All Comments (39)

Ariel: As I said, the issue is a perplexing one.

You recount at least three cases and then say that you subjected the suspects to "some forms of torture." I don't know if you can say more or not. You also add that you did this "if we had previous information about their plans." This raises the question: why torture them? I ask this because you go on to say "Usually, the information we obtained was reliable..." but I don't know if you are writing about the information you previously had about their plans or the "information" extracted by torture.

Also, you wrote: "Once the subject realized that he will be punished much more severely if he lied, he became quite truthful."

This raises the question: How did you know he was telling the truth? If you already knew the answer, then what was the point of the torture?

In the Israeli-Palestinian context, the Palestinians and most (if not all) Arab states reject the designation of "terrorist" claiming that they are freedom fighters or trying to get their homeland back. Israel (and the US and Britain, and other countries) designate them as terrorists and terrorist organizations.

One can make the argument that in a battlefield situation one does not deal with constitutional rights like the right against self incrimination, right to counsel, etc.

The very label "terrorist" conjures up some sort of sub-human action by those perpetrating bombings, killing civilians, etc. This may provide "moral" justification in a rationalistic way.

On the other hand, many will point out that one is dealing with human beings and torture should not be allowed.

Going back to the hypotheticals, one might ask what if you were able to capture Osama bin Laden - would you want to extract from him maximum information about Al-Qaeda plans for the future? Would you torture him to get the information?

Would you torture him anyway, just for the heck of it because he was responsible for 9-11 and a host of other incidents?

I think it is one thing to ask what an individual might do or think that he or she might desire to have done, but quite another to ask what an institutionalized response as a matter of government policy should be.

If torture is always wrong because of the moral damage it does to the perpetrator, then what about the self-torture that the Church condones and canonizes people for practicing?

Hi. During my service in the Israeli army I worked with SHABAK - our counterintelligence service. I can recall at least three cases in which we subjected terrorist suspects to some forms of torture, if we had previous information about their plans. Usually., the information we obtained was reliable. Once the subject realized that he will be punished much more severely if he lied, he became quite truthful./
I am saying this not to justify torture in the "ticking bomb" case - yo you can still reject it as immoral. Know only that it works.u

This subject of torture is quite perplexing. On the one hand, we are quite prepared to say that it is abhorrent as an institutionalized means of coercing "confessions" or extracting information. On the other hand, if someone conjures up a hypothetical, no matter how outlandish, we seem to want to jump in sympathy and say, yes, in extreme circumstances, it is justified.

Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School recently wrote a piece on torture for the Wall Street Journal and he too constructed the well-worn "ticking bomb" hypothetical.

In fact, one the Law Lords in the UK, in his opinion on admissibility of evidence gained by torture, raised the ticking bomb exception. That opinion has been mentioned by one of the other posters here.

The major problem with this hypothetical and indeed the present writer's hypothetical is that such orchestrated scenarios proceed on the assumption that some responsible authority KNOWS that the subject of the torture indeed HAS THE INFORMATION that revealed would prevent catastrophe.

However, one can NEVER KNOW that a person indeed has such information. Sure, I can construct a hypothetical to say that we KNOW that the recusant subject KNOWS but simply won't tell, so we are justified in resorting to torture to get it out.

Dershowitz also rebuts the general notion that information gained by torture is inaccurate by citing the WWII experience when under torture by the Nazis, many revealed the location of their family and friends.

However, if we are going to make a qualitative differentiation, it is this - the Nazis did not care whether you had the information or not, they were willing to torture to find out. Their madness had a method, that of creating fear and terror.

Here we are trying to fight fear and terror and yet some say it's okay to resort to the same tactics.

It's not easy. I have no idea what I would do if I faced with a real life situation in which I KNEW that someone had knowledge of the whereabouts of a ticking bomb. If I felt that torture or chemicals would get the information, it would not be unreasonable to say that the lives of 1000s in the balance make it a no-brainer. However when do you really ever get such a situation?

And, the point is not what you would do in the exceptional circumstance, but what you are willing to do on a routine basis.

I can easily construct a hypothetical that we have captured 25 terrorists in Iraq - they all happen to be Iranians and one of them confesses that they are part of a group that is about to detonate a nuclear dirty bomb in Baghdad. Should we torture all of them to find out where and when?

What if they said that the bomb were in New York?

