend to defend myself, but I foresee that the hard blow may well kill him.
There are two important constraints to the principle of double effect.
First, double effect can never be used to justify an intrinsically evil act, and for the obvious reason that intentionally undertaking intrinsically evil acts cannot, by definition, be justified. John Paul II was crystal clear on this point in Veritatis Splendor. So let’s go back to the examples. There is nothing immoral about removing cancerous tumors. There is also nothing immoral about killing assailants who pose an immediate threat to innocent life (again, the moral problem for St. Thomas rests in self-defense, not using lethal force against aggressors.)
Waterboarding? If it is torture, then it is immoral in itself. Double effect can’t change that fact.
Second, the key test for the proper use of double effect is to determine if it is possible to separate intention from outcome. What if the fetus is viable? If so, then the doctor can remove the child, send him or her to neo-natal care, and then turn to the job of cutting out the cancer. What if the assailant does not die. I can call and ambulance, and hopefully save his life.
On precisely the point of distinguishing intention from outcome, Thiessen gives double effect a bad name. As Oppenheimer reports, Mr. Thiessen argues, “the intent of the interrogator is not to cause harm to the detainee; rather, it is to render the aggressor unable to cause harm to society.” In effect, Theissen is saying, “I’m sorry to inflict pain on you my dear Sheik, but I’m not really intending to do so, I just want information.” The spurious reasoning is obvious. What is intended is exactly what is intended—to inflict pain for the sake of extracting information. Imagine an abortionist saying, “I didn’t intend to kill the fetus; rather, the procedure was done solely to render it unable to cause psychological harm to the mother by remaining alive.” Or closer to home: “We didn’t intend to kill tens of thousands of people in Hiroshima; rather, the nuclear blast was solely for the purpose of persuading the Japanese to surrender.” These are exculpatory pseudo-distinctions.
Finally, Oppenheimer lets a howler go by. “Mr. Thiessen points out, correctly,” we read, “that the church does not forbid specific acts.” Huh? Last I checked the Church forbids quite a few specific acts: abortion being an obvious example. Thus the Catechism: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion” (#2271). I find myself wondering: which part of every doesn’t Thiessen understand? It is true that the Catechism treats torture as contrary to human dignity, not specifying that all acts of torture are intrinsically evil (#2297). But the emphasis certainly falls on the side of prohibition, not permission.
The Catholic Church gives a great deal of leeway to public officials when it comes to the determining conditions for the legitimate use of force to forestall evil doers and protect the common good (see the Catechism, #2309), but the Church does not write a blank check. Intrinsically evil acts are never justifiable, and actions that assault human dignity are censured. Furthermore, the Church certainly does not endorse the corrupt use of double effect that Thiessen puts forward.
February 26th, 2010 | 5:17 pm
When Jesus says “Turn the other cheek”", isn’t he telling us to challenge our tormentor, to force him to examine his actions? Crudely, turning the other cheek is saying something like “You missed this one.” The victim doesn’t expect to be slapped again. But his tormentor will be taken aback. Also, in the example wasn’t the person who struck the victim powerful, and the victim unable to defend himself physically without consequence? Turning the other cheek is an act of resistance, not submission.
February 26th, 2010 | 5:35 pm
Double effect has been given a serious and comprehensive treatment in Tom Cavanaugh’s recent book from Oxford UP. For anybody who wants to read up on it. Quite a complex subject – though it doesn’t take much grasp of the complexity to understand how far off the rails Thiessen has gone.
February 26th, 2010 | 5:56 pm
Yes, yes, yes. See also Tollefsen’s take down today at Public Discourse: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/02/1161
Matt
February 26th, 2010 | 8:14 pm
The intent of waterboarding is not to torture but to save lives. The information in the captured terrorist’s mind is the effective weapon. The primary goal is to get the weapon, which he holds collectively with his terrorist outfit.
The pain or, rather, induced gag reflex, is an act taken to disarm.
“There is also nothing immoral about killing assailants who pose an immediate threat to innocent life…” (Reno, above)
Ergo, there is nothing immoral about taking the weapon of information from an assailant who poses an immediate threat to human life.
“Immediate” here is a relative term: it could mean today, tomorrow, or months later.
This is the nature of asymmetrical warfare. The central weapon is information. The attack is never formed up as in conventional warfare. It is by definition always a secret attack that is never known until it has occurred. Therefore, its informational aspect is the only pathway to stopping it.
February 26th, 2010 | 10:08 pm
The intent of waterboarding is not to torture but to save lives.
It’s a basic part of the double effect teaching that a person wills both an end and the means chosen to achieve that end. So if you torture someone to save lives, you can’t say ‘I didn’t intend to torture him, just to save lives.’
