"Simply one night he heard screams."

Thoughts for today, from "Inside the Whale" by George Orwell (1940):

"But there is one other thing that undoubtedly contributed to the cult of Russia among the English intelligentsia during these years, and that is the softness and security of life in England itself. With all its injustices, England is still the land of habeas corpus, and the over-whelming majority of English people have no experience of violence or illegality. If you have grown up in that sort of atmosphere it is not at all easy to imagine what a despotic régime is like. Nearly all the dominant writers of the thirties belonged to the soft-boiled emancipated middle class and were too young to have effective memories of the Great War. To people of that kind such things as purges, secret police, summary executions, imprisonment without trial etc., etc., are too remote to be terrifying. They can swallow totalitarianism because they have no experience of anything except liberalism. Look, for instance, at this extract from Mr Auden's poem 'Spain' (incidentally this poem is one of the few decent things that have been written about the Spanish war):

To-morrow for the young, the poets exploding like bombs,
The walks by the lake, the weeks of perfect communion;
To-morrow the bicycle races
Through the suburbs on summer evenings. But to-day the struggle.

To-day the deliberate increase in the chances of death,
The conscious acceptance of guilt in the necessary murder;
To-day the expending of powers
On the flat ephemeral pamphlet and the boring meeting.

The second stanza is intended as a sort of thumb-nail sketch of a day in the life of a 'good party man'. In the morning a couple of political murders, a ten-minutes' interlude to stifle 'bourgeois' remorse, and then a hurried luncheon and a busy afternoon and evening chalking walls and distributing leaflets. All very edifying. But notice the phrase 'necessary murder'. It could only be written by a person to whom murder is at most a word. Personally I would not speak so lightly of murder. It so happens that I have seen the bodies of numbers of murdered men—I don't mean killed in battle, I mean murdered. Therefore I have some conception of what murder means—the terror, the hatred, the howling relatives, the post-mortems, the blood, the smells. To me, murder is something to be avoided. So it is to any ordinary person. The Hitlers and Stalins find murder necessary, but they don't advertise their callousness, and they don't speak of it as murder; it is 'liquidation', 'elimination', or some other soothing phrase. Mr Auden's brand of amoralism is only possible, if you are the kind of person who is always somewhere else when the trigger is pulled. So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot. The warmongering to which the English intelligentsia gave themselves up in the period 1935-9 was largely based on a sense of personal immunity. The attitude was very different in France, where the military service is hard to dodge and even literary men know the weight of a pack."

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/orwellg/whale2.htm

Why do you think the Bushies are pushing so hard to keep Guantanamo open?

It is perfectly feasible to build supermaxes to keep the local populace safe from rapacious terrorists at Leavenworth or the Charleston brig, contrary to the Orwellian (speaking of whom) rationalizations of the President's Men.

It would be impossible to do so without having locals (even those pro-military areas), literally or at least metaphorically, hear the screams.

The Daily Show hd a brilliant skewering last night on this issue.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tfyKVtzKsY0

My favorite bit (summarized from memory)

Stewart: But we prosecuted and executed Japanese soldiers after WWII for using this very technique!

Oliver: But *we* used it to prevent a large scale attack!

Stewart: Would, say, a NUCLEAR BOMB count?

America: We Don't Torture As Badly As the Nazis and Soviets Did!

I didn't want to contaminate my earlier praise with caveats, but I must ask: how does one recognize that the soul cannot rationalize torture, yet continue to praise and support those who believe otherwise (Cal Thomas, for example)? Doesn't continuing to vote Republican place one in a similar plight to those well-intentioned Marxist sympathizers who believed that Stalin might have gone too far, but with a slightly better grade of leadership, we could still march on toward the workers' paradise?

"Suspected terrorists" doesn't mean "actual terrorists". There are reported/documented cases of people sent to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib because some personal enemy with an axe to grind reported them to the Americans. I'm not saying everyone there is innocent, but isn't it --> conservative

I was listening to the Brian Lehrer show (WNYC) this morning, and a commentator kept using that terrible euphemism "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques". Our press has bought into the administration's lexicon hook, line and sinker.

...that they are denying a genuine, if base, human instinct or that they flat just don't care about the folks who might be harmed by the object of our torture.

So, this raises the question: where is the threshold past which it is acceptable to make public policy based on emotional reactions?

Richard

Richard,

I'm not advocating making a policy by emotional reaction (see my post to Marian above) neither am I arguing in favor of torture. My post was simply an observation about the unsatisfactory nature of the moral good, at times, at least to my poor eyes. It also was sort of wondering aloud about why this particular moral good seems so satisfying to some. Obviously, the moral good is satisfying to some because their souls are well ordered and saintly. But this is also one of those weird times when the disordered malcontent soul might derive some glee not so much from a love of the good but more in the delight of exposing another's hypocrisy or by placing another on the horns of a dilemma. That's just how I feel about it. I'm not saying it's right.

csw

I have come independently to accept most the central themes of catholicism and orthodoxy over the years, on things like abortion, the death penalty, marriage and sexuality, but in each case, I was guided almost exclusively by reason. As I grow, or perceive myself to grow as a christian (what a strange thing to say - and believe me, I feel strange saying it), moving toward a right/better relationship with God also impels some of these conclusions. They are required by the logic of the soul . . . and what was once a 'logical' process of discernment is, I think for me at least, starting becoming a 'relational' one instead . . . Anyway, I do think we will come to regret as a nation what we have done in torturing these prisoners, even though the "logic of the mind" was able to justify it at the time.