AbuZaid:

Without the terror of hell religion wouldn't have much to offer now would it? Hell is the greatest terror imaginable and if it wasn't whatever was the greatest terror imaginable would become the new hell.

Was Moses a terrorist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYvYd-7hi_Q

You have an interesting and lucid article on torture. I wish to point out an obvious but unstated fact that the torture mentioned and condemned is being used in the justice system of the countries and times referenced.

You have an interesting and lucid article on torture. I wish to point out an obvious but unstated fact that the torture mentioned and condemned is being used in the justice system of the countries and times referenced.

Come on gang. Give the monsignor a break. He's just now realizing he's been doing Devil's business all these years. Talk about torture,

Someone finally reads sacred scriptures http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and the son of God suddenly becomes the son of Devil. The monsignor has no rebut at all? Kinda like some folks see torture ala Bush, ignored? Sad, leading the billions to hell in the name of God.

But he like everyone else took holy orders as a career. Holy orders is an opportunity to serve self, people and God all three. Now he knows how it feels to realize it's Devil and not God he serves. That's torture enough folks. Ease off. Give the man a break.

For Cycledoc.

You wrote: "MtMav, with religious fervor, encourages the use of torture ......" Huh?

Obviously, you have a rather loose and liberal (erroneous) interpretation of what I wrote.

It would be best for you to go back and re-read my post. NO WHERE in my post did I *ENCOURAGE* the use of torture.

To the contrary, I repeatedly use the expression "rare and exceptional."

Additionally, re-read my last sentence (if you ever read it to begin with).

Rise above yourself ..... read carefully.

One of the problems with torture is that people who enjoy torturing others will always believe that the person being tortured has some valuable information. Sometimes, that is true, and torture in those situations can be justified. Mostly though, it is not true, and the torture is really just for revenge and pleasure.

Some people who grow to love torturing others will actually prefer an injust torturing over a justifiable torturing. In unjust torture, the victim will often bear up and resist the injustice, while those who are part of a plot to harm others may actually welcome the torturer's punishment. And of course, there's nothing that a Sadist likes better than a victim who struggles against the pain.

Torture is a messy thing physically and pyschologically.

We've heard conflicting views from torture experts . Those supporting say it's the best thing since sliced bread and should be applied liberally. Others say it encourages false information and is a net negative--in addition of course to being unethical and immoral.

MTMAV, with religious fervor, encourages the use of torture authorized when authorized by POTUS--a man who has quite a low threshold for acting on false information.

Torture in my view is a barometer that measures our self-confidence, ethics, and respect for constitutional government. It's use, and encouragement of use, is not a good sign.

The Church's good views would have more credibility if they came along with a threat of excommunication for those doing or participating in torture.

Monsignor,

Thank you for posting. The title of your thoughts is: "Torture is always wrong." Monsignor, I write as retired military, a Roman Catholic and also a native of Northern N.J ...... Maywood, Don Bosco H.S., Ramsey.

I respectfully disagree with you for two reasons.

Actually, you addressed my first reason in your second paragraph. The principle of double effect as outlined in paragraph 2263 of the catechism is not only valid/moral as it pertains to the death penalty but torture also.

Secondly, in accordance with paragraph 2267 of the catechism, the death penality is allowed for in the "rarest and most exceptional cases."

Monsignor, we occasionally use(rare/exceptional ....or, at least it should be) the death penality to address *PAST* (operative word ... past) evils.

It is only rational that we keep the rare and exceptional use of torture on the table to address/prevent *FUTURE* evils.

The death penality is obviously more severe than torture.

If I had things my way .... the use of torture .... by federal law:

1. Only POTUS could authorize torture. That authority could never be delegated.

2. authorization must be in writing signed by POTUS in order to create a paper record.

3. POTUS would decide using "rare and exceptional" and the "principle of double effect" as subjective guidance. (The harm done to one individual prevents a greater future harm to overall general society).

4. torture would be assigned on a case by case basis only. NEVER a blanket assignment (Example: .....torture all terrorists).

Monsignor, the USA, the French, Brits, Russians, Chinese have nuclear weapons. They look first NOT to use them but .......

Likewise, torture. Look first NOT to use it but .......

Admittedly, it would be seldom if ever that "the stars align" to warrant the use of torture but lets keep it on the table.

Monsignor, GOD bless.

