The most basic need in any discussion of torture is a definition of the term, something most presentations lack. This article defines it as "dehumanization" which is an interesting concept but I'm not exactly sure what to do with it. Ultimately we need to know how to draw the line between unpleasant-but-allowable practices and torture. I'm still looking for an answer.

Church teaching does not say, "Tiptoe right up to the line called "abuse" and see how much you can get away with."

Church teaching says "Treat prisoners humanely". That does not mean, as torture excusers are wont to say, giving prisoners fluffy pillows and tucking them in at night. It means, basically, treating them as our honorable nation treated them on Sept 10, 2001 and preceding. It's all in the Army Field Manual. This only became an issue because the Bush/Cheney Administration chose to make torture policy and now excuse-makers for that policy have to pretend to be confused by pretending to try to find some non-existent Bright Line where torture "begins". The problem is, hell is murky. You can get away with lots of torture while people argue the definitions. But Catholic teaching is not about getting away with as much torture as possible just so long as you can call it "enhanced interrogation". It's about respecting the human dignity of the prisoner. it's also, by the way, about having more productive interrogation of prisoners. The lie at the back of so much of the torture debate is "Only Sin Will Keep us Safe." What actual interrogators say is that torture tends to result in crap intel and in drying up pools of information. But regardless of this, the fact is the Church has given us instruction here: Treat prisoners humanely and you will not accidently torture them. (That is, assuming the goal is not to get as close to torturing them as possible. If it is, then we are not listening to the Church. We are merely searching for loopholes.)

You so totally rocked the house with this piece! Bravo! Thanks for telling the truth in this time of lies and euphemism.

The main focus of this debate since the inception of the war on terrorism has been about water boarding known terrorists to obtain information which can be used to prevent future terrorist attacks against America.

However, the one problem we all have to deal with when discussing this issue is hypothetical situations. If I know (and we have been told this by our government) that water boarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed prevented at least one terrorist attack on America, then I cannot agree that taking this step to prevent an attack on our country is immoral. Would it have been more moral for us to simply stand by and hope that we find the necessary information needed to thwart this attack by other means, and take the chance of another terrorist attack on the United States? Do we have the right to defend ourselves?

Quite frankly, the most horrible form of terrorism I can imagine was that imposed on those trapped in the WTC towers on 9/11. Those victims had to choose between burning to death, being crushed in the rubble of the tower’s collapse, or jumping to a certain death. In light of these choices, I have a hard time finding a moral dilemma in one to two minutes of water boarding those who had a role in these attacks. Unless a captured terrorist suddenly finds it in the kindness of his heart to give up his comrades and inform the ‘infidel’ of any terrorist plots in the works, we’re not going to get any information out of these jihadists by asking them nicely.

I do NOT support torture which serves no purpose other than dehumanization. However, I believe it is misguided to completely reject the possibility of gaining worthwhile information through water boarding or other similar methods the CIA may practice. If the CIA gains nothing from this practice, then we are to assume that they’re only ‘torturing’ captives for the fun of it. Maybe I’m naïve, but I don’t believe that.

That's why it's intrinsically immoral. And "intrinsically immoral" means, according to the Church, that it is *never* justifiable. Ever.

My boys thought that "time out" was torture. Not in my perspective.

It's an inane line of thought, but is serves to point out that it matters what your perspective on dehumanizing or humilitating is. I have been to DeHoCo (the Detroit City Jail built in 1914) as a teenage construction worker, and I am still terrified of the memory of the place. If that place wasn't dehumanizing and humiliating, I don't know what is.

The upshot is that we still need practical guidelines for interrogation measures. And that brings us back to 'try to find some non-existent Bright Line where torture "begins".'

The derisive tone belies the complexity of the issue. I am not a torture apologist. Torture is wrong. Period. I hate Guantanamo; it gives our enemies a rally point, the NYT crowd something to crow about, and serves as a lightning rod for the Bush-haters. The government talking about waterboarding is stupid, it only serves to confirm the "widespread" use of "torture". However, I look at this from a different perspective. I am retired from the military (in 2002 - so fairly current), and feel I have some resonable experience to comment.

To simply label any mode of treatment in captivity that is dehumanizing or humilitating to be "torture" serves only as intellectual eye-candy. "Bright line" or no bright line, you have to be specific in the nature of how captives are treated and interrogated. Anything else simply opens the door for real abuse or failure of the essential reason for capture in the first place.

Final thought. From 1993 to 2001 we had the following attacks on direct US interests:WTC first bombing, Khobar Towers, Cole Attack, Embassy Bombings, 9/11. Since 2001:

That's not an apology for widespread torture (which simply is not happening anyway, whether you believe that or not), but I wonder if all the talk about it serves as a deterrent. Or something else is at work?

