www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Spinoff Thread: Define Torture

What is the definition of torture? Most of us know it in our gut, we know it when we see it, but there is no agreed upon definition (yes, I know the UN and Geneva have defined, but that isn't unanimously agreed upon either). It seems each side likes to use the other's extreme "technique" (for lack of a better word) as torture, but refuses to acknowledge the same set of standards to self.

For example, in the original thread it was mentioned that waterboarding as used by the CIA is not necessarily torture, while it was torture when the Japanese used it. In the same mention, it was stated that the CIA's "technique" was mild in comparison to others - and that the since there is no agreed upon definition of torture we shouldn't necessarily call it that. At the same time, the Japanese "technique" was labeled 'torture'.

So, is "torture" defined, is it definable, is it a political tool we and our enemies use to label each other as worse than ourselves, or is it an altogether different thing?

For me, here is my understanding of it.
The willful use of damaging actions upon another to coerce that person to provide information by pushing them beyond their tolerances and/or safety. The intended damage can be mental or physical; it can even be social or spiritual.

Did anyone watch the series 'The Tudors'...

If you did, you will know what I mean when I say that the methods of torture and being put to death depicted were horrific and absolute barbaric torture.

I cringe just thinking of it...Our Lord's death on the cross, though we now look at it as a sign of victory and love, was torture.

Lord have mercy! All Holy Mother of God save us!

Sorry for going off on a historic tangent in response to the thread title....

In any case, my answer would be that it is inflicting horrific pain on a human being to punish him or to extract information from him. Lord have mercy!

Alice

In addition to providing information, there is also the desire to inflict extreme humiliation and degredation. The fact is that many acts of torture are committed for the sake of the pure sadistic pleasure of the jailers or torturers, without any "informational" reasons.

It should also be somewhat prolonged, and done under conditions in which the person being tortured is at the complete mercy and custody of his jailers and torturers. Beating up someone in a fistfight at a bar is not torture; administering the same beating in a police station to a prisoner who is handcuffed is torture.

The worst thing in torture is not so much the pain as the sense of utter helplessness and terror that is inflicted on victims.

There is also another dimension that is, I think, unique to contemporary torture.

When I was in university, I was specifically commissioned by my professor -- who was a somewhat unhinged man who had been tortured during the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship -- to write a comprehensive report on torture in the Philippines. One thing that struck me was the unusual fixation of torturers in the Philippines and in Latin America (from which the Philippines had borrowed torture techniques) on the sexual humiliation and degredation of prisoners. Torturers were specifically trained to administer torture to people's most intimate parts, and many of the detailed reports of torture that I read were perverse crosses between sick pornography and the naked use of police power. The same thing marks the tortures in Abu Ghraib and in Iraq under Saddam.

Now, I am not an expert on torture and I don't want to be, but accounts that I've read of actual ancient and medieval torture (and not fanciful reconstructions of these) show that these were not overtly sexual, at least not to the extent of today. I cannot help but ask: is modern torture -- with its strange dimension of sexual perversity -- also a reflection of contemporary society's sexual obsession?

The intention plays a role in what torture is. The CIA were interrogating and extracting information about current plans and future movements of the terrorist networks. The Japanese did many things other than water boarding and were not interrogating to a clear end. They were seeking false confessions and were "having fun" at the prisoner's sake.

There is a contrast between how and why the technique was used in WWII and by the CIA. Most of our soldiers in the special forces have been water boarded. It's a part of their training.

"The fact is that many acts of torture are committed for the sake of the pure sadistic pleasure of the jailers or torturers, without any 'informational' reasons."

All you have to do to understand this is read about the gulag. There were plenty of that sort in the system.

I completely disagree.

Then our own soldiers were tortured because the technique of water boarding was used on them?

Let's use an example other than water boarding (which I believe to be torture, but I know there is not consensus on this). What about slowly cutting off a person's fingers? Would you say that it is not torture when the intent is to gain valuable information, but it is torture when done simply to bring pleasure to a sadist?

Since we don't cut off people's fingers lets not go there. Please use real world examples. One might wish to discuss that the Obama Administration has re-affirmed that water boarding (as done by the CIA) is not torture.

John:

I wasn't suggesting that we cut fingers off. I used that example to illustrate why it is that I see a problem with using the end to justify the means.