Am I missing the "high-profile" religious leaders speaking out against torture? Where do the media savvy evangelicals and traditional religious leaders stand on this issue? Are they speaking out and MSM outlets just not covering it? There seems to be tremendous hypocrisy on this. It's creepy to have a "born-again" president sign-off on torture, publicly lie and no continuous front page outrage. Although on-line faith blogs provide an outlet to discuss torture the unintended consequence is marginalization of a horrific practice.

Yes, torture is always wrong, but then again so is War ! Do you think war is a moral imperative ? The answer to that is a resounding NO. Violence does nothing but perpetuate itself, incite victims and their families to revenge and it makes people who ordinarily wouldn't resort to violence prone to do so without a second thought.
Just imagine what the world would be like today if we had spent the effort and treasure of the wars in the last one hundred years on education, clean renewable energy, and health care.
We would live in a different world today if that had been done and until we learn that we are just fighting ourselves we have learned nothing. Every human being on this planet are brothers and sisters and children of God. This realization could bring about an entirely different world, one where populations are governed from within instead of without. A government from the heart that dictates moral clarity and a certainty that there will be peace.
Looking at the state of the world today I would say that we haven't learned much from history and that it will take divine intervention to make us turn away from violence and see the light and the truth.

Starting to get the impression I ain't suffered enough, somehow.

I'm starting to get the creeping suspicion you guys aren't the all-knowing arbiters of reality, for some reason, Monsignior.

What a let-down, cause, you know, I sdon't let just anyone screw with my civil rights, and somehow, I'm getting the impression that your absolutist moral stance isn't quite as persistent or insistent or assiduous about the mere torture of human beings as it is about punishing me for snuggling with another girl.

I know you think your world will collapse in horrible degradation if I share a comforter with someone who couldn't get me pregnant (if my endocrine system weren't messed up cause some pious people hadn't had the foresight to make sure I died of adrenal failure for being 'objectively disordered' ) ...that is...

But all you put me through was for *something,* Monsignior, right?

There'[s terrible evil out here, which you'll of course get right on *expressing your power in ways you somehow haven't before* to say *No F'n way, * to,

Only, more forcefully than we Americans are alloweed to, cause if we day 'no' to torture, we aren't Americans for saying it,

Right, Monsignior?!

I mean, all this I been through, is *for your big moment* where all your *moral authority* *commands these SOBs to stop lying and torturing!

Right?

Monsignior?

What? What are you looking at me for, Holder of Absolute turth?

No, really. It's not a metaphor.

It's actually about people who don't believe in *your* torture* lapsing into torture.*

Gods know I've treid to tell em how messed up it is, but, it's all you, Monsignior: NO more being metaphorically-martyred by people like me with the temerity to not beg for your surcease from a dammnation of your own device, no, this is *your* Big Moment.

Come, Sole Repositority of Judgement And Morality, Time To Stop The Torture!

(believe it or not, folks like me will back your play, but don't let it go to your head)

Now.

Do that thing you say you can do.

Really.

Now.

Did I say now?

Really.

You so powerful, Monsignior.

Stop this.

Even us Pagans will back your play.

If you have one.

But now is the time.

You Opus Dei people been dogging the innocent a long time in the mame of whatever-you-think-you-got, but, after all the horrible things you've accused my humble self of doing, hey, this is your Big Moment.

Believe me, I'll be watching.

Monsignior.

Stop the torture.

Call it bona fides.

Then we'll talk about the rest of the bad-kink.

Seriously. It's one thing to keep hurting me and my sweetie and our future, but, Monsignor,

Seriously. You can't stop this, you're irrelevant even to the people who believe in the rest of what you justify.

Why didn't Mgr. Bohlin point at the obvious: that central to Christianity is Christ on the cross and that Christians should always sympathize with the tortured, because God himself revealed himself as a tortured man?

Why didn't Mgr. Bohlin point at the obvious: that central to Christianity is Christ on the cross and that Christians should always sympathize with the tortured, because God himself revealed himself as a tortured man?

Monsignoir, Monsignoir... The topic is focused not on the churches, not on the Roman Catholioc Church, but elsewhere. Why did you have to drag in a defense of the RCC? You had otherwise a beautifully crafted article! Now, people will notice that you protest too much and are liable to ask, Why?

