Catholics Saying They are Against Torture But Rarely Define It

I am still of the belief that there is a difference between torture and enhanced interrogation. When it slips over from one case to the other to me is the debate.

I note that among conservative Catholics (at least on the blogs) there is loud cry of not agreeing with torture. It seems that many consider waterboarding in that category with some dissent.

However what has struck me is there little talk of the memo itself. In fact I am confused if President Obama is giving up all those techniques at all.

Goldberg commenting on a Washington Post Op-ed said:

Is It All About Waterboarding? [Jonah Goldberg]
The Washington Post has a fair-minded, on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand editorial on why it thinks we need a bipartisan commission to investigate torture allegations. I'm not sure I agree with their conclusion, but what actually caught my eye was this:

AND YET, on the other side, we have this: American officials condoned and conducted torture. Waterboarding, to take the starkest case, has been recognized in international and U.S. law for decades as beyond the pale, and it was used hundreds of times during the Bush years.

I know people of good conscience object to other methods as well. The sleep deprivation, confined quarters, shackling etc., are beyond the pale to some. But as a political matter, it seems to me that waterboarding is really the only method that has the power to drive the torture complaints. If the interrogators hadn't waterboarded, would there really be a firestorm over the other techniques? Maybe. But I kind of doubt it.
04/24 10:07 AMShare

In fact I doubt it too. It seems to me that the lack of engaging these other techniques seems almost intentional. As I stated earlier I think the Obama administration in fact is being kinda of vague about what it is jettisoning and keeping.

In the more liberal New Republic they have a conclusion that sort of mirrors mine in SOME ways in his article here

I am quoting a New Republic colleague from this morning's editorial meeting. But frankly I, too, do not lose sleep over some terrorists being thrown against a supple wall a couple of times. And I find myself mystified why putting a terrorist in a box with a caterpillar is thought of at all as illegal and unforgivable.

Returning to the Corner again , Cliff May this morning echos some of my frustration with this discussion:

Re: Not Pro-Torture, Just Pro-Facts [Cliff May]
Andrew Sullivan has a post up on his Daily Dish taking a shot at me as well. He begins by saying generously: “Cliff May has done great work over the years advancing democracy and defending human rights.” He goes on to link to one of my Corner posts and to say that my “defense of torture when and only when America does it deeply undermines his credibility and makes a mockery of his previous work.”

In fact, in just about everything I’ve written and said, I’ve taken pains to emphasize that I oppose torture. However, I do think (1) it’s important to define torture so we know what we are talking about, and (2) all forms of “stress and duress” utilized to elicit cooperation from a terrorist in possession of life-saving information are not torture.

Every opponent I’ve debated on has taken this tactic — labeling me as “pro-torture,” refusing to grapple with definitions, and refusing to consider whether there may be methods of interrogation that are unpleasant but fall short of torture.

This is especially important because we now know that Islamists believe their religion forbids them to cooperate with infidels — until they have reached the limit of their ability to endure the hardships the infidel is inflicting on them.* In other words: Imagine an al-Qaeda member who would like to give his interrogators information, who does not want continue fighting, who would prefer not to see more innocent people slaughtered. He would need his interrogators to press him hard so he can feel that he has met his religious obligations — only then could he cooperate.

But just try to get anyone in the “anti-torture” camp to seriously debate any of this.

* “Brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardships.” — Abu Zubaydah, quoted in released CIA memos

04/24 09:42 AMShare

If all forms of strees and duress are now torture consider me not in that camp at all. I find that nonsensical. Still from what I have seen on the blogs and in the media it seems we are avoiding the tough questions while all claiming an air of moral superiority.

More thoughts on the political mess of this later