Real world examples that I read about while researching Marcos-era torture. I don't want to tell the details here but reading hundreds of pages of testimonies have burned the details into my consciousness.

By the way, many of these techniques were taught to Filipino interrogators by American trainers in Fort Bragg (who apparently trained Latin American torturers as well):

1) Systematic and prolonged electrocution or burning of the nipples and genitals. One of my mother's close friends was tortured with this.

2) Having both of one's ears hit with open palms -- when administered by an expert torturer, this can render someone deaf. Systematic slapping (sometimes for hours on end) was also practiced.

3) "Chili rubdown" -- a prisoner's sensitive parts or whole body are rubbed with large amounts of chilies, sometimes mixed with gasoline. I read an account of a Catholic priest who was tortured with this and he said that this was even worse than electrocution

4) Forcing prisoners to sexually molest each other in front of military or police interrogators

5) Rape-torture (is self-explanatory)

6) putting bullets in between fingers and squeezing the hand until the finger-bones fracture

7) Mock executions

8) Water-boarding and its "less messy" equivalent, suffocating a person by enclosing his head in a tight plastic bag.

The worst torture stories I've read come from Chile, where prisoners were sometimes electrocuted on a large metal table with drawers underneath -- in those drawers, were the mother, daughter or relative or close friend of the person being tortured. Even Filipino torturers were not so cruel.

I understand that. But using extreme examples can invalidate your argument. Best to stick to realistic scenarios. Non-realistic examples don't assist the discussion.

My position here is that torture is wrong. But that water boarding - like we do as part of training on Navy Seals - is not torture. Water boarding can become torture if taken too far, but we are not doing that.

If you are looking for an example to use for comparison, why not use the following situation? Your 16 year old daughter has been kidnapped by a jihadist who was transferred from Gitmo to a Texas prison and then escaped. You caught him and he admits his crime but she is tied up somewhere and left to die, and will die in a day or two if not found. Your relatives drag this terrorist out to the pool and start dunking him to make him speak. How far do you let them go? You are her father. Dunking him until he breaks will save her life. Not dunking him will almost certainly result in the death of your daughter. What do you do and how far to you take it?

"I wasn't suggesting that we cut fingers off. I used that example to illustrate why it is that I see a problem with using the end to justify the means."

My point was rooted in the contrast of how the CIA extracts information and how, for an historical example, how an 'interrogator' in the Gulag administrative system would extract a confession that justifies future punishment of the confessor.

The interrogation we practice has a very different context.

I don't pretend to have the right answer to that. What I do believe is that a desirable end does not justify objectively evil means. That is not to say that I would never resort to morally questionable measures in order to save the lives of those who are innocent. For example, if I were President of the USA and were presented with a situation in which the use of extreme interrogation techniques were required in order to gain information that would save the lives of those who are innocent, I would most likely authorize the use of such techniques. However, I would still seek forgiveness for my actions. BTW, I don't concede that my example of cutting off fingers is extreme. Things as bad or possibly even worse than this have been done, and I don't know that such techniques are not currently used.

Ryan

Isn't the real question how one should treat one's enemies?

"Love your enemies" . "Do good to those who harm you". "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".

Those are the words of Jesus Christ, whom we profess to worship.

Creating a hypothetical situation where one is drawn to sympathize with someone doing very bad things is not relevant to a follower of Christ; we can create similar imaginative situations to justify abortion, or create unlikely scenarios that would all but justify other sins. This is consequentialism, not Christian moral thinking.

And it is irrelevant whether other countries do even worse things than the horrid things we have done. Sort of like someone saying "You think I'm a psychopath because I shot the neighbor child? Well at least I didn't cook him and eat him, like Jeffrey Dahmer. Now Dahmer, <i>there's</i> a psychopath".

For a longer take on torture, see my essay at www.caelumetterra.wordpress.com [caelumetterra.wordpress.com] (scroll down to "Tortured Reasoning")...

No, that is not the real question. The real question here is what means are acceptable in motivating an enemy combatant (a terrorist in this case) to obtain information that will save lives. One could take the pacifist position and say that one may do nothing beyond gentle questioning. But the Church does not set such a limit. Generally speaking the Church would not reject denial of comfort to a terrorist to obtain information. The question at hand is to determine at what point the denial of comfort (or application of discomfort) becomes torture.