The church still allows that capital punishment is acceptable if it is performed by the legitimate authority and no other means can remove the threat to its people (CCC 2267).

Given that we can licitly take the life of a prisoner in order to protect society why aren't certain "torture" practices - which do not cause lasting physical harm and do not kill - allowed?

Advocates of unethical vaccines say that the lives that could *potentially* be saved by vaccinating that one child outweigh the personal sin of profiting from abortion.

Advocates of embryonic stem cell research say that the lives that could *potentially* be saved outweigh the embryos' right(s?) to life.

People who've shot abortionists argued that they are preventing the abortionists from killing hundreds of babies.

Torture, much like killing, would have to be considered a grave sin. Yet not in an absolute sense. I know the Catechism has given examples, where to defend ones own life or the life of loved ones, you may have to kill an attacker. I think Jesus makes it clear that he doesn't want us to condemn other people. He points out that we have all fallen short of the glory of god, and that condemning others would akeen to condemning ourselves. We should hold at hope, even for the very worst of human beings, the possibility of their salvation.

Nonetheless, we may have to condemn the ACTIONS of others. There is such a thing as wrong or evil actions, and we have some power - in our individual choices - to stop it. Jesus perfers we stop the actions of an attacker without killing him. But if a non-violent option does not exist, if the only options are to kill him or let him kill others, a moral obligation is upon us to make a choice of the lesser of two evils. We'd have to decide if the killer (who is not a hopeless person - but would be if we kill him) should be killed, or if his victims should be left to die through our inaction, because we didn't kill the killer to stop his actions.

Similar situations can exist with torture. In order to stop evil actions, like a ticking bomb. Information about the danger, and how to stop it, has to be extracted through violence from the bomb planter. This really is a moral obligation. I'm not sure how it could be viewed any other way.

But I do think there is another danger, when we bring up these extreme and very rare examples of where torture is a moral necessity: modern society might not be able to see the distinction clearly, and may begin to think torture is permissimble in other situations. Compelling others to do your will, through the application of fear through pain, is a highly seductive notion for those that long for power. And I've wondered, with American society's recent self-realization of their country's large political, economic, and military disparity compared to the rest of the world, thoughts of dominance have entered the head of at least a few Americans. If this is true, then torture would be an appealling concept to them.


P.S. One side note: I've wondered - in that situation where you choice to kill the killer or let his victim die - if you knew that the victim was destined for heaven - would that be a reason to let them die? That you trade them, the good of their life, for the chance to redeem the killer, who you know is not ready for heaven. That is a bit of a hard concept to grasp, but the movie "The end of the spear" made me think of it. How those missionaries didn't carry guns with them when they attempted to make contact with the violent natives. They said they were prepared if need be to lay down their lives because they knew they were ready for heaven while the natives were not.

Perhaps someone could explain to me the difference between the following real-life scenarios, and then answer my questions in my post.

We recently had in Kirkwood, MO a terrible instance of a man barging into a city council meeting and killing five people before he was shot dead by a policeman. Was the policeman wrong to have shot at this man, perhaps with the intent to kill him, and save the lives of others in the chambers? (There were dozens of people in the room and the shooter had two guns and remaining ammo, had killed an officer on his way into the building, and another in the council chambers.) Should the policeman only have tried to restrict the killer's efforts by restraining him somehow, while disarming him, IF he could, or was his moral duty to save the lives of others and his own, even if it meant the attacker died?

We had on 9/11 the worst ever civilian attack on this country by a foreign entity, al-Queda. Fully expecting future attacks (since the attacking entity threatened that there would be more), elements of our government took action - waterboarding and others, including bombing massive areas of Afghanistan - to stop the promised attacks. Their efforts have kept other attacks from happening on our soil, and so it would seem their actions have saved American lives here.

Other than the element of time (without debating the term "imminent attack") what differentiates the Kirkwood policeman's deadly defense from that of a government sworn to protect it's citizens who are threatened with attack?

Which is the lesser evil: killing the murderer in the council chambers and denying him any opportunity to be redeemed in this lifetime, OR, torturing someone who has killed thousands, vows to kill thousands more, and has a plan to kill, BUT allowing him to live another day - perhaps to be redeemed - while stopping a planned mass murder?

Is a "just war" not guilty of torture when it leaves combatants maimed physically and/or mentally for life? Is a "just war" not guilty of torture when it leaves non-combatant victims of "collateral damage" in a war maimed physically and/or mentally for life?

I struggle with the nuance.

A Review on the subject: No easy Answer other than to avoid such practices, unless the "aggressor" vows, shows, proves that he/she will continue to DO HARM to the innocent and (for a lack of complete thought) cannot or does not want to be REDEEMED of DOING HARM against the INNOCENT would be totally another ISSUE that many don't want to consider or give complete moral, ethical and human thought...