"I cannot believe that you are comparing the screams of a Soviet citizen being arrested in the middle of the night to the screams of a suspected terrorist NOT being drowned. Apples and oranges. I suppose you're against the death penalty, too."

You're right. It is a bad comparison. After all, we're comparing a simple arrest to being repeatedly held under water until the person thinks they are drowning.

No comparison at all.

I mean, the 'suspected terrorist' is, in many cases, also a citizen (Yes, there are US Citizens being held in Gitmo, we had a Supreme Court case just recently about that), and they were likely taken away in the middle of the night, and last I heard, in THIS country, there's still a difference between 'suspected' and 'confirmed'. Some, indeed, many of those being 'not drowned' turned out to be perfectly innocent.

Oh, and being Orthodox, he might very well be against the Death Penalty, but even if not.. those people are officially arrested, after using warrants and the full rights of privacy and Habeus Corpus, have all the usual rights and and have been proven guilty.

Not really a good comparison.

It's all a matter of context, as far as I'm concerned. Waterboarding, first of all, isn't torture. It's a scary procedure, nothing more.

As to context, does every idiot Islamist Supremacist, like moronic John Walker Lindh, need to be waterboarded? Heck no. But, if a high-value combatant like KSM is picked up, and we know he has been in on planning many terror attacks, and may know about impending ones, I could care less if he's waterboarded. Really, to use an analogy, if some freak had a kid hidden in an old freezer somewhere, running out of air, even if I DID disapprove of torture, this would be the exception that proves the rule. I'd say do whatever you have to do to find out where that kid is, and fast.

In other words, it's just as immoral to not torture someone if he knows a suitcase nuke is going to go off in an American city as it is to torture someone just because you can.

My apologies, but I can spare little sympathy for any jihadist in Gitmo or anywhere else for that matter.

As for the idiot guards at Abu Ghraib, they're in prison; problem solved. As for what they did, that wasn't torture, that was nothing more than a frat-house hazing. I was treated worse than that in basic training.

Without commenting on waterboarding... I want to address Rod's premise about "the soul" choosing for you. I know what he means, by his use of the story about a man changing from pro to anti communist overnight. "he heard screams".

But I don't think it was because "he heard screams". It was because he knew a LOT before "he heard screams".

But that was the tipping point. We all know exactly how incalculably horrifying soviet communism was. How it tore the soul out of the people who lived under it. How they cannot now seem to pull themselves together, because they have no guiding conscience, no principles higher than themselves, it had been stripped away generation after generation before.

It wasn't the "The Screams". It was that the screams made it personal.

If I were to come home, and find my family tied to a bomb sure to kill them if they tried to extricate themselves, and there was a disarm method... What would I choose to do, to extract that method from the cretin who did it?

What if it were my neighbors tied to the bomb?

What if it were my schoolmates?

What if it were total strangers?

Is your answer any different, for any of those?

I don't think I would commit "Waterboarding". Nope, I'd start with breaking fingers and move on to things REALLY painful.

Judge all you want. Maybe it's a character flaw, but I would, if I had to, take his life to save his intended victims.

So, if you ask me... I would definitely commit some seriously bodily harm to save others lives. But that's where it ends. It's called judgement. I would have to make it, you would have to make it.

And it's really easy to second guess that after the fact.

I know that I would have more than a few moments after such an incident, even if I did save lives.

Re: finding out how to disarm bomb attached to my near and dear--yeah, I would probably do whatever I could dream up and implement on the spot, with no hesitation, at least if I thought I could pull it off and it would work. But that's me, an individual, acting on my own behalf and that of the person I love. I claim no legal sanction for it. I probably wouldn't care all that much, on the spot, about the MORAL

oops, sorry, I must have hit send without intending to--about the MORAL sanction for it. What we are supposedly talking about here is what we believe our government, acting under our laws and constitution, OUGHT to do in such a situation. Maybe I'm insufficiently conservative, but I honestly believe the government, and the laws, should be guided by better motives than a single inept confused and desperate human being. Otherwise, what's the point of HAVING one?

Batteries and cables are very unlikely to kill you or cause permanent brain damage (assuming intact skin). Waterboarding as performed on SEAL's in the 70's was a time controlled procedure conducted with immediate medical back up. It was performed by friendly folk who had an interest in survival of the victim and no incentive to push the limits to obtain information.

Wateroarding by the CIA on high profile prisoners probably ( maybe) had decent monitoring. There are better ways to monitor for hypoxia than just timing now. However,if any of these guys had received drugs relatively recently before their waterboarding they would have been at high risk for needing resuscitation and could easily have suffered brain injury. If, as rumored, the amateurs at Abu Ghraib conducted their own version of waterboarding this was even more likely. Given my choice between amateurs waterboarding vs. the battery cable treatment Id take the cables. As a final note I have often wondered about the "its only mental pain" argument. They get to go back to three hots and a cot with no scars seems to be the belief. If they killed your children in front of you there would be no scars and you could go back to three hots and a cot. That would still seem like torture to me (forbidden by Geneva convention to).