February 27th, 2010 | 11:05 am
Suppose we were at war, a very different kind of war where enemy combatants did not wear uniforms, did not fight for a particular country and by their actions had demonstrated an absolute distain for any recognized restraints on their behavior towards their enemy.We might have any number of options to deal with them; we could apply sanctions against those countries that allow them to operate within their borders,the result of which would cause widespread suffering and in some cases death for the innocent members of that country.This was in fact an argument that many used against the sanctions imposed on Iraq before we went to war.We could send hi-tech Drones for targeted killings which would inevitably lead to the deaths of inncents. We could invade them, which would cause the deaths of innocents and involve us in a protracted war. We could just kill the ones we found on the battlefields which would, depending on how efficient we were, lead to the brutalization of our troops and the degrading of our national conscience while perhaps denying us usable intel which if we had would preclude the need for these more brutal methods. We could engage in all manner of bona fide torture,anything would go which would debase us and given the debate about the efficacy of torture, possibly produce unreliable intel.We could use enhanced interrogation methods, sleep deprivation, sound,fear,lying and so on under controlled circumstances which might cause psychological distress but rarely physical harm.This last category has shown some positive results in gaining usable intel which could prevent the deaths of untold numbers of Americans and others.Much of the debate over waterboarding gives the impression that we just took some guy off the streets and said lets see what we can get out of him. These men were sworn enemies of the U.S. whose purpose was to kill us. If we could just yell at them and they would give us what we wanted would you say that our purpose was to yell at them. The cancer we endeavored to remove was the deadly information they possessed, our methods were the least destuctive means to exorcise this cancer and removing it was our purpose.
February 27th, 2010 | 11:21 am
Blackadder:
Yes, and that a person wills both an end and the means chosen to achieve that end is true even apart from double effect reasoning.
Some people try to extract significance from the fact that, if I didn’t will a particular end — bringing home-made crab dip to a party, say — then I wouldn’t will the means — such as buying a can of crab meat. Since I don’t will the means as an end to itself, they say, then I don’t will the means at all.
Which is silly, but even very smart people will say even very silly things if they have to in order to reach the conclusion they very much want to reach.
I suppose they might tell themselves they don’t will to say silly things, therefore what they say isn’t silly.
February 27th, 2010 | 11:23 am
The primary intent of waterboarding it to terrorize the victim, even at the risk of physical death (waterboarding can kill, even when done “skillfully” – there is no 100% risk-free way). The hope for derivative of that action is information that might save lives. But the latter is contingent on the former and is not guaranteed. The actions that are proximately willed are those of terrorizing the victim.
But I expect this will make as much sense to the Coalition for Fog as the Church’s teaching on human life makes to Frances Kissling.
February 27th, 2010 | 7:55 pm
Liam,
The primary intent of water-boarding, viz. the end for which it is done, is to get the guilty man to reveal pertinent intelligence that could save innocent lives! A man who has declared war against the innocent may still be loved by Christ, but he is an enemy of mankind.
You claimed, “The actions that are proximately willed are those of terrorizing the victim.” I agree. What is your point? Shelling was used all the time in WW1 and WW2 to suppress the enemies, viz. to terrorize them, so that our men may advance against them without being fired upon. Should we not have done this? Moral actions do not happen in a vacuum, there is contextual information that one must consider.
If you want to argue that this is a dangerous power to invest the state with, then I would agree. But you seem to be claiming that it is immoral in itself, not merely a dangerous precedent.
February 28th, 2010 | 1:26 am
Mr. Thiessen’s use of “Double-Effect” is just fine.
You say: “First, double effect can never be used to justify an intrinsically evil act.” Indeed, water-boarding is not intrinsically evil, and you can’t even come close to defining it as such. Shame on you for comparing it to the true instrinsic-evil of abortion.
You also say: “Second, the key test for the proper use of double effect is to determine if it is possible to separate intention from outcome.”
Mr. Thiessen has shown that very well. Pouring water up a man’s nose to stop a plot to kill thousands is a perfect example of that. I don’t think you could find a better example.
February 28th, 2010 | 12:57 pm
Jen
A prisoner off the field of battle is not a soldier in the field of battle. The two are treated differently under the moral law. For example, the moral law not only proscribes torture of prisoners, but prescribes humane treatment of them. Your argument fails.
February 28th, 2010 | 6:02 pm
“A prisoner off the field of battle is not a soldier in the field of battle.”
The asymmetrical battlefield is not physical, it is informational. Only the targets are in the physical world. The “armies” and individual combatants are primarily on a battlefield where information is the weapon.
The pain of an informational combatant having his weapon taken away from him by force is not inflicted for the purpose of making him suffer or demeaning him or killing him. It is analagous to using a painful wrist grip to take a handgun away from an assailant.
An asymmetrical war cannot be won if you surrendur methods on moral grounds that apply to a different kind of combat. Let’s call it “honorable combat.” In fact, one element of asymmetrical warfare consists of the terrorist using the moral norms of the society he is attacking against it. It is, in fact, immoral to let him do that.
March 1st, 2010 | 5:21 am
Martin
You operate under the delusion that informational assymtery is new; it’s not, and Church teaching encompasses it. The purpose of torture is to terrorize first, with the contingent hope of the derivative good of getting information. It’s still torture and immoral.
March 1st, 2010 | 8:29 am
I’m not operating under any delusions, sir.
The purpose of using force — it is not torture — is to disarm a weaponized individual so that innocent lives can be spared.
I don’t question the Church’s principles; I question the inadequate phenomenology of the circumstances (asymmetrical warfare) to which they are being applied.
Fundamental to the asymmetrical strategy is to use the moral norms of a society against it. Any government that allows that to happen fails its moral obligation to defend.
If the total information base of an attack is kept in the minds of the attackers and will only become explicit at the moment and point of attack, the mind of the attacker has to be approached as would the bearer of arms on the battlefield.