As to the cutting off of fingers, I reject the example as a hypothetical. Such is illegal. If it is done those who have done it should be prosecuted. But assuming it is currently done seems to require some sort of evidence. Both the current and the past administration state they have not done such things and assuming they have without proof seems irresponsible to me.

I mostly agree with this assessment (except for the cutting off of the finger part). It is realistic. Given that we water board Navy Seals as part of their training it is logical we would not consider the equivalent done to an enemy terrorist as torture. And we do know that the limited use of water boarding (everyone in the government agrees that it was used on 3 individuals) has yielded information that saved lives. But this does not give us a standard definition of torture, and when severe interrogation crosses the line into torture. On the national stage I don't think we are going to get a common definition, at least not one as solidly defined as most of us would like. The Left wants the issue to attack the Right with. Both the Left and the Right have accepted a common definition (mostly for legal purposes) and the public evidence suggests that there is a firm line and that we are not torturing anyone.

Not that this topic really interests me too much (after all I am *a girl*, and girls generally don't have a stomach for anything uncomfortable), but after reading the Administer's post, I have to say that he makes ALOT of sense and that his examples are excellent.

How else can a psychopath or terrorist be 'motivated' to give details of a murder or a location of a victim, or the details of a terror plot?!? Surely being nice to psychopaths is not going to work!!!

We do not live in Utopia and never will...

I also agree totally that this is one of those subjects that sadly, are brought to great attention and exagerration from those in one political party to undermine those of another. I think that such actions only serve to further divide us as Americans.

Alice

John:

I never accused the U.S. government or armed forces of engaging in cutting off fingers. I have no reason to believe that the United States is engaging in this kind of conduct. The whole reason I used that example-as I have already pointed out-was to illustrate the danger of using an end-justifies-the-means sort of approach. I used an exreme example like this because such extreme, tortuous actions like this have taken place in human history and no doubt still do. However, it was not my intent to accuse the government or the armed forces of the U.S.A. of engaging in this particular behavior. Given that this thread is about defining torture and not about whether or not the U.S.A. has engaged in torture, I did not think it necessary for me to state that I was not implying that the U.S.A. was engaging in this sort of conduct.

Ryan

"I never accused the U.S. government or armed forces of engaging in cutting off fingers. I have no reason to believe that the United States is engaging in this kind of conduct."

I was wondering who you suggested would be using such and worse techniques when you said this:

"Things as bad or possibly even worse than this have been done, and I don't know that such techniques are not currently used."

Christ is Risen!!

The other day, former VP Cheny spoke of some of the information derived from the techniques that the current administration has derided. There were a number of derailed plots to kill and maim the civilian population or members thereof in the United States. They were thwarted by the use of the techniques that are currenty being reviled.

The fact that only three--not all, but only three--of the worst of the detainees were subjected to these techniques has not been reported by the mainstream media, which just goes to show their bias in the matter of reporting.

So the moral question has to become not whether such techniques are themselves inherently evil, but whether the saving of numbers of innocent lives justifies their use in specific cases. We do not live in a perfect world and we will never perfectly live out the values we profess as a country. And the world will never love us because of these values. We are hated in fact because of them--because others see themselves as less than us because they cannot or will not adopt the same standards.

BOB

The big problem with torture is that any information gathered by use of pain has been shown repeatedly to be unreliable.

The CIA uses it; the CIA's data has been extremely unreliable of late; the connection is probably due to false information provided to get temporary reprieve.

The question of "information gathered by use of pain" involves a different situation than what has been debated recently. The information gathered was time sensitive and its veracity would be proved by the situation on the ground and how the information correlates or contrasts to what had been gathered up to that point.

I can't agree or disagree with your statement that "the CIA's data has been extremely unreliable as of late" without being privy to classified data.

Terry

The quote of "Information gathered by use of pain" would more closely align to forced confessions or accusations.

I see our country moving in a very negative direction when it condones waterboarding in any form, and I also consider the Navy Seal argument invalid because it is done for entirely different reasons.

The way to combat terrorism in America is through the deportation of undesirables.

Which is, according to the oversight committee reports, exactly what the US interrogators are using sleep deprivation, waterboarding, noise and light pollution, and sexual and psychological harassment to obtain: reveal your friends who were in on it with you, and confess to being a terrorist.

How would you extract information from a terrorist?

