Waterboarding Reconsidered

May 3, 2014 | 20 comments

"Conversion on the Way to Damascus"

In his blog post published earlier this week, What About Waterboarding?, Catholic Answers' staff member Todd Aglialoro took a look at conservative firebrand Sarah Palin's recent controversial remarks on waterboarding ("[I]f I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists"). He offered his thoughts on whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture; and, if not, if it can be permitted for use in extracting necessary information from suspects with knowledge of ticking bombs.

This post sparked a wide discussion on various social media platforms, which led to my being tasked to provide an alternative point of view. Here at Catholic Answers we consider discussion healthy, and sometimes that discussion is not just external to the apostolate but internal, between staff members.

Nota bene: Todd emphasized in his blog post that "All my musings are mine alone and do not purport to be the final interpretation of Church teaching or the official opinion of Catholic Answers" (emphasis in original). Please keep in mind that Todd's disclaimer is also my own. Neither of us purports to define the matter for the Church or to give the official opinion of Catholic Answers. And please note that these are personal blog posts; they are not in the same category of Catholic Answers' publications as books, tracts, or magazine articles.

What Is Torture?

One of the strengths of Todd's piece was the care he took to seek a definition of torture from Church documents. In this effort, he cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.

Todd gave the citation of "CCC 2298" for this definition. In fact, the correct citation is CCC 2297. Paragraph 2298 is actually an expansion upon 2297, and says, in part:

In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices ["commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order"] 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 (emphasis added).

Taken together, this section of the Catechism is a sharp critique of unjust means that governments have at times used to preserve law and order. The right of governments to protect citizens is upheld (CCC 2263–2267), but is always balanced by the necessity to respect the dignity and rights of human persons.

Not cited by Todd in his blog post, but not to be overlooked, is the Second Vatican Council's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). In a document promulgated just twenty years following the world war that saw men, women, and children subjected to unimaginable horrors in the concentration camps (including experiments rationalized as means to discover ways to save "worthy" lives); the firebombings of civilian populations in Germany and Japan; and atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the Council Fathers wrote:

Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator (GS 27, emphasis added, the Vatican's English translation).

Todd claimed in his blog post that the Church "does not specifically address [waterboarding]" and asked whether the practice of waterboarding specifically meets the criteria for torture in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I respectfully respond that it is not reasonable to expect that the Church foresee every possible means that man can torture his fellow man and outlaw it. I also believe that the Church knew well the human tendency to hunt for loopholes through which evil could be slipped, and so deliberately crafted the paragraph in Gaudium et Spes, cited above, to be as broad as possible. No fewer than three times in that single paragraph did the Council Fathers use the terminology translated into English as whatever to cast as wide a net as possible in condemning human cruelty.

Is Waterboarding Torture?

Discussing whether or not waterboarding is torture, Todd gave the practice one of the mildest definitions I have ever seen in print. His purpose may have been to find a definition with which all parties to the dispute could agree, but he offered a definition that is indistinguishable from rough play with Super Soakers:

This interrogation practice involves restraining a prisoner in a prone position and using water to simulate a drowning sensation. The aim is that this imposition of discomfort will motivate the prisoner to divulge important information (emphasis added).

Later in the post, he says:

[H]ow should we morally evaluate something like waterboarding, which is the practice of imposing discomfort on someone with the intention of eliciting proportionately important (e.g., life-saving) information to which one has a right in justice? [emphasis in original].

Finally, we have this claim to consider:

Catholic principles of self-defense say that one may use even lethal means to protect one’s life or the lives of innocents in the face of an unjust aggressor (CCC 2263–2265). It seems to follow, then, that in the same circumstances non-lethal corporal means are at least in-bounds (emphasis in original).

I think that the idea that waterboarding is "non-lethal" would come as a surprise those who died in CIA interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 and 2003. And why would specialized, and once highly-classified, training be considered necessary for American military personnel to survive the infliction of a spot of "discomfort"?

At the very least, waterboarding is the infliction of extreme physical and mental distress to the point of fear for life, since one of the purposes, stipulated to by Todd, is to simulate drowning. Speaking as someone who very nearly actually drowned when I was twelve years old, I'm here to tell you that the experience does put you in fear for your life.

Is Waterboarding Necessary?

