Republican candidate Rick Santourm has openly permitted what he calls enhanced interrogation, and many have classified as torture. One thing to think about, when making a decision about enhanced interrogation, is how far the "torturing" actually goes. From all that I have read, screaming, threats, lies, and discomfort have been the only real "torture" that the victim undergoes. The furthest they seem to go through this enhanced interrogation is water boarding. Water boarding is a simulation of drowning where the victim is tied up to a table and strapped down with their head facing downward. The victims head is then covered with a cloth while water is proceeded to be dumped upon him. Although I would never agree to have prisoners of war scared for life, or be caused any kind of discomfort, is water boarding truly evil? One must look at the action, intention and circumstance of the act. Any given action can be good, neutral, or evil. This being said, any action can also have a good or evil intention and or circumstance. If any of the action, intention or circumstance is intrinsically evil, than the whole action is evil. I.e if the action is good, but the intention is evil the action is therefore evil or vice versa. Let's taking water boarding as an example. The action is purposely water boarding someone I would put the action of water boarding in the neutral category. This is because there are circumstances where it could be either good or evil i.e someone voluntarily agreeing to be water boarded for experimental or learning purposes. This being said, let's go onto to the circumstance and the intention of the action refereed to by the candidate Rick Santourm. The circumstance is as follows: A terrorist is killing hundreds of thousands of people. A war victim and member of this terrorists group knows where the leader is and is not cooperating. After being interrogated, (threatened, screamed at, asked questions.) The enhanced interrogation group decides to water board the victim, stopping the simulation as soon as the victim admits to answering their questions. The intention would be to save the hundreds of thousands of people being killed. The action as it stands right now is neutral. The intention is good. One must look at the circumstance to decided whether the action is good or bad. It's a very fine line. I could easily debate anyone taking either side. Let's use another example of torture. Same circumstance and intention expect the action is purposely cutting off one's fingers in a non surgical manner. I would classify this action as evil no matter what the circumstances. So no matter what the intention and circumstance. It is still evil. Back to water boarding. I would say that if thousands of lives were upon the line, and the only thing standing in the way between you getting information and hundreds of thousands of people dieing was causing a war victim, of whom would get his head blown off by a machine gun if he was back in war, was causing discomfort to the war victim, than it might be permissible. Another thing to remember is that a lot of these war victims give their lives.. water boarding someone would probably not work to get information you would have to use much greater means. If the water boarding in fact did not work, I would be against any further torture equal to or greater than water boarding. As for Rick Santourm, this is a man who respects and upholds the sanctity of human life. His views on this might be influenced by past experiences and, as one can see, it is not the type of thing that is clearly either black or white (right or wrong.) I would not hold this against Santourm and still think that he is a just candidate.
2 comments:
Austin, part of your logic is flawed here:
"The intention would be to save the hundreds of thousands of people being killed."
Incorrect. This would only be a remote intention, or a secondary intention. The immediate. proximate intention would be to frighten, discomfort or harm the recipient of the waterboarding to such a degree that he voluntarily gives up information. Only then, with that information, can lives perhaps be saved.
Now, understanding that the use of real or perceived violence to gain information is the primary intention of waterboarding, that classifies it as torture and makes the intention evil.
And, just for clarification, you state that waterboarding is "face down." This is not the case - it is face up. Have you watched the video of reporters being waterboarded? This is a good one - Mancow was in favor of waterboarding before, but then he had it done to him and admitted it was torture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOStoGd5GZw
If the victim wasn't being interrogated, he would be out in war being shot at, and likely dead. I disagree with any sort of torture towards war victims, I just don't see why one should so quickly cancel out a candidate because of his belief in water boarding.
Post a Comment