All human artifacts ultimately reduce to ideas. A gun or a bomb is an idea. When the idea as weapon is never made explicit until the point of attack, the idea is no less a weapon.
The Church’s principles are not confused; the phenomenology of the circumstances is inadequate.
March 1st, 2010 | 10:47 am
If I said that a woman procuring an abortion does not intend to kill a baby, but rather intends to restore order and convenience to her life (which are clearly good things, all else being equal), and that thus she does not commit a sin, any serious Catholic – indeed any serious Christian would laugh me out of the room.
So how is Thiessen’s argument one bit different? Because he uses $10 words like “assymetrical?” Hardly.
When apologists for torture (or other grave evils) resort to making statements like “All human artifacts ultimately reduce to ideas” you know they have departed from the Catholic moral tradition.
March 1st, 2010 | 12:04 pm
“When apologists for torture (or other grave evils) resort to making statements like “All human artifacts ultimately reduce to ideas” you know they have departed from the Catholic moral tradition.”
I think that when apologists for terrorists resort to comparing the immense evil of abortion to the waterboarding of three terrorist leaders to try to save lives you know they have departed from the Catholic moral tradition.
March 1st, 2010 | 12:28 pm
Brian:
At no place and at no time has the Church taught that it is OK to do evil if someone else is doing an even bigger evil.
At no place and at no time has the Church taught that acts it defines as a grave evil cease to be a grave evil if they are directed at someone who is themself unsavory.
At no place and at no time has the Church taught that its OK to commit acts of grave evil if some good will come out of it (just because Marc Thiessen uses the term “Double Effect” doesn’t mean he actually understands the Catholic principle of Double Effect, which he does not).
And you can better your last dollar and your copy of the Summa that tt no place and at no time has the Church taught that “All human artifacts ultimately reduce to ideas.” The nails that pierced the hands of The Lord weren’t information – they were nails.
March 1st, 2010 | 12:55 pm
“At no place and at no time has the Church taught that acts it defines as a grave evil cease to be a grave evil if they are directed at someone who is themself unsavory.”
But for centuries the Church did far worse than waterboarding to those it regarded as “unsavory.” Was the Church engaging in intrinsically evil acts? Or could it be that context and motive can change the morality of an act? Also, I think describing KSM as “unsavory” is a bit of an undersatement.
“At no place and at no time has the Church taught that its OK to commit acts of grave evil if some good will come out of it (just because Marc Thiessen uses the term “Double Effect” doesn’t mean he actually understands the Catholic principle of Double Effect, which he does not).”
But the Church has clearly taught for centuries that you can kill people pursuant to Just War principles. The idea that blowing KSM (and anyone unlucky enough to be with him) to smithereens would have been okay, but that waterboarding him to try to save the lives of the innocent victims of his murderous plans was an act of grave evil, is preposterous.
“And you can better your last dollar and your copy of the Summa that tt no place and at no time has the Church taught that “All human artifacts ultimately reduce to ideas.” The nails that pierced the hands of The Lord weren’t information – they were nails.”
Speaking of the Summa, I do not think Aquinas would have been perplexed about what to do with KSM as he sat there gloating that “we would soon find out what [his] plans were.”
March 1st, 2010 | 3:00 pm
“But for centuries the Church did far worse than waterboarding to those it regarded as “unsavory.” Was the Church engaging in intrinsically evil acts? Or could it be that context and motive can change the morality of an act?”
The Church has always maintained that it is wrong to violate the bodily integrity of another human being. Over the centuries, guided by the Holy Spirit, she has come to a fuller understanding of what acts violate the bodily integrity of another human being. Thus torture, which was previously tolerated and in some cases enabled by the Church is now condemned unambiguously with the full force of the teaching authority of the Church.
Simialrly, while the Church always maintained that abortion is wrong, it did not always teach that abortion is murder (for centuries abortion was regarded evil because it was unnatural but a much less serious evil than murder because it was not believed that the human person came into existance at conception). The Church’s moral teaching remains unchanged (killing another human being is murder) but its understanding of what a human being is has grown and thus the practical teaching has evolved. But any Catholic who pays attention to the teaching authority of the Church can make no mistake about the fact that abortion is a grave evil that is never justified.
Context and motive, despite what various strains of modern moral relativists say, cannot change the morality of an act. Context and motive can change the culpability of a given moral actor. Such that a man who commits a grave evil but doesn’t understand that he is committing a grave evil bears less moral blame than another man who commits the same act and knows fully well that its evil. But the act itself is still gravely evil – regardless of context and motive. To deny that is to deny that there are moral truths which exist independent of human opinion.
“But the Church has clearly taught for centuries that you can kill people pursuant to Just War principles. The idea that blowing KSM (and anyone unlucky enough to be with him) to smithereens would have been okay, but that waterboarding him to try to save the lives of the innocent victims of his murderous plans was an act of grave evil, is preposterous.”
If you feel that way then that’s fine but if so you feel that the Catholic Church is preposterous. Because that’s exactly what the Church teaches. Namely, that killing a human being is wrong but can sometimes be justified, whereas torturing a human being is wrong and can NEVER be justified.