Many proponents of waterboarding claim that the procedure is a necessary tool for interrogators to use to extract important information from people believed to know where to find the ticking bombs. Of course, so far as we know, no person waterboarded to date since 9/11 has been thought to have the inside scoop on a currently ticking bomb. Rather these persons were believed to have information on terror networks that the CIA and other anti-terror organizations were working to dismantle. In other words, these people presumably were waterboarded for what they might know about possible future threats or the location of wanted terrorists who had committed past crimes. They most likely were not waterboarded to extract from them locations of active bombs that were in the process of ticking down.

Todd's scenario that a suspect "know[s] where there's a bomb that's going to detonate and kill innocents" thus in all probability is a hypothetical that permits people to rationalize that lives hang in the balance unless a suspect is strapped to a waterboard and terrorized into spilling what he knows. It is also a hypothetical that assumes that the suspect on the waterboard knows something. But what if he does not? Does the waterboard then become the 21st-century version of the ducking stools used in centuries past to identify witches? Do we decide that if the terror suspect dies, perhaps he never was a terrorist to begin with, but now at least he never will be one?

Then there is the fact that before the horror of 9/11 provided a cloak of moral righteousness justifying the open defense of torture techniques, many interrogators eschewed physical force because they knew it produced unreliable information.

As but one example, in his book Hunting Eichmann, author Neal Bascomb tells the story of Mossad's capture of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1960. When Israeli agents grabbed a man living under the name "Ricardo Klement" and spirited him away to a safe house in Buenos Aires for questioning, they needed to find out very quickly whether or not they had Adolf Eichmann. Remember, time was of the essence because if the Argentinian government found out the Israelis had kidnapped one of its citizens on Argentinian soil while the Israelis were still in Argentina, every Mossad agent on this mission would be in danger of death.

When Bascomb introduces the interrogation of "Ricardo Klement," this is how he describes the work of the Israeli interrogator Zvi Aharoni:

Aharoni wanted to begin his questioning straightaway, when his subject was at his most unbalanced. . . . [A]s an interrogator, he was without equal in the Shin Bet. He never used force, knowing it only led to false confessions. Instead, he wore his subjects down with staccato bursts of questions, twisting them in their own lies and hammering them with known facts until the truth was the only way out. He had studied applied psychology and, under CIA purview, had apprenticed in Chicago with John Reid and Fred Inbau, the authors of the standard text on interrogation (chapter 21, pp. 234–235, electronic book edition).

It turned out that "Klement" was indeed Eichmann and Eichmann quickly concluded that his jig was done. He readily admitted to his identity without much effort by Aharoni. There was no way that Aharoni could have known going in though that Eichmann would readily surrender the necessary information—and yet, as a matter of protocol, "he never used force."

The Final Test

We have reviewed a lot of scenarios here, some hypothetical and some actual. Let's look at one more scenario:

Suppose you live in a small corner of an immense empire, and your nation is under constant threat of being swallowed up by the empire. Your nation has some freedom of self-government, but it depends on maintaining law and order, and keeping the emperor happy. Not only that, but your nation is something of a theocracy. Now suppose that the small band of religious dissenters who have been pushing the strange new doctrines of their dead leader, executed for crimes against the state a few years back, is now growing larger every day.

You, being on fire for the defense of your nation and the purity of your faith, decide that this nonsense must be put to a definitive end. These extremists are putting the lives and souls of innocent men, women, and children at risk by their rebellion against legitimate authority and right doctrine.

Imagine that you have been deputized to round up these malcontents and break the back of their extremist network. Would it be licit to use physical force to coerce these rebels to give up information on their compatriots? Would God approve of this means of defending the lives and faith of his people? Well, let's see:

But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting (Acts 9:1–5).

Is this a fair scenario? Perhaps, if you consider that the converted Saul, St. Paul, spent the rest of his life drawing out the implications of Jesus identifying himself with those Saul was persecuting and made it a cornerstone of his theology (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:12–27).

If you disagree with me about waterboarding, if you believe that waterboarding is allowable in certain circumstances, we can agree to disagree and defer to the Church to settle between us. But keep in mind that the defense you give of your position should not be made to me. It need not even be made to a priest or bishop. Your defense of your position should be prepared and made ready for the day when Jesus Christ might one day say to you, "I was waterboarded and you approved" (cf. Matt. 25:31–46).

