What is torture and why is it not justified?
Frankly, I don't understand the hyperventilating hysteria associated with waterboarding. Someone please explain how this constitutes not just unacceptable torture but torture at all. From what I've read of it I'm reminded of nothing so much as the games of water polo we'd play as kids at the Islip Town Beach on Long Island. On more than one occasion I was certain I was going to die after being pushed and shoved as far down into the muck as my "friends" could send me. That didn't stop me the next time. By the way, I was never a popular kid. Too fat, too nerdy, too clumsy.
Did I go on to have an inordinate fear of the ocean? 22 years of service in the sub force says, "Nope".
Did I go out of my way to avoid any contact with water sports? "Nope" again (maybe that proves I'm not too bright either).
But even if it IS torture, when some genuine bad guy probably has information that might save a butt ton of lives and he refuses to give it up, aren't those folks questioning him duty bound to do whatever it takes to get that info?
We're not talking about gratuitous sadism here. The clowns that were waterboarded at Gitmo were genuinely noncooperative and hostile to their interrogators. After 9/11/01, if I was asking the questions I'd want to make damned sure I was getting answers and screw any attitudes of defiance.
And it worked too. Despite what the numerous detractors (including Sen. John McCain who himself experienced REAL torture as a POW) said, the answers given DID allow some terrorist plans to be nipped in the bud.
I'm serious. I'd really like to know just why this constitutes torture and why it would be unacceptable if it means the saving of innocent lives.
I just don't get it.
5 comments:
The short answer is that torture is wrong because it's intrinsically immoral.
Mark Shea has written extensively about torture (and waterboarding specifically — which, incidentally, the Khmer Rouge also used) a great deal on his blog, addresses the FAQs thereof, and cogently explains why it's intrinsically immoral.
I'd really like to know just why this constitutes torture and why it would be unacceptable if it means the saving of innocent lives.Regarding this extremely dangerous line of thinking, Shea wrote in a post last week:
"Five years ago, when the consequentialism of the Rubber Hose Right was riding high, Michael Ledeen wrote an infamous piece of "moral reasoning" (so-called) in which he basically argued "Wouldn't we all be better off if Henry Tandey had just murdered the unarmed, wounded Hitler when he found him in trench in 1918?" I made the point that, if you are going to argue this way, then why not go whole hog and lobby for abortion rights for Klara Hitler?"
Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn if it is immoral. I'll water board your mother until the oceans run dry if it will save one American or one soldiers life. That's what I told my ex-left leaning liberal Lutheran minister. Needless to say I no longer attend the Lutheran Church or support anything they do.
Having said that. War is immoral however it is a necessary evil when evil men challenge the God given rights of others.
Pops
I notice that not one of those, who oppose torture, ever come up with an alternative way of getting much needed information.
You certainly won't get by playing nice with the terrorists. So to those who oppose torture, until you folks can come up with a viable alternative, please go away and let the real patriots fight the fight.
Torture, in this sense, is to inflict pain as a means to gain information. So let's see, if I spank my child, which is inflicting pain, when I know he is lying and he won't admit the truth, then I am torturing him. So if I inflict pain for any reason then I am torturing someone?
Now matter how cogently you explain or argue a point, it still turns into a pile of intellectual crap if the underlying premise is wrong. Your premise is wrong JJ. If these animals were summarily executed as terrorists what is your problem with that? Now if they are executed, right after they spilled the waterboarded beans, I still don't see a problem. They have surrendered their rights to whatever consideration we might have rendered when they decided to become terrorists. Terrorists exist outside conventional law, they reject established laws and therefore are not entitled to the protections afforded by law. If you don't want the pain, then stay out of the game.
Abnpoppa,
Seven months later, I've finally responded to your comment.
Post a Comment