“Speaking of the Summa, I do not think Aquinas would have been perplexed about what to do with KSM as he sat there gloating that “we would soon find out what [his] plans were.””
Look, if you want to flaunt Church teaching that’s your own business. But to sit here and suggest that a Saint would gleefully commit an act that the Church condemns as a grave moral evil never to be justified is incredibly dis-respectful to Aquinas and the Church. Because if Aquinas would have happily tortured a captive then the Church was either wrong when she declared him a Saint or wrong when she declared that torture is a grave moral evil.
March 1st, 2010 | 3:57 pm
“Thus torture, which was previously tolerated and in some cases enabled by the Church is now condemned unambiguously with the full force of the teaching authority of the Church.”
Causing duress to obtain information to prevent mass murder is not listed in the definition of torture in the Catechism.
“Context and motive, despite what various strains of modern moral relativists say, cannot change the morality of an act.”
That is only with intrinsically evil acts — acts that are evil always and everywhere.
“If you feel that way then that’s fine but if so you feel that the Catholic Church is preposterous. Because that’s exactly what the Church teaches. Namely, that killing a human being is wrong but can sometimes be justified, whereas torturing a human being is wrong and can NEVER be justified.”
You are simply wrong about what the Church teaches. Do you really believe that the Church now teaches that it engaged in intrinsic evil for centuries? This idea that a line from Veritatis Splendor and a provision from the Catechism that expresses regret for the Church’s past involvement with torture combine to create an unambiguous statement that torture has always been, and will always be, an intrinsic evil (we don’t even have to get into the waterboarding issue) is silly.
“Look, if you want to flaunt Church teaching that’s your own business. But to sit here and suggest that a Saint would gleefully commit an act that the Church condemns as a grave moral evil never to be justified is incredibly dis-respectful to Aquinas and the Church. Because if Aquinas would have happily tortured a captive then the Church was either wrong when she declared him a Saint or wrong when she declared that torture is a grave moral evil.”
I do not think there would be anything gleeful about it. But that is consistent with much of the discussion on this board — if you do not agree with the Coalition for Clarity on the waterboarding of a terrorist leader you must be a drooling sadist.
What Aquinas, Augustine and More wrote on the punishment of heretics is part of the historical record. The Church has never condemned any of them as supporting intrinsically evil acts.
In addition, KSM was not just a “captive.” He planned to murder thousands. He had no right to do that. When he was captured, he had no right to keep his murderous plans to himself. He was only waterboarded because he refused to reveal the itinerary for his henchmen.
He had complete control of the situation. He could have stopped the waterboarding at any time. His desire to cause the death of thousands of innocent people prolonged the ordeal. That is his fault.
March 1st, 2010 | 4:21 pm
Waterboarding is not torture. It is absurd to say so. I cannot believe how some people make a connection between abortion and waterboarding. Let’s see: the wholesale slaughter of over 50 million babies since 1973 versus making three homicidal maniacs a little uncomfortable in order to save lives. Try using some logic.
March 1st, 2010 | 7:33 pm
Waterboarding is torture. The detailed descriptions of the waterboarding technique in the torture memos confirms that.
For example, the Bybee memo at pages 3,4 and this excerpt from page 15: “We find that the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death. As you have explained the waterboard procedure to us, it creates in the subject the uncontrollable physiological sensation that the subject is drowning.”
http://tiny.cc/1QkXw
Or the ’Certain Techniques’ memo at page 41: “A detainee to whom the technique is applied will experience the physiological sensation of drowning, which likely will lead to panic. We understand that even a detainee who knows he is not going to drown is likely to have this response.”
http://tiny.cc/39Vy8
March 1st, 2010 | 11:10 pm
2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
-CCC
March 2nd, 2010 | 9:30 am
“Waterboarding is torture. The detailed descriptions of the waterboarding technique in the torture memos confirms that.”
Didn’t both the memos you cite conclude that waterboarding was NOT torture?
March 2nd, 2010 | 9:48 am
“2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
-CCC”
(1) Nowhere is the phrase “intrinsic evil” used in this section.
(2) “Torture” is defined in 2297, and does not include in its prohibited purposes obtaining information from a homicidal maniac in order to try to save innocent lives.
(3) Stating that it later became evident that certain cruel practices were not necessary appears to imply that there could be circumstances where they were necessary. This is hardly the way you would refer to something that is always and everywhere evil.
I also think that it would be more than “regrettable” if the Church had for centuries participated in, or at least tolerated, inrinsically evil acts.
March 2nd, 2010 | 10:09 am
“All human artifacts ultimately reduce to ideas” is true. It doesn’t imply that a gun in someone’s hand is imaginary; it means that the gun in that hand originates in the human mind as an idea — a series of ideas, really. A terrorist is himself weaponized; the weapon is implicit as an element of his mind — an idea — and is as real as a gun in a hand. It will not be made explicit until the time and place of attack.
Taking the weapon (as information) from his mind is to disarm the terrorist.
Standing around saying things like “the Church says we can’t force this man to tell us where his terror cell plans to strike next, etc.” is to sanction his plans. It is itself immoral. And it is moral confusion.
March 2nd, 2010 | 10:27 am
“Didn’t both the memos you cite conclude that waterboarding was NOT torture?”