CCC 2265. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

CCC 2266. The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: As far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

CCC 2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

CCC 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.

So I think its pretty clear. 2297 never mentions torture to extract information (e.g. asking the bomb planter where the bomb is). By omission, I think its clear that torture in this event is a moral necessity. In fact, I'd probably go a little further and say that its common-sense. In that situation, we all know what our sense of moral duty would compel us to do.

2297 lists four common reasons torture is used, and the evil in each is fairly obvious:

1) extract confessions - if someone was shocking my balls, I'd probably confess to being Adolf Hitler if that's what they wanted me to confess to. But its just a forced lie. Its not information.

2) punish the guilty - Jesus told the Pharisees to learn the meaning of the phrase "I desire mercy, not sacrifice". Punishment is a useful (and sometimes necessary) teaching tool (e.g. parent's spanking a child). But in many situations (particularly as it applies to adults) mercy is a much more profound tool to teach another human being what is right.

3) frighten opponents - Barbarian king's used a variety of tactics along these lines to send a message to their potential enemies. The message was simple: "oppose me and the consequences will be severe". Saddam Hussien was praticularly effective at communcating this message to his people. But what did it gain him? Yes, the immediate gain is obediance, but only at the surface level. What is in the person's heart? How peacefully does such a king sleep? In the long-run, is it worthwhile to trade such superficial obediance for your inevitable destruction?

4) satisfy hatred - This is a rather deep subject I don't have time to go into. Like many sins, Hatred's origin is Pride, because in Pride we believe our point-of-view is supreme. And through this belief, we can have a profound hatred of any action that does not conform to our view. It could led to the diabolic, where we enjoy destroying another person because they just didn't do what we had wanted/desired. C.S. Lewis had one of the best explanations of Pride and where it can lead in his chapter "The Great Sin" of Mere Christianity.

Critics of 'torture' seldom take notice that the confederates those being 'tortured'--and the objectives of their criminal actions--advocate and practice genuine and severe torture themselves (for each of the reasons mentioned in the CCC) whenever they get the chance.

We thus have hypercriticism of US 'torture' in support of others actual and widespread execution of torture.

Your argument contains at least two logical fallacies. (1) The fact that our enemy practices torture does not make it acceptable for us to practice torture. (2) You present a false dichotomy: "If you criticize US torture you do not support the US."

Let us not neglect the fact that the Church not only has a series of proscriptions about what cannot be done, but it also prescribes what must be done: see, eg, CCC 3213's prescription for humane treatment of prisoners.

Which, btw, accords with standard US policy pre-Bush: we do not as a matter of policy do unto prisoners anything that we would complain of being done to our own. Sounds suspiciously like something some hoplessly idealistic commie peacenik from Nazareth "suggested" to folks. The Great Suggestion (only follow when it's easy, of course).

<i>The church still allows that capital punishment is acceptable if it is performed by the legitimate authority and no other means can remove the threat to its people (CCC 2267).

<i>Given that we can licitly take the life of a prisoner in order to protect society why aren't certain "torture" practices - which do not cause lasting physical harm and do not kill - allowed?</i>

Given that we can licitly take the life of a prisoner in order to protect society, why isn't the selling of detainees into lifetime chattel slavery allowed?

Interesting article and comments. As a rule, I am against torture but, at the same time, if it truly saves the lifes of other people, it seems to be a little less black and white.

As the capital punishment issue shows, a government can practice capital punishment in cases where the protection of the people demand it. My understanding is that the CIA only water-boarded? the people they couldn't break any other way. So, if a nation can kill someone to protect its citizens, then why can't it torture someone for the same reason. I think it would require that every other alternative be used first.

Just a thought...

There is a profound concept which Christ teaches and which Socrates/Plato wrote on even prior to that.
A good man cannot be harmed by an evil man. That which makes you good, whether it is your immortal Christian soul, or your pursuit of Plato's ideal, is not carried in your physical person, your material wealth nor your reputation amongst the public at large.
You are the only one who can damage the essential element of what makes you good.
Evil people only harm themselves (become less good) by injuring your body, stealing or destroying your material goods or by spreading lies.
How do you ask would any good person voluntarily sacrifice the unassailable intrinsic good in them? By doing the same things listed above and as is relevant to this article, torture (harming someone's physical body) would be among them.
Philosophers as far back as Greece and Rome struggled with the conflict between utility and justice, but there is seldom a conflict between justice and justice. The problem occurs when what is useful or productive becomes confused with what is just.
It may be useful or productive to waterboard prisoners, but that does not by definition make it just.
Sadly, I fall short of Socrates and Christ on this account and often find myself making decisions based on utility, or even worse, convenience, rather than justice. That does not mean it is excusable in me or in anyone else. It is however forgivable, thanks to one of those guys I mentioned above.