There has been a back and forth at National Review on this the last few days. Plus a interaction with Marc Thiessen comments out there in Catholic blog land. In this post he talks Andrew Sullivan. See Andrew Sullivan Attempts to Explain Catholic Teaching . .
There have been a lot of grand statements on both sides I suppose on what the Church teaches. I have to the conclusion that there is still a lot up in the air.
Thiessen though I thinks gets to an important point about what is permissible. What level of coercion can be used if any. I have talked before how one "anti torture" advocate said that if 24 hours of sleep deprivation broke a terrorist will that was too much!!! It is not so much the method used but the fact people got a terrorist to talk about something he did not want too.
I am not at all sure that is what the Church teaches. We break people's will all the time. With unruly inmates, with children, etc etc. Is this all wrong? We are also dealing with folks that by their faith are demanded to give some resistance. They just can't spill the beans when they get caught.
I understand about the dignity of the Human Being but are we now saying that all enhanced interrogation techniques (sleep deprivation, bright lights, making them listen to bad rock music) is now all illicit. That seems where this conversation goes very often
Again I think there is in the background a confusion of human rights and United States Constitutional rights.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Catholics Arguing What Is Torture Again
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
We break people's will all the time. With unruly inmates, with children, etc etc. Is this all wrong?
I sincerely hope you are not breaking your children's will, because that phrase implies leaving a person incapable of asserting themselves forevermore, which I assume you are not doing to your children.
Let's put it this way, asserting yourself appropriately over an inmate, subordinate or child is different from torture in that asserting yourself appropriately does not result in physical or emotional damage or in long term trauma (PTSD).
Christopher Hitchens allowed himself to be waterboarded. Even knowing that he could stop it at any time and was in no real danger, he only lasted 13 seconds. And, for months afterwards, he would have severe flashbacks to the event while sleeping and showering. That's torture.
"I sincerely hope you are not breaking your children's will, because that phrase implies leaving a person incapable of asserting themselves forevermore, which I assume you are not doing to your children."
That would be improper in fact that is where a huge moral line is crossed. It would be evil to break a person so horribily they had no free will at all. However my gosh when the kid is being a little "satan" yes measures are used. GO sit in the COrner. No TV, a spanking, etc etc
"Let's put it this way, asserting yourself appropriately over an inmate, subordinate or child is different from torture in that asserting yourself appropriately does not result in physical or emotional damage or in long term trauma (PTSD"
Now that I would agree with to a large degree
"Christopher Hitchens allowed himself to be waterboarded. Even knowing that he could stop it at any time and was in no real danger, he only lasted 13 seconds. And, for months afterwards, he would have severe flashbacks to the event while sleeping and showering. That's torture."
I have read the Hitchens peice. Of course I have talked to people that went through it that are insistent that it is not.
What is long term?
That being said I understand waterboarding is a difficult topic. In some ways though I think we have focused too much on it and somehow all these other methods are put under it.
I guess what I am saying is I am not sure we are getting ot he crucial issue
Post a Comment