Jay Bybee of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the proposed interrogation techniques were not illegal under a specific statute. His opinion is not the final word on the matter. The memos contain detailed descriptions of the techniques, including admissions of the suffering they cause on persons being subjected to them, and I quoted a portion of them so that each reader here can form his or her own opinion as to whether this conduct is torture. More memos along these lines are available at this next link, and I believe the more that people read them, the more likely they will conclude that waterboarding and possibly other enhanced interrogation techniques are torture.
http://tiny.cc/TwzlQ
March 2nd, 2010 | 11:16 am
“Jay Bybee of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the proposed interrogation techniques were not illegal under a specific statute. His opinion is not the final word on the matter. The memos contain detailed descriptions of the techniques, including admissions of the suffering they cause on persons being subjected to them, and I quoted a portion of them so that each reader here can form his or her own opinion as to whether this conduct is torture. More memos along these lines are available at this next link, and I believe the more that people read them, the more likely they will conclude that waterboarding and possibly other enhanced interrogation techniques are torture.”
We waterboarded 25,000 of our own troops. The quotes you provided show that the reaction to waterboarding is basically involuntary, so attempts to distinguish training waterboarding from the waterboarding of KSM and friends by asserting the trainees knew they were in friendly hands are unpersuasive.
March 2nd, 2010 | 11:41 am
“We waterboarded 25,000 of our own troops. The quotes you provided show that the reaction to waterboarding is basically involuntary, so attempts to distinguish training waterboarding from the waterboarding of KSM and friends by asserting the trainees knew they were in friendly hands are unpersuasive.”
I’m not certain what attempts you are referring. I’ll address the substance of the matter by pointing out that expert opinion found significant differences between the waterboarding techniques used on three detainees and the techniques used in SERE training (which is where I think you get your 25,000 troops figure).
From the ’Certain Techniques’ memo again at page 41, footnote 51:
The difference was in the manner in which the detainee’s breathing was obstructed. At the SERE school and in the DoJ opinion, the subject’s airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contrast, the Agency interrogator…applies large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee’s mouth and nose. One of the psychologists/interrogators acknowledged that the Agency’s use of the technique is different from that used in SERE training because it is ‘for real’ and is more poignant and convincing.
…
[The CIA’s Office of Medical Services] contends that the expertise of the SERE psychologists/interrogators on the waterboard was probably misrepresented at the time, as the SERE waterboard experience is so different from the subsequent Agency usage as to make it almost irrelevant.
{~end quote~}
March 2nd, 2010 | 12:40 pm
“One of the psychologists/interrogators acknowledged that the Agency’s use of the technique is different from that used in SERE training because it is ‘for real’ and is more poignant and convincing.”
That still doesn’t account for the involuntary reaction aspect of waterboarding. Apprehension prior to the waterboarding does not change the physical reaction itself.
March 2nd, 2010 | 4:14 pm
It would seem that at least part of the problem with discussing torture is the indiscriminate use of the word. If I include all of the attempts to describe it that I have heard from casual conversations to learned dissertations it would appear to describe everything from slow dismemberment, burning,electrocution, the rack,sleep deprivation,loud noises,threats of death and bodily harm,waterboarding, yelling, disrespect and even imprisonment. It is so all encompassing that it would seem to include having anything done to us that we did not want done. Most people would agree that there are things that under any circumstance should not be done but as we get further from the most grevious treatments circumstance muddies the water. The closer we get to the ticking bomb scenario the more tempted we are to do something and here the perceived good of saving innocents bleeds into the horror of the word torture. We make distinctions in cases where people are killed, they are not all called 1st degree murder.Motive and circumstance effects what we call the killing, from justifiable homicide to involuntary manslaughter to capital murder.There needs to be more nuance in this discussion, all mistreatment is not torture.
March 2nd, 2010 | 4:35 pm
“That still doesn’t account for the involuntary reaction aspect of waterboarding. Apprehension prior to the waterboarding does not change the physical reaction itself.”
The fact that the physical reaction is involuntary is beside the point entirely. It in no way whatsoever changes the fundamental difference in consent between the two scenarios.
Let’s take another example. It is well documented that some women who are the victims of rape will experience physical orgasm during their ordeal. The act creates physical stimuli that the body reacts to in a certain way. The reaction is involuntary – the victim does not want this to happen, but cannot stop the physiological reaction.
Similarly consensual sex will often lead to orgasm for the woman. The reaction here is also involuntary. One does not “will” orgasm, but rather it is a physiological reaction to physical stimuli. In the case of consensual sex, we can assume that the reaction is welcome, but it is still, physically, involuntary.
But would we then conclude that rape is no different from consensual sex? Hopefully not. Because even though both can lead to the same involuntary physiological response, in the one case the woman has consented to the stimuli that produce the response, and in the other she has not.
Solidiers who are waterboraded as part of their training consent to the act. The fact that it is then unpleasent to the point of provoking an involuntary reaction of terror does not make it inhumane, for they have chosen to subject themselves to it for the purposes of building up their own strength and skill in their chosen line of work. But the captive who is waterboarded has not consented. Therefore it is dehumanizing, an assult on the imago dei resident in their human person, and thus a grave evil.
March 2nd, 2010 | 4:54 pm
“(1) Nowhere is the phrase “intrinsic evil” used in this section.
