Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => World War III - Chapter 2 => Topic started by: Telesphorus on April 13, 2013, 03:16:39 PM
-
What kind of psychological torture is being used to get to this result?
The prison at the U.S. base in Cuba holds 166 detainees. The military said that as of Friday 43 prisoners were classified as hunger strikers, including nearly a dozen being force fed to prevent them from starving to death. Lawyers for prisoners have insisted the strike is much more widespread and that almost all of the men are refusing to eat.
-
I wonder how many of the prisoners are innocent.
-
I am sorry but I would not force feed them. While I am not in favor of War I am student of History. Moselms have been trying to kill Catholics, Jєωs, and everyone else around them since its founding by Mohammed.
-
I am sorry but I would not force feed them. While I am not in favor of War I am student of History. Moselms have been trying to kill Catholics, Jєωs, and everyone else around them since its founding by Mohammed.
That is true to some degree, but a lot of the Muslims at Guantanamo were rounded up, essentially abducted from their homes and lands, and imprisoned over a LIE - a pretext; and subjected to torture, both physical and psychological. The latter being relentless since it is deemed "not abuse" by the Judaic War Hawks manipulating U.S. foreign policy. And Jєωs have as much blood on their hands, regarding their treatment to Palestinians and their push for wars under manufactured pretexts, as Muslims do acting like sub-monkeys, which is an inherited spiritual deficit of false prophet Muhammad.
-
I am sorry but I would not force feed them. While I am not in favor of War I am student of History. Moselms have been trying to kill Catholics, Jєωs, and everyone else around them since its founding by Mohammed.
That is true to some degree, but a lot of the Muslims at Guantanamo were rounded up, essentially abducted from their homes and lands, and imprisoned over a LIE - a pretext; and subjected to torture, both physical and psychological. The latter being relentless since it is deemed "not abuse" by the Judaic War Hawks manipulating U.S. foreign policy. And Jєωs have as much blood on their hands, regarding their treatment to Palestinians and their push for wars under manufactured pretexts, as Muslims do acting like sub-monkeys, which is an inherited spiritual deficit of false prophet Muhammad.
But a hunger "strike" does not address any of these issues. I think it is the least effective and most futile of efforts because most people will say "fine, don't eat, see if I care." End of issue.
Marsha
-
I am sorry but I would not force feed them. While I am not in favor of War I am student of History. Moselms have been trying to kill Catholics, Jєωs, and everyone else around them since its founding by Mohammed.
That is true to some degree, but a lot of the Muslims at Guantanamo were rounded up, essentially abducted from their homes and lands, and imprisoned over a LIE - a pretext; and subjected to torture, both physical and psychological. The latter being relentless since it is deemed "not abuse" by the Judaic War Hawks manipulating U.S. foreign policy. And Jєωs have as much blood on their hands, regarding their treatment to Palestinians and their push for wars under manufactured pretexts, as Muslims do acting like sub-monkeys, which is an inherited spiritual deficit of false prophet Muhammad.
But a hunger "strike" does not address any of these issues. I think it is the least effective and most futile of efforts because most people will say "fine, don't eat, see if I care." End of issue.
Marsha
My comment is not about a hunger strike being a solution. I'm just calling out the evils of putting them in Guantanamo in the first place. The hunger strike is just consequential, and rather secondary to the real issue.
-
..... and not to hijack the thread, but I think the Israeli spies, who were arrested for filming and celebrating the planes slamming into the WTC, should be imprisoned at Guantanamo and subject to the same interrogation methods. Same for the 200 member Israeli espionage ring in the U.S that was arrested right after 9/11. Why aren't any of those parasites at Guantanamo? Why isn't dual Israeli-U.S citizen Michael Chertoff at Guantanamo? He was head of Criminal Division of the Justice Department, and Assistant U.S. Attorney General, when he released ALL Israelis, including the slime caught filming and celebrating the planes hitting the towers, back to Israel with no further investigation.
-
My comment is not about a hunger strike being a solution. I'm just calling out the evils of putting them in Guantanamo in the first place. The hunger strike is just consequential, and rather secondary to the real issue.
Obviously you have never been in an Arab prison before because an Arab prison makes Guantanamo Bay appear to be a vacation resort.
Obviously you have never been around Muuslims before because then you would know that their Koran gives them the right to do acts of barbarism.
And don't even think about using your usual liberaltarian rhetoric and calling me an "Arab hater" and "Israel lover" or whatever else. But when it comes to wartime we can indeed use acts of torture if you will to save lives. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just asking for pacifism that Muslims themselves do not follow.
-
My comment is not about a hunger strike being a solution. I'm just calling out the evils of putting them in Guantanamo in the first place. The hunger strike is just consequential, and rather secondary to the real issue.
Obviously you have never been in an Arab prison before because an Arab prison makes Guantanamo Bay appear to be a vacation resort.
Obviously you have never been around Muuslims before because then you would know that their Koran gives them the right to do acts of barbarism.
And don't even think about using your usual liberaltarian rhetoric and calling me an "Arab hater" and "Israel lover" or whatever else. But when it comes to wartime we can indeed use acts of torture if you will to save lives. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just asking for pacifism that Muslims themselves do not follow.
Obviously, your use of red herrings, such as "Arab prisons are much worse than Guantanamo", has nothing to do with the immoral act of the U.S. abducting Muslims from their homes and lands over a lie and fαℓѕє fℓαg attack, which in effect, drives huge profits for the military industrial complex, among other reason...