Why claim the RCC has "always" been clement and merciful? Every more or less complete world history book contains information on the Inquisition Period and the exquisite tortures inflicted by church authorities of yore... The Bible itself contains so many gory stories (God demanding from a father the sacrifice--by his own paternal hands!--of a beloved child! What mental torture! to cite but one of them.

All these and whatelse has happened can not be made to disappear by some slight of semantic hand. They have to be honestly admitted and contritely owned. Then after vowing not to do them again, the world will forgive and the RCC can go on cleanse authentically.

(I am a Catholic myself. I came to know about these sad periods of my church's history and reflected on them prayerfully. Do I condemn the present church for the sordid acts of the past? Humanity can not afford to do that--or it will be buried and suffocated by innumerable "mistakes" or "sins" human history is replete with. Thus, forgiveness. And then we move on. I am still a Catholic, albeit one with a shorter and shorter fuse repeatedly ignited by fellow Catholics who persist in denying the undeniable and try to slink away from owing errors, frailties, etc., vainly--in all the senses of that word--refusing that nothing human is perfect--and though we may claim divine inspiration for our church, it still is bonded to its human adherents.

(The sad thing is, because of such unwarranted and downright inane foisting, even the correct, and needed measures the RCC opts to do now will be questioned, will fall under the shadow of doubt, of distrust from the knowledgeable world. The stance would be: If she cannot be truthful about her past, how can she be honest about her present--and trust-worthy about her proposed future? How can her people pontificate about lies and crimes, and the like?

(And we need you and the RCC to help the rest shepherd back those of us who have, momentarily or otherwise, lost their way. starting with those who advocate torture as "a legal means" of pursuing national goals. Let us not give them the idea that they can, like the RCC, do their thing now and tomorrow just find a way of wiggling--its the Roman Law, its this, its that, its not really me!-- away from its consequences.)
.

Living in a region of Mexico that is controlled by the PAN which is the political arm of Opus Dei, I am surprised and pleased that a member of Opus Dei would come out so strongly against torture.

Part of the message that is somewhat hidden is that you don't torture because that means that puts you on the same level as those who you supposedly are against. It is similar to Mr. Bush's predicament with Musharref at the moment because Musharref is using Bush's own words and tactics to justify his totalitarian coup. If we, who supposedly are an example to the unwashed, use torture and its related inhumane activities such as denying habeus corpus, on the basis of "they do it, too!!", then we can expect exactly what has happened. The scum of the world are justifying themselves by saying, "Look at the US!!"

"Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood." This is an incrediblly disingenous qualification. Any reasonable historian agree that the church was among the most vicious practitioners of torture. It is a pernicious lie to claim that the church "always taught clemency and mercy." Monsignor Bohlin should know that to confront past transgressions we must acknowledge them.

Now a man who won't define torture as torture is the Chief US Law Officer? and no one says anything. After all, it's not as if a Jew, or a Christian or any Anglo Saxon will be waterboarded or tortured. So, there is no problem you see. No Schindler's list, no victims thrown to the lions .... that's what you think, is it?

So, how about Latinos who look like us, or swarthy Italian-Americans or dark Irish Celts or Brazilians and South Americans? The British shot a Brazilian because they thought he was a Muslim who was therefore (natch !) going to blow up a train.

Oy vey !!

Hide the women and children. It's a throw down.

NAB::(AKA Doc)

Great line; used perfectly.

Dead between the eyes.

Is that so Fr Bohlin, "Torture is Always Wrong"? Even when done to Jews under direction from the Vatican? Jews and other heretics, not to leave the hand full of gentiles out, the very first heretic Arius the Greek for example.

"Torture is Always Wrong" when it's me that's being tortured. When it's you, well, what can I say? Let's see, what does his holiness think about it? Shouldn't he have final say as to the righteousness and wrongeousness of torture? Haw anyone thought to tell the Muslins? And the Baptists? And the Mormons? And the Jews? Let's not leave the Jews out and above all others who don't see eye to eye with his holiness.

Just a thought. Got that straightened out now?