(2) “Torture” is defined in 2297, and does not include in its prohibited purposes obtaining information from a homicidal maniac in order to try to save innocent lives.”
Well, I suppose the willfully obtuse might be able to read CCC 2297 and 2298 in such a way as to conclude that its super-duper OK to torture a prisoner to extract information. Of course, you’d also then need to conclude that the CCC doesn’t forbid torturing a resturaunt critic to get them to write a favorable review of your new bistro. After all, that’s not one of the purposes that the CCC explicitly forbids the use of torture for, so it must not be forbidden, right?
But of course the CCC is not and does not portray itself as the sum total of all Catholic teaching, just a basic overview. Luckily for those who actually want to listen to the Magisterium on this issue (and many others), the Church has published the “The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church” which goes into greater detail and which says:
“In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim.” International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.”
Any circumstances.
Or there is the “United States Catechism for Adults,” published by the USCCB under their legitimate authority as bishops of the Holy Church and in accordance with the mandate given to local churches in the CCC itself, which says:
“Direct killing of the innocent, torture, and rape are examples of acts that are always wrong.”
Always.
March 2nd, 2010 | 5:52 pm
“We make distinctions in cases where people are killed, they are not all called 1st degree murder.Motive and circumstance effects what we call the killing, from justifiable homicide to involuntary manslaughter to capital murder.There needs to be more nuance in this discussion, all mistreatment is not torture.”
Precisely.
March 2nd, 2010 | 6:12 pm
“Of course, you’d also then need to conclude that the CCC doesn’t forbid torturing a resturaunt critic to get them to write a favorable review of your new bistro. After all, that’s not one of the purposes that the CCC explicitly forbids the use of torture for, so it must not be forbidden, right?”
You don’t think reasonable people can distinguish between waterboarding KSM to foil his plans for mass murder and waterboarding a food critic to coerce a favorable review?
Your quotations from the Compendium and the US Catechism for Adults do not reject the definition of torture contained in 2297.
Your quotes also raise the same problem caused by reliance on Veritatis Splendor for the idea that torture, no matter how you define it, is intrinsically evil. Show me where the Church has acknowledged that it not only tolerated an intrinsic evil, but actually engaged in it, for centuries.
I highly recommend looking at the review by Cardinal Dulles of the book by Judge Noonan (I believe it is in the October 2005 issue of First Things) where he explains that Veritatis Splendor cannot be read as expansively as some people would like.
And one other point. Did you actually read the entire second “torture memo” you link to above? Look at the descriptions of what went on is some of the cases cited in the memo — beatings with metal pipes, removal of teeth with pliers, electric shocks to the genitals, forced games of Russian Roullete, constant death threats, etc. How can you possibly compare the waterboarding of three terrorist leaders to that?
March 2nd, 2010 | 7:39 pm
I am a relative newcomer to the torture debate.
A common assumption here is that the prisoner who is waterboarded 1) has valuable information (a.k.a. his “intellectual weapon”) and 2) will give this information under waterboarding (a.k.a. will be disarmed of his weapon).
What happens with the prisoner does not have an intellectual weapon? Is it OK to assume a prisoner has an intellectual weapon? Is the interrogator on less solid moral ground if the assumption is wrong or if the grounds of the assumption are week?
In general, do prisoners who have an intellectual weapon give accurate information after waterboarding? How many sessions are needed? Is a one-time use (e.g. for a US soldier in SERE training) not quite considered torture?
A bigger question which continues to puzzle me: why would someone who would have flown a plane into a building would give accurate information when tortured? He would be a poor excuse for someone committed to his ideals, warped as they are.
A common talking point is that waterboarding doesn’t even work. How does one know this?
The nuts and bolts of the debate seem to be
1) To torture is immoral.
2) To waterboard is to torture.
3) To waterboard is immoral.
This syllogism has several contestable points.
Re. Point 1) It does seem that the Roman Catholic Church, a superb utilizer of torture in the Crusades and the Inquisition, emphasizes now that torture is immoral. (Do as I say, not as I did…) Were the rules changed mid-game? Torture in defense of the faith seems very consistent with much of church history. (Indeed, it is similar to the attidues some Muslim extremists have about the defense of their faith against infidels. Ironic, isn’t it that the modern Muslim extremists have such a strong kinship with the actions of the medieval Roman Catholic Church?)
The biggest problem in this proposition is to come up with a good defintition of torture. Involuntary actions performed on someone that cause imminent death, death in close proximity to the actions, or permanent physical harm seems a must. Causing severe physical pain that will subside is less clear to me to be torture. Immediate and long-term psychological harm is much harder to predict and define.
Provided there is a good definition of torture, I think this proposition is the strongest proposition in the entire syllogism.
Can someone be tortured voluntarily? This seems to be against the definition of torture. But can a soldier or CIA agent have the agency to not volunteer or is there always some level of coersion?
Re. Point 2) Some would qualify that statement to exclude waterboarding US soldiers who agree to this training. Thus, waterbording per se is not torture, but it depends on whom you waterboard. This weakens the argument that the act of waterboarding in and of itself automatically equals torture.
Waterboarding probably falls in the category of causing severe physical pain that will subside and causing immediate and possibly longer term psychological pain.