Sleep deprivation, waterboarding, noise and light pollution, and sexual and psychological harassment are all legitimate means of enhanced interrogation. Each can be taken across a line and become torture but all of them can be used within reason and not be in any way torture. But I know some who feel that denying terrorists Islamic Cable TV is a form of torture, so one needs an agreed upon definition of torture before one can have a serious discussion of what techniques constitute torture and where the line is drawn.

John:

Would share your opinion as to when waterboarding is legitimate and when it becomes torture?

Sure, once there are a few more answers from others on the table I will post a more detailed definition. So far there is general agreement that torture should not be used. But no one has put forth a good definition of what constitutes torture (no big fault here since our government has issues with it, and there are certainly political aspects to it).

As a hint of where I place a line I'll say it comes at a point far less then where irreparable harm is done (physical or mental) but far more then just simple discomfort. And the line will be different with different individuals since each individual man is going to be different physically and mentally.

I could not add much to what you said, but that I would focus on the intentions of the person applying the technique; that they have a reasonable belief that the subject is withholding valuable information and that they intend no permanent physical or psychological harm. I would also focus on whether that person is applying the techniques while in a clear state of mind, or if that person is angry. An angry person in that situation who is unsupervised with no safeguards can easily trip that line--I think that this would be extraordinary considering the procedures which are in place.

Terry

This morning I posted Our Lord's words referring to how one is to treat others. With all due respect, John, this discussion certainly IS about how we treat our enemies. I will grant that it is about how we treat our enemies when we are trying to extract information from them, but that does not change the dynamic: we still have one person treating another, made in the image of God, in whom we are told to see Christ, in a manner that defiles that image. "I was waterboarded and you poured more water into my lungs" is a good paraphrase of what is taking place.

I tremble that Our Lord's words were ignored and the conversation just went on..

If one does not want to call "enhanced interrogation techniques" torture, one can with certainty say these techniques are used to coerce information from the "detainees". (The fact that these "detainees" have not been brought to trial is another offense, but that's another issue) "It is not licit to do evil that good may come of it." (cf Rom. 3:8) We would do well to recall the teaching found in Veritatis Splendor, article 80:

(emphasis added)

It is good that you recognize that the discussion is about the specific topic of how we extract information from our enemies (those who seek to kill us) when that information will save lives. No one here is suggesting ignoring the Lord's commands.

As to your reference about filling lungs, that was part of the water boarding torture used by the Japanese in WWII. For the Japanese at that time water boarding included the forced ingestion of water to the point of distending the stomach together with severe beating. The current form of water boarding used by the United States does not involve such things and the three terrorists it was used on were at no time in danger of physical harm.

I would invite Daniel to offer his specific ideas on what type of enhanced interrogation he believes can be used that does not cross into torture, one that ties in the fact that we use water board our own military as part of training. Sorry but a generic call to treat one's enemies well is too much of a cop out. Specifics are needed.

There are those who say that a true Christian should be a pacifist and accept death rather then defend his family from those seeking to kill them. That is certainly a possibility, in this case that we let the jihadists over run us. But the Church allows nations to extract information from the enemy so long as torture is not used. The question remains as to where to draw the line between (inflicted) discomfort and torture. I hope Daniel will give us his specific thoughts.

A good and appropriate quote from "Veritatis Splendor". It again underscores the need to discern between "enhanced interrogation" and "torture", and to clearly note the line between the two, and to always avoid coming near the line where torture begins. More then simple discomfort would be allowed. But one could never cross that line that "violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit."

Terry,

Reasonable points. Though I would always advise extra care regarding the intentions of the person responsible for applying the technique. All enhanced interrogations today are fully monitored by doctors and experts in that field, and they are video recorded. That helps keeps the interrogator from moving past valid enhanced interrogation towards something that starts to approach torture.

Great care is required even in law regarding intention. I would tend to use intent to possibly determine an equivalent of a charge of manslaughter or first degree (as we do in a crime like murder) but I would not allow intent to be used as a cop out for when torture has occurred. This would avoid the equivalent silliness of the hate crime statues where murdering someone might not be a hate crime unless that person happened to be black (or a woman or whatever) and their being black (or a woman or whatever) was the reason for the murder. All murder is a hate crime. On this I disagree with the Obama Administration (and specifically Atty Gen Holder who last week tried to reduce the definition of torture down to intent).