Torture may or may not work as an information gathering tool. If it does work and you are amoral it still needs to be evaluated for its overall value to a war effort. We could nuke those mountainous ares of Pakistan and probably wipe out most of the Taliban and kill Bin Laden but we would create so many new terrorists that it would be a negative for the war effort. The inteligence community is small and word almost always leaks out. When word that we torture leaks out it puts our soldiers at permanent risk. They become fair game and it also makes a great recruiting tool for the terrorists. Abu Ghraib was one of Al Quaidas best recruiting tools. If we wish to maintain our image as liberators who bring freedom and liberty to other peoples we need to realize this is undermined by torture as a policy. Occupiers, conquerors and despots torture.

If the CIA has evidence that torture is the best way to get timely, reliable, actionable intelligence they should make that known. We should then be honest enough to withdraw from the Geneva Convention so that our soldiers will know the conditions under which they will be serving. Last,but not least, we need to decide who makes the decisions on when and whom to torture. Could torture be used abusively? What if it really doesnt work? How would we know (maybe those tapes were destroyed because they have nothing to show for hours of torture). Is it ok to torture white Americans or just Arabs?

Steve

I've read Solzhenitsyn, and the ticking bomb scenario still stands. To make up reasons, or to have no reason at all, to use torture, proves one a monster. To not use every possible means to obtain information needed to save the lives of thousands, to completely rule out ever doing anything remotely harsh, such as waterboarding, makes one just as monstrous as the former.

War sucks, and those who celebrate it are twisted, but those who expect it to be run with the precisions of a court case are dreaming. Peace is only possible once one side wins the war; hopefully, the right side.

Let's see... I premised my statement by saying "Not to comment about waterboarding".

And immediately a half dozen people assume that I'm talking about it.

No wonder you can't discuss anything sensibly. Nobody listens.

At least a few people actually caught on to the notion that the question is NOT about waterboarding. Not at all.

A good lot of us when faced with a situation clear to us would not bother to stop at that point, but immediately rush to far more intense measures. Why? Because we just a level of judgement that we trust. The "moral" choice is obvious, and suddenly the word "torture" has no meaning, no significance. The issues are clear and present, and there's litte mystery behind them.

The "waterboarding" question isn't about waterboarding at all. Not really. If a military unit runs into an ambush, and discovers that they have JUST planted a bomb in an area they can't clear, but is controlled remotely, what steps should they take to protect the people who are the intended victims of that bomb?

When YOU are faced with that question, you and three of your buddies strap the cretin down, grab his finger and say "how do we disarm it?"

And you extract that information.

When the same situation is faced by members of the US military, what should they be allowed to do? Collar the smirking miscreant who laughs wtih glee when he's sitting in an air conditioned cell, given every need and comfort, that he knew he just managed to get a hospital, all the patients and staff sent to meet their maker?

Well, if our policy is we can't do anything, then that's it. That's what they do. So, it's wrong for them to do it, but not for you.

That's a position a lot of people hold. Why? Because they want "POLICY" subsituted for "JUDGEMENT".

YOU and I will use judgement. But what of soldiers? Do we want policy that allows them to use judgement, or do we substitute policy for judgement?

Some are willing to use that judgment and go to the brig to save someone else's life.

There's enough arguments all over the place to fill the Grand Canyon with position papers on the topic. But we need to face the question for what it truly is... How far and how much do we substitute policy - policy which HAS to conform to political (and moral, etc) ideals - for judgement?

You can heap legalese on this until we're so buried in it that it's rotting will actually commence global warming, and not resolve that question, in fact, it'll never even ask that question.

How far do we substitute policy for judgement, and what and who do we blame for the results of that decision?

A few quick thoughts...

Rod asks how one might feel if the screams were those of his child? Pretty wretched, I would think. But what, to pick an issue near to our working boy's heart, if the screams were those of a serial child molester? Grim satisfaction, might better sum it up. Point being, emotion is a very fickle guide to moral certainty.

In my other posts, I make no secret that torture is objectively wrong and knowing this gives no satisfaction. So casuistry while an amusing parlor game gets us no nearer to the truth. The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of torture is irrelevant. It's not immoral for being ineffective. It puts our troops at risk. This seems absurd given an enemy that video tapes beheadings. It plays into enemy hands by aiding recruitment to the jihad. Of course, the flipside is that fear of ruthless Americans probably suppresses some jihadist enthusiasm. It causes our betters in high places to cluck their tongues and roll their eyes. Just so. We are left with something our former vice president might term an inconvenient truth: torture is wrong.

But I think the thing missed is that the torturers, at least in the current debate, are not bad folks. They feel threatened, not unreasonably so. My sympathies are with the torturers. Like the alcoholic, in the church basement I'm not here because it's something I don't want to do. I'm here because when I look into the blank malevolent stare of a Mohammed Atta my first thought is pass me the tongs it's time to get medieval.