On a gut instinct, I find the prospect of drowning (albeit simulated) to cause such physical distress and psychological distress that it rises to the level of torture. But I have to say that I can see why others seem to be OK with waterboarding.
Re. Point 3) It seems the syllogism might wind up being summarized as follows.
1) To torture is immoral.
2) To waterboard non-coerced, non-volunteer subjects is torture, if you use a slightly more elastic defintiion of torture.
3) To waterboard non-coerced, non-volunteer subjects and using a more elastic definition of torture is immoral.
I can see why there’s controversy…
March 2nd, 2010 | 7:45 pm
“You don’t think reasonable people can distinguish between waterboarding KSM to foil his plans for mass murder and waterboarding a food critic to coerce a favorable review?”
Its as reasonable as believeing that the Church teaches that torture is a grave evil to punish, and to extract confessions, but that its OK to torture to get “intel.” Especially in light of statements from the Church outside of the CCC that make it crystal clear that torture is always wrong.
“Your quotes also raise the same problem caused by reliance on Veritatis Splendor for the idea that torture, no matter how you define it, is intrinsically evil. Show me where the Church has acknowledged that it not only tolerated an intrinsic evil, but actually engaged in it, for centuries.”
Well, by your definition, torturing people to extract intelligence about furture plans is of a fundamentally different moral category than torturing people to punish or extract confessions. So by your own definition, the Church never participated in torture.
“Your quotations from the Compendium and the US Catechism for Adults do not reject the definition of torture contained in 2297.”
2297 includes in its definition of torture acts intended to “frighten opponents.” Given that waterboarding works by inducing an irrational sense of terror in the subject, it clearly falls under the definition of torture in 2297.
But to your point about these documents not refuting the definition of torture used in the CCC – what do you think is more likely, that the Church teaches that torturing captives to gain intelligence is OK, and deliberately left an explicit description of that practice out of the CCC to create a loophole, or that the language in the CCC provides illustrations that the Church intends to form the moral conscience of the faithful but are not exhaustive? And if you really believe the former, why pray tell has the Church not issued a clarification in the past few years pointing out that, oh by the way, torturing captives to gain intelligence is acceptable? Its not like the Church shys away from controversy – it speaks truth to power on abortion, stem cells, war, etc. all the time. Indeed, if anything Bishops in the Church have stepped up their public condemnation of torture at precisely the same historic moment when there is a raging public debate about whether torturing captives to gain intelligence is licit. Odd, don’t you think? Its almost as if the Bishops are trying to clarify Church teaching. But what do they know – its not like the teaching authority in the Church was granted to them by Christ. It was clearly granted to Vice Presidential Speechwriters.
“Look at the descriptions of what went on is some of the cases cited in the memo — beatings with metal pipes, removal of teeth with pliers, electric shocks to the genitals, forced games of Russian Roullete, constant death threats, etc. How can you possibly compare the waterboarding of three terrorist leaders to that?”
First, the fact that one can find an act X, which is worse than act Y, does not mean that act Y is morally licit. Killing a six year old child in your care by running him through a meat grinder slowly is clearly more heinous than killing a grown man by shooting him between the eyes. But the latter is still a grave evil.
Second, while some items on your list are certainly “worse” than waterboarding (at least, to aesthetic sensibilities), some are not. Forced Russian Roulette and Constant Death Threats are the exact same thing as waterboarding – an attempt to induce an irrational fear of imminent death.
Third, why do you keep bringing up the fact that the U.S. only waterboarded “three” terrorists (even assuming that that’s true)? Three abortions is three acts of grave evil. Three murders is three acts of grave evil.
As a voter, one clearly faces a pragmatic calculus. So when I go into the voting booth the fact that Democrats support laws which lead to millions of abortions weighs much more heavily than the fact that the Republicans support laws that lead to a tiny number of incidents of torture. But the truth demands that we call a spade a spade. Both parties have made a deal with the devil. The fact that one has figured out a way to mass produce evil rather than doing a little evil in the woodshop on the weekends doesn’t change the fact that both actively and enthusiastically support evil.
March 2nd, 2010 | 7:45 pm
“You don’t think reasonable people can distinguish between waterboarding KSM to foil his plans for mass murder and waterboarding a food critic to coerce a favorable review?”
Its as reasonable as believeing that the Church teaches that torture is a grave evil to punish, and to extract confessions, but that its OK to torture to get “intel.” Especially in light of statements from the Church outside of the CCC that make it crystal clear that torture is always wrong.
“Your quotes also raise the same problem caused by reliance on Veritatis Splendor for the idea that torture, no matter how you define it, is intrinsically evil. Show me where the Church has acknowledged that it not only tolerated an intrinsic evil, but actually engaged in it, for centuries.”
Well, by your definition, torturing people to extract intelligence about furture plans is of a fundamentally different moral category than torturing people to punish or extract confessions. So by your own definition, the Church never participated in torture.
March 2nd, 2010 | 7:46 pm
“Your quotations from the Compendium and the US Catechism for Adults do not reject the definition of torture contained in 2297.”
2297 includes in its definition of torture acts intended to “frighten opponents.” Given that waterboarding works by inducing an irrational sense of terror in the subject, it clearly falls under the definition of torture in 2297.
