Elizabeth Brown on torture

Elizabeth Brown wrote to Rick and I as follows:

The National Catholic Reporter published this article on the support of
torture by American Catholics here:
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/032406/032406h.htm
<http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/032406/032406h.htm>
According to this survey, over 50% of American Catholics would support
torture sometimes or often.
 
As for the question asking if one supports "torture in order to gain
important information", that is almost always the justification for torture
despite the fact that there is no evidence that the information provided due
to torture is reliable.  Regarding the lack of evidence that harsh
interrogation techniques produce reliable intelligence, see Washington Post
article describing the 374 page report by the Intelligence Science Board,
which was commissioned by the Pentagon, here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011501
204.html
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR200701150
1204.html>    The question did not present the hypo of the ticking bomb.
 
Why do so many Catholics support torture?  The survey doesn't say but
perhaps they agree with the reasons that conservative Catholic Linda Chavez
outlined when she wrote in support of torture.  Crisis Magazine in its March
2005 issue (http://www.crisismagazine.com/march2005/feature2.htm
<http://www.crisismagazine.com/march2005/feature2.htm> ) described the
written comments of Linda Chavez:

"But Chavez doesn't raise that question. Instead she asks, "[I]f such
methods are 'torture,' is the United States justified in using them anyway?"


Mark that: Even if it is torture, can we do it anyway? 

For a Catholic, there is no debate on that question, for the Church has
answered it definitively. Gaudium et Spes (no. 27) condemns torture
categorically: . . .

Chavez, however, does not consult the teaching of the Church. Instead, she
moves on to a recitation of various horrors perpetrated by the murderous
thugs of radical Islam and declares:

'[W]e are forced into debating the moral parameters of torture because of
the very nature of our current enemy. The United States is not at war with a
conventional army, but with men whose aim is to kill innocent civilians in
the most horrific manner possible.' 

Note the shift in the argument. At the beginning of the article, we were not
debating the moral parameters of torture at all. That's because there's
nothing to debate. Torture is "intrinsically evil." Period. We were,
initially, going to debate what constitutes torture. But now, Chavez argues,
in effect, "Our good ends really do justify use of evil means against this
enemy because, well, this enemy is different." How, precisely, the current
enemy is so different from past enemies-Nazi, North Korean, Japanese, and
Viet Cong torturers and murderers-that torture is now justified, Chavez does
not say."

The International Red Cross has classified what the US has done to enemy
combatants at Guantanamo as torture.  So I am not sure that it is
unreasonable to interpret Romney's statement that he wants to double
Guantanamo and that he supports "enhanced interrogation techniques" (the
ones that the Red Cross classified as torture) as indicating that he
supports methods that the rest of the world, including the Catholic Church,
considers torture.  His statement certainly seems to be playing to the
Americans, including Catholics, who crave "tough measures" on security
grounds.  See Washington Post article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602
412.html
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR200705160
2412.html>  and column by Helen Thomas in the Salt Lake Tribune here:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5970857 <http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5970857>  
 
The only GOP candidate who has clearly indicated that he does not support
torture is Senator McCain.  This is one of the many things that I admire
about McCain.
 
My father and both my grandfathers were colonels in the US Army (West Point
Classes of 1946, 1923 and 1903).  Both my father and my grandfather Buckley
spoke out against allowing US personnel to use torture in interrogations.
My grandfather Buckley was a POW in WWII.  (My grandfather Brown was a POW
in WWI and died in 1962 before I was born.)
 
There are ways of effectively interrogating prisoners of war and others
without resorting to the techniques authorized by the Bush Administration.
Many US military lawyers and officers objected to the move by the Bush
Administration to expand the range of interrogation techniques because the
techniques violated international law, they were not an effective means of
gaining reliable intelligence, and they would encourage others to torture
captured US military personnel.