That's what needs overcoming.

csw

csw... oh ok. Whew. I didn't think I was THAT unclear :)

CSW, I think I understand what you are saying, which is essentially that our emotions aren't sure guides to moral action--which seems to be contradicting Rod's point in his post. However, I think Rod's point isn't really speaking about emotions, or a visceral reaction to hearing someone scream or seeing someone be tortured, but rather the voice of the soul which tells you when the thing you are doing or contemplating is wrong, even when it seems desirable for a number of reasons.

Years ago I heard a homily in which the priest talked about the fact that when our soul's voice, or conscience, begins this type of communication our more rational voices try to make excuses for our actions and to justify them over the objections of that quiet inner voice. Father used a humorous example involving his relatives' farm he was visiting as a small boy, and some clear instructions he'd been given about not opening the gate and letting the pigs out--but he wanted to play with the piglets, and so he started making excuses: "They didn't really mean I couldn't open it at all. I'm sure it would be all right if I opened it just a little. I only want one or two of the littlest pigs to come out here. They would want me to have fun..." and so on, until the inevitable and disastrous result of opening the gate just too much for just too long...

When we run smack-dab into a moral truth like "Torture is intrinsically evil" and yet we have been reflexively approving of it, because this war is different and this enemy is different and these circumstances are different and ticking time bombs are different...etc...we are in the same circumstance as the little boy on the farm. We start to make excuses for the action: "Well, of course *torture* is evil, we know that; but we're just pouring some water on some guy's face. It's more annoying than anything, right? I'm sure people who call it "hypoxia" or "simulated drowning" are just a bunch of Islamic-appeasing liberal do-gooders who couldn't man up enough to extract information from serious bad guys like these even if they wanted to. What are we supposed to do, Let The Terrorists Win (TM)? You can't make omelets without breaking eggs, and you can't get these guys to cooperate without some pretty tough interrogation techniques. But it's not really torture, or if it is it's the good kind..." and so on.

What I think happened in the story Rod posts here is that the man in question heard screams that cut through all his years of rationalizations and excuses. It wasn't a merely emotional reaction to the sound; it was that the screams of torment penetrated through the wall of justifications he had built up around his soul, and liberated it and its clear and conscientious horror of evil in a single grace-filled moment.

Ya gotta love it; people my soul tells me are immoral by inter alia their calumny-like implication I and my country are immoral in supporting what their souls tell them was immoral: some sworn defenders of our lives attempting to save the lives of many thousands of innocent mothers, fathers and children by distressing (with a tactic used to train our own troops) THREE known (not suspected) immoral monsters. Distress three murdering monsters or allow more 9/11s?

Insanity can't be considered culpable for immorality; liberalism can and is. Orwell had no clue how bad it would get.

And Rod, you ducked my question of a few weeks ago: Would you oppose the use of harmless waterboarding on terrorists known to be holding and torturing your family?

If you ask questions, you should answer them as well.

Christopher, I'm not entirely sure I understand. I don't see those opposing torture denying that one might be greatly tempted to justify it; in fact, I see them (Mr. Shea in particular) warning against such temptations. Not for nothing does Mark Shea frequently phrase the combox agonizing over the matter as "wanting to tiptoe right up to the line of torture, and then reach over it" or similar words; if this doesn't indicate an understanding of the fact that it's very tempting to want to hurt our enemies I don't know what would.

Problem is, we're tempted to do lots of things we shouldn't do, but that makes it all the more imperative that those who see the danger clearly should be unrelenting in their passionate warnings directed our way (note that this isn't a license for gratuitous unkindness, which is a temptation of its own). My former pastor would preach against contraception even though people would walk out; once he said during a homily that it would be unkind of him to refrain, as unkind as not warning someone cruising along at 70 miles an hour that the bridge was out up ahead, all because we didn't want to spoil their ride.

We can say, at one and the same time, that a) torture is evil and b) Islamic terrorists are dangerous. "A" doesn't contradict "b," nor does the reality of "b" negate "a." Admitting that some people are more tempted than others to approve of torture doesn't change the message that torture is evil; if anything, it makes it more necessary to deliver that message in a strong and consistent way.

Well written Chris and Erin.

Steve

Erin, St. Augustine held that "evil" is to be permitted for the punishment of the wicked and the trial of the good, and that it thus can have the nature of good; i.e. as the penal and just consequence of sin (De Civ. Dei, XI, xii, De Vera Relig. xliv). Was he wrong?

And please, Erin, tell me if you believe in the Catholic principle of being able to choose the lesser of two evils.

And then, considering the above, please tell me if you are acting in a Catholic manner when you assume the worst and accuse the Administration of engaging in "evil"?

Wow, so now Erin isn't even Catholic enough to meet Cleveland's standards? Watch out Pope Benedict, Cleveland the Inquisitor's got his eye on you.
Pardon my snark, but Cleveland, you're being ridiculously unfair to Erin.

Cleveland, can you please educate me on the Scriptural and/or doctrinal justification for torturing a man to give what might be false information concerning other men who may or may not be planning to attack the US at some unspecified point in the future.

That is an honest request. "Lesser of two evils" just doesn't evoke an image or thought that covers the situation.