But to your point about these documents not refuting the definition of torture used in the CCC – what do you think is more likely, that the Church teaches that torturing captives to gain intelligence is OK, and deliberately left an explicit description of that practice out of the CCC to create a loophole, or that the language in the CCC provides illustrations that the Church intends to form the moral conscience of the faithful but are not exhaustive? And if you really believe the former, why pray tell has the Church not issued a clarification in the past few years pointing out that, oh by the way, torturing captives to gain intelligence is acceptable? Its not like the Church shys away from controversy – it speaks truth to power on abortion, stem cells, war, etc. all the time. Indeed, if anything Bishops in the Church have stepped up their public condemnation of torture at precisely the same historic moment when there is a raging public debate about whether torturing captives to gain intelligence is licit. Odd, don’t you think? Its almost as if the Bishops are trying to clarify Church teaching. But what do they know – its not like the teaching authority in the Church was granted to them by Christ. It was clearly granted to Vice Presidential Speechwriters.
March 2nd, 2010 | 7:47 pm
“Look at the descriptions of what went on is some of the cases cited in the memo — beatings with metal pipes, removal of teeth with pliers, electric shocks to the genitals, forced games of Russian Roullete, constant death threats, etc. How can you possibly compare the waterboarding of three terrorist leaders to that?”
First, the fact that one can find an act X, which is worse than act Y, does not mean that act Y is morally licit. Killing a six year old child in your care by running him through a meat grinder slowly is clearly more heinous than killing a grown man by shooting him between the eyes. But the latter is still a grave evil.
Second, while some items on your list are certainly “worse” than waterboarding (at least, to aesthetic sensibilities), some are not. Forced Russian Roulette and Constant Death Threats are the exact same thing as waterboarding – an attempt to induce an irrational fear of imminent death.
Third, why do you keep bringing up the fact that the U.S. only waterboarded “three” terrorists (even assuming that that’s true)? Three abortions is three acts of grave evil. Three murders is three acts of grave evil.
As a voter, one clearly faces a pragmatic calculus. So when I go into the voting booth the fact that Democrats support laws which lead to millions of abortions weighs much more heavily than the fact that the Republicans support laws that lead to a tiny number of incidents of torture. But the truth demands that we call a spade a spade. Both parties have made a deal with the devil. The fact that one has figured out a way to mass produce evil rather than doing a little evil in the woodshop on the weekends doesn’t change the fact that both actively and enthusiastically support evil.
March 2nd, 2010 | 9:19 pm
“A common assumption here is that the prisoner who is waterboarded 1) has valuable information (a.k.a. his “intellectual weapon”) and 2) will give this information under waterboarding (a.k.a. will be disarmed of his weapon).”
We knew exactly who KSM and his friends were. Waterboarding was limited to those three for a reason.
“A bigger question which continues to puzzle me: why would someone who would have flown a plane into a building would give accurate information when tortured? He would be a poor excuse for someone committed to his ideals, warped as they are.”
Terrorist leaders do not fly planes into buildings. They convince other people to do it. The point you raise is precisely why I would not approve of the waterboarding of the Underwear Bomber. It is highly unlikely he has the level of knowledge that would justify waterboarding.
“It does seem that the Roman Catholic Church, a superb utilizer of torture in the Crusades and the Inquisition, emphasizes now that torture is immoral. (Do as I say, not as I did…) Were the rules changed mid-game? Torture in defense of the faith seems very consistent with much of church history.”
Let’s not overstate things. The Church was far more restrained in its use of these methods than secular authorities were. The numbers of those tortured and/or killed by the Inquisition have been grossly exaggerated (primarily by Protestant propagandists).
With regard to the Crusades, they involved warfare, not torture.
“(Indeed, it is similar to the attidues some Muslim extremists have about the defense of their faith against infidels. Ironic, isn’t it that the modern Muslim extremists have such a strong kinship with the actions of the medieval Roman Catholic Church?)”
This is simply wrong. The Church has never approved of the intentional killing of innocent civilians as a part of warfare.
March 2nd, 2010 | 9:46 pm
“Its as reasonable as believeing that the Church teaches that torture is a grave evil to punish, and to extract confessions, but that its OK to torture to get “intel.” Especially in light of statements from the Church outside of the CCC that make it crystal clear that torture is always wrong.”
So you are back to claiming that the Church engaged in intrinsically evil acts for centuries.
“Well, by your definition, torturing people to extract intelligence about furture plans is of a fundamentally different moral category than torturing people to punish or extract confessions. So by your own definition, the Church never participated in torture.”
Actually, under my definition and the Church’s definition torturing people to extract confessions and to punish them is wrong.
Did you read Cardinal Dulles’ review with regard to the idea of labeling certain actions as intrinsically evil?
“But to your point about these documents not refuting the definition of torture used in the CCC – what do you think is more likely, that the Church teaches that torturing captives to gain intelligence is OK, and deliberately left an explicit description of that practice out of the CCC to create a loophole, or that the language in the CCC provides illustrations that the Church intends to form the moral conscience of the faithful but are not exhaustive?”
I think the Church gives those charged with protecting society some room to manuever when dealing with psychopaths bent on mass murder. I also do not think it was just an error in the printshop that caused the 2297 definition of torture to drop the extracting of information prohibition that is included in the UN definition of torture.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact