Thursday, January 21, 2010

Waterboarding?

There’s one argument I’ve heard expounded by those on the “pro” side for waterboarding that I feel is disingenuous, yet I never hear it refuted on conservative radio programs the few times it comes up. The argument is this: Waterboarding does not fit the definition of torture, simply because thousands of American servicemen have gone through it as part of their training.

Hello! Can’t anybody recognize the difference between undergoing waterboarding as part of a training exercise, done to you by your fellow officers and teachers, with waterboarding being done to you, as a captured and imprisoned combatant, by your enemy? Assuming there are controls in place, and it is the will of our government, no long-term physical harm will come to the enemy combatant, just as no long-term harm, we’d expect, would come to the trainee. The difference is what happens in the mind of the individual being waterboarded. In the first, he knows it’s a training exercise. In the second, he knows only that he may be killed.

Is threatening someone with death morally wrong? Sinful? Even when there is no intent to actually kill that person?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in section 2297, condemns both terrorism and torture, defining torture as “physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred.” Do we look the other way because this prohibition fails to mention the phrase “gather intelligence”? And might the intentional perceived possibility of being killed fall under the term “moral violence”?

No one seems to acknowledge that torture or enhanced interrogation techniques, or however one wants to label it, contains two components: physical pain as well as mental pain. Both need to be brought into the discussion somehow to get a clearer handle on this issue.

Therefore, I think this comparison to mandatory training techniques by enlisted US personnel is irrelevant and a trumped up distraction.



For the record, I consider myself a faithful (as opposed to dissenting or “cafeteria” ) Catholic first, a social and fiscal conservative second, a “republican” (I’m not registered) a distant third. That being said, I am conflicted over the whole torture issue. On one hand, as a Catholic, I understand and believe in the value of human life, every single human life, made in the image and likeness of God. Even the lives of men trying to kill me and my family. On the other hand, I recognize and accept the harsh realities of this dangerous, fallen world we live in. The fact that there are men willing and able to do harm and have indeed done such harm to keep me and my girls safe at night is one of the most terrible paradoxes we have to live with.

Actually, I have refrained from doing the heavy lifting on this issue for myself. But I find the arguments on either side not fully convincing. The pro-waterboarding side leaves me feeling dirty and uncomfortable, and the pro-life side leaves me feeling helpless and gullible. I don’t see a way out of this predicament, for me, so I will go ahead and resume my ostrich-like position.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Here is another Conservative's view. Waterboard the heck out them. I'm going to make a huge stretch here as it relates to Catholic dogma. Suicide is a sin. If we as a people fail to do everything in our power to DEFEND ourselves, is that not suicidal? Especially when we know these people want to slit our collective throats (literally and figuratively). Waterboarding, in an effort to glean intelligence that keeps us alive, to me, is certainly within bounds. We kill in war to DEFEND ourselves. And that is recognized by the church as acceptable (not preferable, but acceptable). This is no different.

Uncle

LE said...

Couple of thoughts ...

First, torture as defined in CCC2297 is forbidden. Is waterboarding "torture" or not? Though it's not as extreme as cutting off fingers or worse, it's not exactly showing our enemies love.

Second, the ends do not justify the means. See CCC 1755-61. You can't do evil that good may come.

Third, a lot of Ethics hinges on how that word DEFEND is taken. If someone is embezzling money from my company, certainly by killing him I am defending myself. But that is a disproportionate response (not to mention an illegal and unethical one).

Fourth, there is still the command of Christ to turn the other cheek. Yes, Church teaching has "okayed" self-defense and just-war theory, but I am not convinced waterboarding falls under these special-cases. CONVINCED being a very important element of my fence-sitting.

Fifth, a practical consideration: how could you ever really, truly be certain, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the individual you are waterboarding has the information you are seeking?

Sixth, an eschatological consideration: would you personally be comfortable before Christ, at the Judgment, as you discuss with Him your endorsement of waterboarding. I don't think I would, hence the anguish I hope came through in the final paragraphs of my original post.