Michelle Arnold is a staff apologist at Catholic Answers.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
"The first new compendium of Catholic doctrine regarding faith and morals in more than 400 years, the second edition stands, in the words of Pope John Paul II, as ""a sure norm for teaching the faith"" and an ""authentic reference text."""

Comments by Catholic.com Members

#1  Clinton Ufford - Sweet Home, Oregon

I dont understand what the big deal is - waterboaridng is torture as much as a scourging is.

May 3, 2014 at 7:27 am PST
#2  Steven Way - Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio

I wonder what Michelle's opinion is about drone strikes.

May 3, 2014 at 4:41 pm PST
#3  Peter N - Columbia, South Carolina

I clicked on the report of two prisoners who died and nowhere could I find mention of waterboarding having been the cause of death. If it was done according to the protocols established by the Justice Department it is most unlikely.

May 4, 2014 at 3:58 pm PST
#4  Michelle Arnold - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Blogger

Peter, I have edited your comment. I have kept your critique of the article I linked though. Thanks for the feedback.

May 4, 2014 at 9:40 pm PST
#5  Michael Murphy - San Carlos, California

Beautifully said, Michelle, from both pragmatic and spiritual standpoints. I'm a military veteran, but the older I get the more I question any use of violence to accomplish an end, no matter how noble. I simply look to Jesus, who never responded with violence, even when His own life was on the line. This also seemed to be the position of all of His earliest companions and followers. By the way, I particularly loved your last line.

May 5, 2014 at 7:23 am PST
#6  Brandon Scherer - Columbus, Ohio

Great post, Michelle, but I think you and Todd are both wrong in one aspect: your posts do represent Catholic Answers, whether you think they should or not.

Catholic Answers regularly advertises the blogs, which are featured on the front page of the website. So everything you post is not only representing Catholic Answers, but is in fact more of a primary source, at least as far as the internet goes, than anything else Catholic Answers does.

If you have a personal blog, I'd gladly read it, and I'm sure others would as well. But pretending that the front page of catholic.com is a personal blog and NOT representing Catholic Answers is a little silly.

May 5, 2014 at 8:05 am PST
#7  Michelle Arnold - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Blogger

Brandon, I can only reiterate what I said: The blog posts here on catholic.com are personal posts written by staff members (and, occasionally, guests) of Catholic Answers. They reflect the personal opinion of the individual writer and are not intended to give the official position of Catholic Answers.

I acknowledge that there can be some genuine confusion on the matter, given that the posts are prominently displayed under the Catholic Answers banner on the Catholic Answers site. That is one reason why I was "tasked to provide an alternative point of view." But both posts remain viewpoints, and are not position statements of Catholic Answers on this subject.

May 5, 2014 at 8:55 am PST
#8  Eugen Ellefson - Newbury Park, California

I believe that waterboarding a US citizen or uniformed soldier of another country should not be allowed. I believe there is a difference in how you treat jihadists and uniformed military or terrorists and uniformed military. I believe that it should be used under special circumstances where there is an immediate threat or when the threat is of such a substantial nature that it is warranted. Not everyone captured should be waterboarded, but the fact remains that it has proved to be a useful technique which can save lives. I have read Catholic priests on this or other forums state that torture is not justified regardless of the time or scope of the threat. "A million people dying from a nuclear bomb doesn't justify torture even if you know that the person involved has detailed knowledge of the upcoming event". I wholeheartedly disagree with that. I hope that people responsible for the security of my city, state, and government also disagree with that statement.

May 7, 2014 at 11:44 am PST
#9  Michael Pietras - Erie, Pennsylvania

It's torture. Period. If you don't understand that, you need to do some serious soul searching. Give it all the qualifications you want, call it "enhanced interrogation" or even a tickle party, it's still torture.

May 8, 2014 at 6:07 am PST
#10  Robert Knasiak - Dearborn, Michigan

Michelle thank you for your article. I am a vet and Conservative on many issues but torture is wrong no matter how you look at it. The line in your article says it best that it harms the one torturing is harmed far worse than the one being tortured. For if you believe that in any way hurting someone in that way leads to any good I think that you have had your thoughts twisted. What would Jesus do? God Bless

May 8, 2014 at 6:07 am PST
#11  Michael Hopson - Moscow, Texas

Michelle, Thank you for the article. I have been reading and weighing this issue for several day, but hadn't seen your article til today. I am on the proponent side of this debate for keeping water boarding as a very limited but licit choice in certain "timing time bomb" situations. I do not just believe the suspected terrorist who are imprisoned should be water boarded to just gain possible information. I believe it requires a high degree of certainty and clear knowledge of them acting in the "ticking time bomb" plot. My main belief is that we should not remove this as an option, because I do not believe it is always torture. Just like the Church teaches just war I believe it teaches just force, too. I believe at times water boarding could be consider just force. I believe your main argument brings an emotional appeal in the end and doesn't really address the "hypothetical" situation which proponents of keeping a very limited window for water boarding available directly. You point out that the "ticking time bomb" is just hypothetical. Well hypothetically all police should not have to shoot anybody, but in our world the situation does occur and therefore they are trained to identify and use force even deadly force when justified. I just believe the training and knowledge of when water boarding would be the required response should be open to a nation and I do not believe the Church's clear prohibition of torture has done that in the case of water boarding in the "time bomb" situation. I believe myself to agree with the Church and want to agree with what God would have me agree with. Your last line in your paper could apply to the fact that there is most likely people in prison who are innocent, yet even with that possibility we still do not shut down prisons. Then is a degree of looking to the common good that must come to play in this. I hope you understand my position. I thank you again for your article and welcome any clarifications you may see fit. God bless.

May 8, 2014 at 10:14 am PST
#12  John Christo - Texas, Texas

How soon we have forgotten September 11th.
I have a freind who got waterboarded for a certification in slecial operations on a regular training basis.

This is not pulling out fingernails or the "rack" or bamboo torture.
Waterboarding is a psychological tool, an enhanced enterogation.

If we run into another aislamic attsck on innocent civilians in America, I would want anything done, short of ACTUAL torture to gather information.

This includes waterboarding...
Come on people. Stop it with the bleeding hearts... remember these people are pure evil

May 16, 2014 at 3:41 am PST
#13  Michelle Arnold - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Blogger

John, waterboarding is drowning interrupted. Your friend was trained in how to survive it precisely because waterboarding is torture. They go through this survival training not to save their own lives but to teach them how to endure the waterboarding without spilling classified information to the enemy (which is the point of torture).

I will not dignify with a direct response your choice to call other human beings whom you do not know, and who may be innocent for all you know, "pure evil," but I will say that your comment is a classic example of what is known in rhetoric as "waving the bloody shirt":


May 16, 2014 at 9:21 am PST
#14  Michael Tomlinson - Chandler, Arizona

Your statement, "At the very least, waterboarding is the infliction of extreme physical and mental distress to the point of fear for life" is the point. I don't think a more mild form would work. Also, I remember hearing from members of congress and the CIA that this practice was instrumental in capturing enemies of the state. Also, in response to comment #13, I hope our enemies are NOT trained in how to endure waterboarding. The "Just War" laws of the Church allows the killing of others under the right circumstances. Waterboarding is a much less severe practice under the same laws. This is logic, not a "bloody shirt."

May 18, 2014 at 7:53 am PST
#15  Conrado Medequiso - Redbank Plains, Queensland

I used to work in criminal intelligence and it was a common practice to torture to get information. Water boarding was the preferred torture method as it delivers the most frightening result to Subjects. The fear of dying is very evident in the face of every Subject. But does it deliver the best results for the intelligence operatives? My answer is a big NO. Subjects would be even willing to admit crazy aallegations like killing Kennedy even if he'd never been in America and was born after the assssinstion of JFK. This could lead to a waste of time, effort and resources on the part of the gov't. I abandoned this method early in my law enforcement career. There are better ways to extract information without resorting to torture. One of the best I tried is John Reid's technique.

I fully agree with Michelle. One doesn't have to die for the sake of many. That was the prevailing thought at the time of Jesus which made Him being lifted up on the cross. Our justice should be based on the law of Love as Jesus taught and showed us how.