I'm sure there's much more to be found on this subject, but here are a couple of quotes from Catholics other than Augustine. From Benedict XVI's World Day of Peace 2006 message:

Benedict paid tribute to his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, who vigorously opposed the war in Iraq, and said the church would continue "serving the cause of peace."

At a news conference about the peace message, Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's pontifical council on peace and justice, was asked if torture could be a legitimate tool to gain information that might prevent terror attacks.

The prelate replied that there was no justification for using torture, which is the "humiliation of the human person, whoever he is."

"The church does not allow torture as a means to extract the truth," Martino said. Terror suspects "sometimes say what the torturers want to hear. ... There are other ways to obtain the truth."

Benedict noted that the Holy See had called for the prompt implementation of international humanitarian conventions dealing with the effects of wars.

"Respect for that law must be considered binding on all peoples," the pontiff said.

The Catholic Catechism states: "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" (2297).

Here's an excerpt from an essay I recommend, by Robert Vischer, a Catholic scholar, found in a symposium on Christian viewpoints on torture, at www.evangelicaloutpost.com/torture/

Self-preservation is not the ultimate value underlying Christian ethics, and recognition of that fact must underlie any attempt to articulate a Christian response to torture. The specter of terrorists holding information that could save thousands of lives does not alter or eviscerate the Gospel’s call to transform our world through an abiding and uncompromising ethic of love. Foremost in any framework purporting to implement this ethic is a prohibition against using our fellow humans instrumentally, as a convenient means to our chosen ends, no matter how noble.

This principle is reflected in the Catholic Church’s inclusion of torture in the category of "intrinsically evil acts." Torture, as explained by Pope John Paul II, is by its very nature "incapable of being ordered to God" because it "radically contradicts the good of the person made in [God’s] image." Pope Paul VI cautioned that "it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it."

We cannot, in other words, "intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general." This uncompromising stand against torture is necessary not only for the well-being of the victim whose body is used as a means to achieving a greater good, but also out of concern for the perpetrators, for as the Second Vatican Council recognized, such practices "contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator."

Or this:

VATICAN CITY, June 27 (UPI) -- Pope John Paul II Sunday called for a complete ban on torture, the Italian news agency ANSA reported.

"Institutions and citizens should totally ban this intolerable violation of human rights, which is radically contrary to the dignity of man," the pope declared.

Omigosh, not THE Carol Cleveland. Not Carol Cleveland of saucy Monty Python fame! And a former Miss California Navy, too. I'm swooning in ecstacy, which is a dashed odd thing on a torture topic. Give her--the COMFY CUSHIONS! "Oh Pantomime Horse, I do love you so!" : D

The City Room blog at The New York Times,

http://tinyurl.com/3e2ycr

in reporting a dinner of faux-conservative poobahs attended by the punditariat's answer to the Raccoon Lodge and the Royal Order of Water Buffalo -

"contributors and editors from National Review, The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal editorial page" -

relays the plaint of elder Pharisee Norman Podhoretz, aka N-Pod Tha Bomb Squad:

"He also said the United States should 'stop defining torture down' to the point that meaningful interrogation of terrorism suspects becomes useless."

It would be to risk a lumpenClintonian verbal cigarsplitting to note that it all depends on the meaning of "meaningful"...

Apparently, the reporter present at the neocon rubber-chickenfest, aka Pullet Surprise (the occasion honored the Power Line bloggers' passing the baton of an anonymous subvention honoring Podhoretz's latest sequel to Making It), had eaten earlier, and at a table reserved for "Donner, party of one":

"When Kissinger Met the Bloggers

By Jennifer 8. Lee..."

So moved by such integral, digital *mittelnomenklatura*, I am sorely tempted myself to apply for a cub-reporter slot at the Times - I'm just not sure, though, how well "Scott 2 1/2 Lahti" will play among the literal-minded screeners in Human Resources...

I stand by my earlier comment, you want to torture people, start taking a long hard look at yourself.

Cleveland, the answer is no, torture "in defense of the nation" is wrong.

He's not quoted in Catechism, and is supremely unlikely to ever be sainted, but:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

-- attributed to Benjamin Franklin

I classify making and keeping torture illegal and indefensible under Essential Liberty. And before you ask: yes, I prefer to see another 9/11 rather than use torture, because there is no such thing as a defense against that sort of attack in the US as a free and open society. Intelligence experts have been saying that all along.

What we did to the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is a much more effective deterrent than torture could ever be.

Cleveland, I hope someone is there beside you to hold you the night you start hearing those screams.

Cleveland, I don't give a rat's zinger whether the Pope is against torture or not. They've waffled a few times on that question, over the centuries--enough to make the "Magisterium" morally suspect in my view. I know torture is wrong without benefit of a bull from Benedict. Those quotes were for your benefit, as I believe you are making highly selective choices in that divine cafeteria you frequent, and unfairly criticizing Erin for her more consistent menu.

Can you picture Jesus torturing someone? Or, if you've decided that waterboarding isn't torture--in spite of the screams--can you picture Jesus waterboarding someone? You might think this is a rhetorical question, but it isn't, because I can imagine that you might actually answer in the affirmative. If Jesus wouldn't do it, why is it that you get to? And if Jesus would do it, in your opinion . . . well, I'll leave the conclusion of that sentence until you come up with an answer to my question.