This will always remain a difficult issue since – like the Just War Theory – the Church speaks in terms of general teaching and then expects the civil authorities to apply the general teaching in specific situations. I am expecting that the definition I offered earlier is going to be one that most agree upon, and is probably the one that comes closest to what the past and current presidential administrations, Congress, and the CIA have all agreed upon.

John

Sexual harassment is too dangerous a game to play to be ever legitimate. The manipulation of another's sexual faculty is never justifiable outside of the procreative and unitive act of husband and wife. This is the constant teaching of the Catholic Church.

In this case sexual harassment was not in the manipulation of another's sexual faculty but mostly the use of woman interrogators (it drives Muslim terrorists nuts). One must be careful to be accurate in stating what does occur. The New York Times lost face back in April when it reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded six times a day, 183 times. Turns out their source was a blogger, and the report was not true (just like the claim of flushing the Koran down a toilet was false). The Red Cross reported 5 incidents of water boarding with under 10 "applications" for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The number 183 came from "pours" which lasted no more then a few seconds each with all occuring within the 5 incidents. The discussion is serious enough without inventing fictitious events.

You misundertand the teaching.

The Holy Father, JP II, was quoting article 27 from Gaudium et Spes, which enumerates 3 examples of acts "such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body and mind, attempts to coerce the will itself," which violate the integrity of the human person and "are infamies in deed."

Waterboarding, as an "enhanced interrogation technique", if not, stricly speaking, torment or torture, "violates the integrity of the human person" because it is an attempt to coerce the will.

I disagree. According to that interpretation all interrogation would be a violation of the human person because it would be an attempt to coerce the will. That's just not true.

I invite to you respond specifically to the question I raised on the earlier page. Your 16 year old daughter or niece has been kidnapped by a jihadist who was transferred from Gitmo to a Texas prison and then escaped. You caught him and he admits his crime but she is tied up somewhere and left to die, and will die in a day if not found. Your relatives drag this terrorist out to the pool and start dunking him to make him speak. How far do you let them go? You are her father or uncle. Dunking him until he breaks will save her life. Not dunking him will almost certainly result in the death of your daughter. What do you do and how far to you take it? According to what you have suggested you can do nothing (and by extension the police must do nothing beyond gentle questioning). How do you handle the situation? Where is the line between acceptable enhanced interrogation and torture?

As an extra I came across The Church and Torture [catholic.com]. I reject torture and we are not talking about torture, but what type of enhanced interrogation can be used to extract information that will save lives. In the article Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S. notes that the Church Teaching is not so exacting on torture. That provides food for thought for the lesser use of enhanced interrogation.

Look up the definition of coerce. Take the conciliar teaching on its face value.

Given the circumstances you outline, I would undertake the "interrogation" myself, but I am still violating teaching, though the circumstances would mitigate.

Just because an act is legal does not make it good.

Lying is an intrinsic evil. However, there is a great difference between lying about the location of a ticking bomb and lying about the location of a ticking clock.

Father Deacon,

I do take the teaching at its face value. But it does need to be applied to a specific situation. There is no intrinsic evil (and here where the Church does not consider capital punishment an intrinsic evil it would not consider enhanced interrogation which does not approach torture an intrinsic evil) since we are not talking about torture.

I do not know where you draw the line between simple interrogation, enhanced interrogation, and torture. But there is such a line. Something more then discomfort but which does not approach torture would be moral. You seem to come down with the idea that all interrogation is a form of coercion and is wrong but that you would do it it save a life. So long as the enhanced interrogation methods do not come close to torture I do not see a violation of teaching. There are plenty of like minded folk in good standing in the Church who justly hold this view. One may argue a pacifist view (as discussed earlier) is better, but enhanced interrogation that does not approach torture does not violate Veritatis Splendor. I suspect will have to agree to disagree on this.

John

I'm not so sure that pacifism is not itself something that can become evil if it refuses the legitimate defense of one's family or others for whom one has a lawful duty to defend.

BOB

18 USC Chapter 113C, in the defs. sec. 2340

...(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and ...

I am a simple soul but I cannot comprehend how any Christian can support either torture or the death penalty since our Lord suffered those very same fates. And any sort of pseudo-intellectual jusitications on this topic do not make torture acceptable.