Cia 'enhanced Interrogation' Techniques

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1796614' date='Mar 3 2009, 05:29 PM']Torture by its very nature would not be in line with that teaching. However the state must at times enact tough interrogation which does not cross the line. We just can not start moving the line. That goes both ways we cant start calling torture, interrogation, nor can we start calling interrogation, torture.[/quote]

This is sort of along the lines of what I have been thinking. If the Church recognizes that the state can justly administer the death penalty in extreme circumstances [b]for the safety of society[/b] then why does the Church not recognize the state to justly administer "enhanced interrogation" techniques in extreme circumstances [b]for the safety of society[/b]?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1796881' date='Mar 3 2009, 09:31 PM']What if we (as in America) were not using "tough interrogation" or "torture" but another country [i]was[/i] using these methods against us (therefore treating prisoners of war inhumanely), is there anything in the Catechism that addresses how we respond?[/quote]

That's what happened in WWII. That's why we had war crimes trials after the war.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1796928' date='Mar 3 2009, 10:59 PM']That's what happened in WWII. That's why we had war crimes trials after the war.[/quote]

You said something earlier that no one really acknowledged, so I would like to resurface it, and I underlined the pivotal "scenario" (way simpler than the ones I have been spouting):

[b][u]If you are dealing with a kidnapper or child molester, and you are trying to find a child before they die, I'd say yes.[/u] If we pick up someone that we have evidence that they are involved in a terrorist act that hasn't happened yet, maybe so too. Just for a fishing expedition, I don't think we should.[/b]

Anyone, thoughts?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1796578' date='Mar 3 2009, 05:05 PM']Well, who is saying that it is an evil act to do these things? An argument can be made that it is a necessary act, not an evil one.

After all, killing another human being is an evil act, is it not? Yet, the church allows us to be soldiers in the military, does She not?[/quote]

I agree with this. The purpose of "torture" (using quotation marks because there are many forms) is not to gain some sick pleasure from the act or prove that you are stronger/more powerful, but to protect and save innocent lives.

Also forgot to comment on this:

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1796598' date='Mar 3 2009, 05:17 PM']you seem to really want to dance the line again..[/quote]

Not necessarily, I just think there are a lot of gray shades here.

[quote]Well..someone who breaks into my house with a gun is a pretty different scenario than me swooping Habib Al-Akmed out of Afganistan because i THINK he may have intel. The similarities are sparce, to be generous.[/quote]

My example of the crook/home invader versus the terrorist is meant to put both criminals on equal footing - just as it is obvious that the crook wants to steal from you by barging into your house, it is obvious that the terrorist has the information you need (in my scenario) because, for example, the terrorist is second-in-command within the terrorist organization.

[quote]Further, though I do not know, FOR SURE, whether the crook will USE the gun..I doubt he will be making gingerbread cookies with it..Again, the similarities differ greatly.

Further, if I had to shoot, it would be out of an immediate and certain threat to me and my loved ones. Again, the only CERTAIN thing I know about Habib Al-Akmed is that he MIGHT have intel.[/quote]

And if you were absolutely certain that the terrorist DID have intel?

[quote]Further, if I had to shoot, DOESN'T mean I would HAVE to kill. I could take out his kneecaps or shot him in the mommy-daddy button...I think the catechist talks about this (well not the shooting in the mommy-daddy button, but about using JUST enough force to subdue, which MAY include death, but MUSTN'T always include death).. Again.. similarities are not there.[/quote]

Right. You do not HAVE to shoot to kill, but in reality you most likely HAVE to shoot. Just as you do not HAVE to torture the terrorist within an inch of his life, but in reality you most likely HAVE to use some lesser method of torture (like those listed in the OP).

[quote]I guess the bottom line is this.. what does it matter if we win, if we lose our souls? I think there's a Bible quote in there somewheres.[/quote]

Like I said earlier, the person who commits an act of torture out of necessity (going back to what Dust said) is doing it with the best intentions possible.

Edited March 4, 2009 by HisChildForever