Never post angry, Franklin.

The souls to whom I refer are the government officials and agents charged with implementing the policy.

DavidTC, you may not be talking to me, but I am talking to you.

You call me a troll, a moron and an idiot, and very directly imply I am worse than a Nazi because I supported the waterboarding, with medical personnel present to assure no resulting harm, of three murdering monsters who were able to and did provide information to prevent more killing of Americans.

Even John McCain now opposes the Democrat-proposed ban on waterboarding because he recognizes the obvious validity of the various ticking time bomb scenarios; he doesn't want his hopefully presidential hands tied by people like you. What sane person would not want to try to save entire cities if there was a chance that waterboarding would work again? (God willing, such a person will never represent this country.)

To the best of my knowledge, McCain never opposed your so-called torture as a current training tool for our elite troops. So, DavidTC, you can't talk to him anymore either.

And I hope I never again read one more reference to the alleged "screams" of those three murdering bastards, when I still can't clear my mind of the screams of thousands of Americans killed and maimed in NYC, and the screams of agony of the thousands more who loved them--those screams will never stop as long as they live and will include the memories and the stench of a year of digging up rotted bits of loved ones--as well as the potential screams of thousands more which those three waterboarded SOBs would love to have seen.

"Fearing not I'd become my enemy..."

-Bob Dylan

Cleveland, the justifications for unspeakable behavior multiply like cockroaches in the walls. We just have to be careful that in fighting unspeakable behavior we do not ourselves become unspeakable.

I try to follow Jesus Christ. Whatever I do, however I twist my mind around, I cannot imagine Jesus "waterboarding" anyone. I fully realize that not everyone is bound by the same constraints.

"But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount. But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." Luke 6:27-36

Cleveland, where is the exception for torture? I don't see one here. The Church condemns torture, Our Lord told us to love our enemies. How do you get around that?

Cleveland, you are welcome, nay, invited, begged, to show us the Jesus in the scriptures who would support waterboarding. Please! We're waiting!

Your response to Kitten was ad hominem.

Right on, Erin.

Cleveland
You call me a troll, a moron and an idiot, and very directly imply I am worse than a Nazi because I supported the waterboarding, with medical personnel present to assure no resulting harm, of three murdering monsters who were able to and did provide information to prevent more killing of Americans.

I didn't call you worse than a Nazi. You haven't attempted or even called for genocide, for example, although it's worth noting that you need to be careful who you stand next to because there are people near your position who think the solution is to 'nuke the middle east into a parking lot'. But you aren't one of those people, AFAIK.

I said you supported torture quicker than Nazis did. That they and we both had limits we were loathe to cross, basically the same limits, but both of us eventually crossed when non-uniformed terrorists started attacking us. And they too had medical personal standing by as they questioned murderers in ways carefully designed to keep from causing lasting harm.

If the comparison bothers you, you should realize I was just praising the Nazis for being smart enough to adopt good methods and safeguards on interrogations when faced with an threat to their very existence by unlawful combatants.

No, I lie, that's not what I was doing. A nation that had no trouble with mass murder had qualms about torture. They'd kill people, they'd let them starve to death, but they actually drew a damn line, at first, at deliberately causing extreme pain, and almost all torture was 'special circumstances' of people like those three people you were talking about that we tortured, or done by 'bad apples' like what happened at Gitmo.

The Nazis, simply put, were not bigger torturers than us. They didn't do it more, they had identical justifications and rationals about 'unlawful combatants' that did military operations out of uniform, they had the same care about stopping permanent harm and having medical attention, and they were actually facing a threat to their entire existence.

If the fact that that we secretly crossed lines that the Nazis didn't want to bothers you, MAYBE IT SHOULD.

"Cleveland, where is the exception for torture [in Christ's words]? I don't see one here. The Church condemns torture, Our Lord told us to love our enemies. How do you get around that?" Erin

You are too educated not to know the answer, which is that the words you quoted do not preclude self defense. Hells bells, Erin, you know very well that we are to "love" the Hitlers of the world while we defend ourselves nonetheless. You know very well that pacifism of that sort is not a Catholic principle.

You also know very well that if you stood by and saw your children about to be raped and tortured, and did nothing to prevent it, and then said "children, now turn the other cheek and let it happen again because Jesus said we should love our enemies", you would be an abomination in God's eyes.

Any answer I give you will be brushed aside because you have already brushed off Augustine and Aquinas (as quoted in the Catechism) as possibly permitting waterboarding for legitimate self defense. Your position is that , "OK, maybe Christ's words aren't meant to mean we can't kill in self defense (as the Church says we can), but we can't waterboard to save American cities because I say it's intrinsically evil torture. We can kill and therefore cause wounded enemy to lie on the battle field and suffer for days, but we can't waterboard for 15 minutes to save thousands of innocents from being killed and thousands more from suffering horribly." That, Erin, is not using the reason God gave you.

Even though you know I, too, condemn actual torture (even waterboarding without a legitimate purpose), you continue to imply I don't. But that's not the argument, anyway. The argument is: "Is waterboarding, as used by this Administration, torture." You say yes (but don't admit you mean the Administration), and I say no. We may as well argue about the meaning of "is."

But, OK, if you want to continue the game, how do YOU get around this:

Matt.10
[34] "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword
Luke.22
[36] He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.
John.18
[10] Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus.
[11] Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?"

If Jesus permitted/wanted his disciples to carry swords, what did Jesus intend the swords to be used for, shish kebab? Of course, He didn't want His disciples to "live" by the sword, nor did He condemn solders. But remember, you and I are his hands. And if evil is to be defended against, then of course any necessary, legitimate means are to be permitted. If in good conscience, the leaders of our country see waterboarding as a means to stop wholesale murder and suffering of the innocent, I say do it!

Since many comments contain the premise that waterboarding is torture I am compelled to ask those who hold that position, "What is your concise definition of torture?"

Put another way...

If you consider waterboarding torture, please define torture.

Max,

My "definition" of torture is not at issue, nor is it even relevant. The definition of torture has been the topic of international debate for time out of mind. My objection -- risking Cleveland's censure concerning politics -- is that my government has arbitrarily gone its own way on this topic.

For me, and any objection you may have will be respected and duly noted, the issue is moral justification.

You rightly push the discussion in that direction.

My family history, both sides, has a surfeit of direct connections to torture and moral justification. My mother was Jewish, and I'll not go into that further. I am the son of a duly tried and convicted war criminal in Yugoslavia (please, this is not the distinction one might assume). His crime: taking food and ammunition from Nazi soldiers in exchange for intelligence concerning his enemies, and even sometimes false intelligence concerning their enemies. His moral justification was simple: hurt his enemies and stay alive. To complete that picture, Tito issued a general amnesty later. Note to Cleveland: if WWII is anything like a valid example, it is all about politics.

My point is the utter and complete lie that the US can in any way be effectively "protected" from an attack. I maintain that the US is the perennial target for such attacks, and that we should consider (knowing that direct corroboration is going to be and remain classified) that there has been numerous thwarted attempts by foreign enemies to attack us, and that it was the combined efforts along many paths of our domestic and foreign intelligence services that did the thwarting, and torture contributed little to that.

A question that should be asked: during the heyday of passenger flight hijacking, why didn't we go after suspected hijackers and their supporters and torture them as a method of "protecting" air passengers? The answer is clearly in the realm of moral justification.

I acknowledge that heinous things can be morally justified. The circumstances are specific, narrow, and based on pro forma things like declaration of war or response to acts of war.

I leave it to the reader to determine if those circumstances have been at all fulfilled beyond the direct, logical and rational connection between 9/11 and the invasion and conquest of Afghanistan. My view, as should be obvious, is that there is none.

I try to follow Jesus Christ. Whatever I do, however I twist my mind around, I cannot imagine Jesus "waterboarding" anyone.

Anyone who can imagine that is recommended to re-read (or, read for the first time?) the gospels.

For me, that's an answer. For others, not.

Not everyone is a follower of Jesus. Or is even trying. I get that.

Cleveland (or anonymous poster whose syntax remarkably resembles Cleveland's), I think you must have missed the part where Nance specifically states that waterboarding, when practiced for an extended period on a victim who doesn't know his captors' intentions, would be torture.

Perhaps it would be easy to argue that waterboarding satisfies just war theory--you've certainly been doing so. I think it is less easy to argue that the Pope agrees with you.

As for your last paragraph, you might want to dial the rhetoric back a bit, since as it stands, logic would seem to lead inescapably to the conclusion that mothers who experience miscarriages are inadvertently torturing babies to death. I doubt you really intended to awaken that nightmare in the minds of pregnant women.

"The only logic and inescapable conclusion in that thought is that you are embarrassed by the fact that if torture is NEVER justified, intentionally torturing unborn babies to death is unjustified. You liberals are a piece of work; it's NEVER justified to harmlessly waterboard unjust Muslim aggressors to save thousands of lives and untold agony, but it is justified to chemically (or worse) actually torture to death unjust baby "aggressors.""

This passage is dead on [pun intended].

Haven't seen Will around here in awhile, but I can see why he would think that Cleveland and I are one and the same (we're not).

Basic psychology of torture, studied extensively outside of military contexts in the area of mind-control techniques used by cults of religion and personality:

1) The victim is made to believe he or she will die. This death can effectively be either physical or metaphorical in obtaining the desired results.

2) The victim's sense of self is under attack. A victim who already has a weak sense of self is going to be more vulnerable to mind-control, more likely to be convinced of a metaphorical death. A victim with a stronger sense of self will be subjected to ever-increasing intensity of torture until he or she is "broken".

3) In a cult, the object is to make the victim surrender his or her volition. In a military setting, the object is to make the victim surrender his or her information. While there are some flaws to making an analogy between the two, they are secondary to the basic premise: the victim is made to surrender his or her will.

If you (general) want to invoke Godwin's Law with abortion and end this discussion, have at it. If you want to examine what torture actually is, I commend to you the vast literature about it... meaning, don't take my word for it. Nothing I've written above is of my own devising or conclusion.