Rev. Bohlin mentions Roman and canon law. Evidently, Roman and canon law required high standards of proof that may have encouraged torture. The Law Lords of the House of Lords, the highest court in the UK, recently ruled that evidence obtainded by torture was inadmissable in any UK court, even if the torture was performed by another nation in a foreign nation. In this decision, the Law Lords noted that torture was more prevalent on the Continent than in England because English law did not require as high a standard of proof as Roman law:

"This rejection [by the common law] was contrasted with the practice prevalent in the states of continental Europe who, seeking to discharge the strict standards of proof required by the Roman-canon models they had adopted, came routinely to rely on confessions procured by the infliction of torture...In rejecting the use of torture, whether applied to potential defendants or potential witnesses, the common law was moved by the cruelty of the practice as applied to those not convicted of crime, by the inherent unreliability of confessions or evidence so procured and by the belief that it degraded all those who lent themselves to the practice."

A (FC) and Others (FC) vs. Secretary of State for Home Dep't, [2005] UKHL 71 at para. 12 (citations omitted).

Frankly, I have a hard time taking anyone who claims there is any religious or humanistic justification for torture seriously.

Hello again Mr. Bohlin, et al;

STATEHOOD of VATICAN cITY THROUGH THE Roman CURIA Like STATE OF ISRAEL to Enforce The Drunkin-Noah-Story via their man made "New Era Of Canon Law"???

Question: Mr. BOHLIN et al;

Is it not true that the "Vaitican-PRISON", via the "THE [un] HOLY-OFFICE" [Renamed "Congregation of the Cardinals for the Docrine of the Faith" of Ecclestiastical Decision Makers via "CANON LAW"] or that them Popes , not too long ago, in Peoples Short Memmory's, have had a CATHOLIC-PRISON to run too???

Today: Is it also true that the "Vatican-City" have what is called a "Vatican Index of Prohibited Book(s)"? Like The BOOK OF TRANSFINITY???? And Today Like the O.U.R-Book, aka. O-ne U-noversal R-eligion System (a genuine "Hoy Cosmic Feelers Faith" , the singular Religion] Book????

In 2007: on a talk show this week Pat Buchanan (a well known Catholic) said that waterboarding comes "close" to torture. Good grief!

Pat Buchanan, a well known Catholic was on a talk show this week and said that waterboarding comes close to torture. Good grief.

My mistake--it's not the Catholic Observer but the National Catholic Reporter from a 2006 issue.

It's good to ses a clergyman acknowledge what common sense and decency insists upon--that torture is morally indefensible. Still, I note that a Catholic newspaper (I think it's the Catholic Observer but I'm not sure) claims that 75% of Catholics find torture acceptable in some cases.

How can this be? Why aren't there more church spokespeople on this issue?

It's good to ses a clergyman acknowledge what common sense and decency insists upon--that torture is morally indefensible. Still, I note that a Catholic newspaper (I think it's the Catholic Observer but I'm not sure) claims that 75% of Catholics find torture acceptable in some cases.

How can this be? Why aren't there more church spokespeople on this issue?

It is a measure of the moral stain on our nation inflicted by Bush, Cheney et al. that competition for the Republican presidential nomination has ignored the issue of torture except for Giuliani's shocking statement that whether waterboarding is torture depends on who is doing it.
The Senators should have asked the hapless Mukasey if he objected to other countries waterboarding captured American agents.
The U.S. has convicted Americans and Japanese for waterboarding because it is torture. To pretend otherwise is simply to enable by obfuscation those who are disgracing us.

I'm your huckleberry.

While the clergy may have been forbidden to shed blood, that didn't prevent them from turning over the accused to the secular authorities to perform the actual torture. "Mercy and clemency" usually took the form of taking someone's possessions rather than their lives. (For practical reasons, it doesn't make much sense to kill someone once when you can exercise your "mercy" and get 10%, or more, of their stuff for the rest of their lives.)

No one expects a humanly run institution to be perfect, but how is it even possible for a church, founded by the son of God and a recipient of more than a thousand years of sacramental grace, to be even indirectly involved in the Inquisition? Why did it take until 1917 for the Church to officially end the use of corporal punishment?

In regards to the various apologies issued by the last Pope to the victims of Church policy and practice throughout the centuries: it's incredibly easy to apologize to dead people.

Fianlly a man of GOD has spoken up. It is interesting that there are no comments. I have reading these columns. When there are very hot issues debated here, it surprises me to see so much of hate, vile written. THANK YOU MONSIGNOR FOR SOME GODLY SANITY TO YOUR VIEWS. I pray everyone will heed this message from the Monsignor.
GOD BLESS HUMANITY.