May 20, 2014 at 8:02 pm PST
#16  Lee Dryden - Williamsville, New York

Journalist Christopher Hitchens wrote an account of his experience being waterboarded (he submitted to it in order to write about it) in the August 2008 issue of Vanity Fair magazine. It is instructive. He concluded that it is definitely torture. It is controlled drowning and the living person experiences the terror of that form of death and is then brought back to it again and again.

Can it be justified to achieve a national security objective? Hitchens asks the rhetorical question,"If so, then what cannot be justified?" For instance, suppose the hardened terrorist simply refuses to give the information required. Is it then justified to go seize his 3 year old daughter and force him to watch us torture her until he coughs up the information?

Torture, even in a good cause, is an offense against human decency

May 27, 2014 at 4:50 pm PST
#17  Chris Calametti - Mobile, Alabama

A good attempt at a fair treatment of both sides of the issue and I enjoyed the discourse. While you fail to unequivocally make the argument, your position is clear at the end. This last paragraph is surprising in that it seems an unChristian judgement of those who disagree with you. And the final statement is disingenuous as well. It could also be said that "you had the means to save my life but failed to act".
Nitpicking aside, there is another fact not usually considered and that is the people being waterboarded, tortured or encouraged to talk are not in almost all cases innocent people. They are in someway involved in an injustice or criminal act. Perhaps waterboarding should also be considered in this light? The argument against waterboarding seems to imply the waterboardee is an innocent victim.

May 27, 2014 at 7:01 pm PST
#18  Jeremiah Wingerden - New Paltz, New York

End of debate: http://time.com/2909049/pope-seeks-an-end-to-all-kinds-of-torture/

June 28, 2014 at 6:24 pm PST
#19  stephen nagy - converse, Texas

Afterword: If I'm flippant, sorry. But I'm very angry that Catholic.com does such a deficient handling of some politically connected matters, following the USCCB's lead without attending to Catholiciity. Again, I'm sorry. I don't mean to offend. I'm just callin' em like I see 'em.

Goodness… This argument lacks something. It’s framed in a way to skew discussion. Sorry, you don’t get to do that. It’s deceitful and unworthy of this frequently excellent resource.

Right now, in Iraq and Syria they are
1) crucifying Christian children and men, daily,
2) enslaving and selling girls and women, and
3) burying alive and decapitating entire Christian and non-conforming Muslim communities.

Granted, I’m not nearly smart enough to understand why the USCCB obfuscates Catholic Philosophy in matters connected to Islamists, inadvertently (I’m sure) generating a wedge issue to separate their flock from a political party. Theirs is a penetrating subtlety able to pierce seemingly all matters Traditional. I lack that degree of refinement. I just worship a guy who, among other things, said “I AM the Truth…”
Here, as I see it is the issue: This argument is misleadingly framed as a question about the licitude of individuals’ actions, which are irrelevant to the question. But even in that narrow context, Catholic thought is wantonly discarded in the preceding discussion.

I don’t have the right to waterboard. You don’t either. Individuals cannot rightfully declare a war or execute — even imprison a murderer. These are “perfect rights” properly ordered to a State in order to support its obligation to render protection.

Each of us, however, is bound to do what we can to protect those in our charge. Being an obligation too, this is a perfect right ...
“A perfect right, then, implies the right of physical force … and to inflict damage in the exercise of this coercion wherever, as is almost universally the case, coercion cannot be exercised effectively without such damage.” (CathEn: Just War: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm)

States have perfect rights as well, however, the State has different rights and OBLIGATIONS than its citizenry. Before anyone gets confused: It is true that the degree of divergence of this right as it applies to state and individual has been questioned. The “Absolutist” assertion attributed to Cardinal Richelieu, (and greatly developed by Bismarck,) is far outside what is described and claimed licit for states here. Richelieu’s claim, roughly, was that God’s will was specially revealed to the divinely instituted sovereign and that broadly speaking, state action was de-facto interchangeable with Divine Law. That’s not the point. The point is that states need to be able to do things that individuals can’t: states’ responsibilities NECESSITATE extraordinarily wider latitude.

The sentence following the above quoted clarifies :
“The limitations of this coercive right are: that its exercise be necessary; and that damage be not inflicted beyond [emphasis mine] measure — first of necessity and secondly of proportion with the subject-matter of right at issue.” (ibid.)