"Haven't seen Will around here in awhile, but I can see why he would think that Cleveland and I are one and the same (we're not)." Max Schadenfreude

We're not? But I thought....Wait a minute now. Oh, I'm so confused!

"I like Bugg's take on this, elsewhere: two wrongs make... two wrongs."
Franklin.

That's correct; you and Bugg make two wrongs. :-)

"What we did to the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is a much more effective deterrent than torture could ever be." Franklin

Correct again! Killing them and driving them out of Afghanistan like cockroaches into Iraq where we and our allies and the Iraqis can kill them more effectively is better than torture, which I don't support. Ergo, your entire 9:20 AM comment was superfluous.

"I agree with Franklin that the substitution of abortion for torture as the subject under discussion would be the end of this thread. So I'm not going to go there.[But I will anyway]: But I will say, Cleveland, that I'm disappointed you don't give me more credit for consistency." Etc., etc.. sig

You don't deserve any credit for consistency. Erin does, however, because she knows torture is what happens when a baby is destroyed in a womb. Thus you can't be at the same time against a very narrow application of a very narrow type of waterboarding which you say is torture, but not be against abortion which IS torture and claim to be consistent.

"A question (not just for Cleveland, but for other advocates of "harmless" torture): what about rape? It can be performed in a way that leaves no visible physical scars. So would that be an acceptable technique? If it is absolutely off limits in a way that waterboarding is not, why is that?" sig

Now you are getting desperate, my friend. Obviously, a rapee is innocent; the three murdering SOBs were not, so they have no moral justification for our application of self defense measures such as our style of waterboarding. Shame on you for not being willing to waterboard a creep whose comrades are raping and otherwise torturing some women and children in a secrete location.

As for your last paragraph, thank you. You are correct.

As you wish, Cleveland. I'll leave you with a rhetorical question: what do you say to all those innocent SOBs who had no connection to anything of remote interest to US "self-defense", but were tortured... excuse me, waterboarded anyway?

We've been invaded by 9... 6... three teenagers, so wife and I are escaping to our local Barnes & Noble for coffee and browsing. Enjoy your evening, my friend.

"As you wish, Cleveland. I'll leave you with a rhetorical question: what do you say to all those innocent SOBs who had no connection to anything of remote interest to US "self-defense", but were tortured... excuse me, waterboarded anyway?" Franklin

I'll leave you with a non-rhetorical answer: Only three prisoners were waterboarded, as the Administration confirmed, so your question crosses the line into the tired, old, unpatriotic (sorry, if the shoe fits, wear it) propaganda which I find more than disturbing. It makes the murdering SOBs , Democrats and the plaintiffs lawyers happy to see Americans saying such things.

"We've been invaded by 9... 6... three teenagers, so wife and I are escaping to our local Barnes & Noble for coffee and browsing. Enjoy your evening, my friend." Franklin

Been there done that, Franklin. Enjoy the noise while it lasts. Someday you will miss it--greatly.

PS: I hope you bought Ann Coulter's newest book while you were at the book store. It will make you see things a lot clearer.

Ah, yes, the harlot of the right... Ann and I go way back. She's gotten rather thin lately, though, and I worry about her health.

Like Sig, I must respectfully decline your warped definition of patriotism. Questioning and challenging our government is a tradition that goes back (counts fingers) 230 years and more. It's not when they are right that matters, it's when they are wrong. Some of us will continue to be there for that.

(She's the youngest, and I'm already missing my baby. Adjustments are us...)

Trouble is, on the waterboarding issue, she is thinking with her heart and her feminine nature, not with her head.

And good on her for it.

[Ann Coulter] has gotten rather thin lately, though, and I worry about her health."

Franklin, my 38 year-old son just e-mailed with the exact, same observation.

You know, her father did just pass away recently. Maybe she's a little too down to eat right.

Hope the loss of her father makes Coulter a more compassionate person.

Someone said smug? I can see that. I can see the superiority all over those who rant about waterboarding. It's anti-Bush hysteria.
No that I like Bush; I don't.
Here's the truth...that stuff goes on, and it always has, and it always will. You can't stop it. There are guys on both sides, well, in every country, who do this stuff for a living. If you think otherwise you're naive.
They do what they have to do, and it's often ugly.
It's okay to off somebody outright while at war, but not okay to scare the sh** out of them. I can't make sense of this.
If some guy has info, and we need it, we should try to get it.
Some say that torture isn't beneficial because the victim will tell you anything to make you stop. On the other hand, I'm sure that good info has been retrieved.
It's a tough issue, and not as black and white as the people here seem to think.
I'm not consistent on these issues myself, and I admit as such. While I am against the war, I know instinctively that the war has probably kept us from being attacked a second time here in the states. And I'll make an awful prediction...if Obama gets in, and it looks like he will, we'll pull out of Iraq, and the crazies will refocus their energies on the continental U.S., especially if the liberal POTUS backs off and refuses to play hardball against terrorism. I hate to say stuff like this, but I have a gut feeling. Say what you want about Bush, and his "taking away our civil liberties", blah blah, we haven't been hit again.