To dishonestly frame this argument in the context of the licitude of individuals’ actions is hypocrisy: “Otherwise the duty above indicated would be impossible of fulfillment; the corporate rights of the State would be nugatory, while the individual rights of citizens would be at the mercy of the outside world.”(ibid.)

What is at question is society’s rights and obligations, not the licitude of personal actions!

For example, the question of whether any punishment is licit, *UP TO* capital punishment, hinges on WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE STATE TO ENSURE SAFETY. That is a limitation to rights regarding retributive justice: defense of a “perfect right” is far more broad. It has been put forth, notably since the pontificate of St. John Paul II, that economically advanced societies might not need to use the death penalty. But that presupposes that the state CAN fulfill its obligations in lieu of that extreme. Without that supposition, the just boundaries of state action cannot be so limited.

“But *it must be noted that civilized nations, in their effort to ameliorate the cruel conditions of warfare, have sometimes consented to allow, as the less of two imminent evils, that which is forbidden by the natural law. * [emphasis mine.] This is not strictly a right, though it is often so denominated, but an international toleration of a natural wrong.” (ibid.)

The limitations on this connect to gravity vs. triviality: States violation of natural law IS illicit in connection with trivial matters (e.g. ordinary situations involving commerce, or territory acquisition.) Licitude of extraordinary means of coercion depends on necessity, in particular the gravity of reasons for a state of hostilities. In the framework of Catholic thought on the state of belligerency, a status antecedent to a state of war, the threatened or impending mass murder of a state’s citizens or of innocents, for instance, would be broadly accepted as qualifying grave reasons OBLIGATING a state to act coercively, and in a manner commensurate with the threat.

Some CCC to straighten a few edges:
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state.
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self defense can have a double effect: the preservation of ones own life; and the killing of the aggressor… the one is intended the other is not.”(It’s worth reading the quoted Thomas more closely: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7)

Let’s dig a little further into Catholic thinking about war.
“Every perfect right, i.e. every right involving in others an obligation in justice a deference thereto, to be efficacious, and consequently a real and not an illusory power, carries with it at the last appeal the subsidiary right of coercion. A perfect right, then, implies the right of physical force to defend itself against infringement, to recover the subject-matter of right unjustly withheld or to exact its equivalent, and to inflict damage in the exercise of this coercion wherever, as is almost universally the case, coercion cannot be exercised effectively without such damage. The limitations of this coercive right are: that its exercise be necessary; and that damage be not inflicted beyond measure — first of necessity and secondly of proportion with the subject-matter of right at issue.” (ibid. CathEn. Just War)

Oops! That sounds like waterboarding might be OK sometimes.

Shall we say that the gravity of matters where waterboarding has been employed (involving perhaps thousands of deaths, now millions) is on par to BLOODLESS waterboarding?

It's not. They intend intentionally killing the innocent, that's (still) intrinsically evil. The other side, the defensive action of a state with a known enemy, believed to have secret information about the perpetration of impending evil, is A STATE being really, really mean in the face of a far greater evil which it is BOUND to do its utmost to avoid.

The purpose of punishment (as an applicable example) is the amendment of the disordered behavior of a transgressor. A state has the obligation to ensure safety and so the right to correct/punish transgressors.

Conclusion: Even short of a need to uncover the location of a bomb in a densely populated area, even if it’s just to stop, say the ongoing crucifixion of children or the enslavement of young girls by Islamists in ISIS, waterboarding is grotesque, perhaps, but according to 15 centuries or so of Catholic teaching, is actually of the sort of thing that his required of a state.

February 9, 2015 at 3:35 am PST
#20  Anthony Prior - IL, Illinois

Stephen, I think it's important to note that back in December there was a report on the history of "enhanced interrogation" techniques (link provided below). The conclusion was that it didn't result in a single piece of actionable intelligence. The only two cases that supported waterboarding as being effective (Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) were undone in the report. It turns out that all the useful intelligence came from traditional non-violent questioning.

Suggesting that waterboarding should be done to prevent certain scenarios is based on a faulty assumption. The history of waterboarding shows us that it is ineffective. That knowledge should serve as a guide in our thinking about waterboarding.


February 26, 2015 at 9:35 am PST

You are not logged in. Login or register to leave a comment.