Obviously, you assume and prejudge too much because I have personally been around a lot of Muslims, especially in college. I used to play soccer with them all the time, but even outside of the school I attended, I still knew other Muslims quite well. I have also read parts of the Koran for academic purposes.
Obviously, you fail to differentiate wartime based off an imminent threat or being attacked first, which gives a nation the right to defend themselves, and wartime based off a pretext - a fαℓѕє fℓαg attack. The is such an fundamental distinction you still fail to understand.
Obviously, you injecting libertarianism into the discussion is another red herring. However, since you seem to be fixated on my libertarianism, and you are not really interested in the real topic at hand on this thread, rather, the impetus for you commenting seems to be a personal criticism of me stemming from my political persuasion, for the record, I'm not a libertarian per say for the following reasons: 1) I believe abortion should be banned by Constitutional Amendment, but since this is not possible, power should be given to the states to prohibit abortion, which in effect, would reduce, the number of abortions nationwide. 2) ALL pornography should banned, and stiff fines and even imprisonment should be rendered to producers and distributors of this evil destroyer of the individual, family and society. 3) I only believe in free trade INSIDE a nation, and I reject corporations being able to shut down factories in the U.S. and move them overseas to employ fractionally payed slave labor. There are some other reasons why I'm not strictly libertarian, too...
-
Obviously, your use of red herrings, such as "Arab prisons are much worse than Guantanamo", has nothing to do with the immoral act of the U.S. abducting Muslims from their homes and lands over a lie and fαℓѕє fℓαg attack, which in effect, drives huge profits for the military industrial complex, among other reason...
Obviously my earlier post struck a nerve with you since you decided to use my term "obviously" right back at me. :wink: Military industrial complex? (yes I know what that means so don't try to explain the term) Really? I thought Iraq cost America $1.7 trillion and $6 trillion worth of veterans care. :wink:
Obviously, you assume and prejudge too much because I have personally been around a lot of Muslims, especially in college. I used to play soccer with them all the time, but even outside of the school I attended, I still knew other Muslims quite well. I have also read parts of the Koran for academic purposes.
As have I. I have a copy of the Koran right here and while Islam acknowledges Jєωs and Christians as "people of the Book" and consider Christ a great Prophet they despise the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, considering it blasphemy. Islam is inferior to Christianity.
Obviously, you fail to differentiate wartime based off an imminent threat or being attacked first, which gives a nation the right to defend themselves, and wartime based off a pretext - a fαℓѕє fℓαg attack. The is such an fundamental distinction you still fail to understand.
Let me say this: the wars in the Middle East will continue to give America a bad name in the Islamic world for years to come as the reputation of our armed forces over Abu Ghraib, Guatanamo, renditions, waterboarding, etc. will also be continued to be questioned. But when it comes to the nation harsh tactics are needed to safeguard the homeland. I acknowledge the fact that neoconservatives in the Bush cabinet started useless wars in the Middle East simply to safeguard Israeli interests. I myself however am not terrifed of Islamic terrorism since those people don't know how to park a bicycle straight. :wink:
Obviously, you injecting libertarianism into the discussion is another red herring. However, since you seem to be fixated on my libertarianism, and you are not really interested in the real topic at hand on this thread, rather, the impetus for you commenting seems to be a personal criticism of me stemming from my political persuasion, for the record, I'm not a libertarian per say for the following reasons: 1) I believe abortion should be banned by Constitutional Amendment, but since this is not possible, power should be given to the states to prohibit abortion, which in effect, would reduce, the number of abortions nationwide. 2) ALL pornography should banned, and stiff fines and even imprisonment should be rendered to producers and distributors of this evil destroyer of the individual, family and society. 3) I only believe in free trade INSIDE a nation, and I reject corporations being able to shut down factories in the U.S. and move them overseas to employ fractionally payed slave labor. There are some other reasons why I'm not strictly libertarian, too...
Good for you, but even this obsession with the "free market" is based on fallacy, since regulations and taxes are needed on businesses and stiff regulations are definitely needed when it comes to our popular culture.
-
Obviously my earlier post struck a nerve with you since you decided to use my term "obviously" right back at me. :wink:
Struck a nerve? On the contrary, it tickled my funny bone :roll-laugh1:
Military industrial complex? (yes I know what that means so don't try to explain the term) Really? I thought Iraq cost America $1.7 trillion and $6 trillion worth of veterans care. :wink:
Logical fallacy. If you know what it means, then why are you attempting to conflate the massive profits incurred by military hardware, munitions, weapons, etc., companies such a Boeing, General Dynamic, Raytheon, etc., with the wars' negative consequences such as higher taxes and indebtedness bestowed on average American people? The MIC is not negatively effected by these costs and higher taxes, rather, it's how they make their livelihood.
I have a copy of the Koran right here and while Islam acknowledges Jєωs and Christians as "people of the Book" and consider Christ a great Prophet they despise the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, considering it blasphemy. Islam is inferior to Christianity.
Tell me something I don't know...
Let me say this: the wars in the Middle East will continue to give America a bad name in the Islamic world for years to come as the reputation of our armed forces over Abu Ghraib, Guatanamo, renditions, waterboarding, etc. will also be continued to be questioned. But when it comes to the nation harsh tactics are needed to safeguard the homeland. I acknowledge the fact that neoconservatives in the Bush cabinet started useless wars in the Middle East simply to safeguard Israeli interests. I myself however am not terrifed of Islamic terrorism since those people don't know how to park a bicycle straight. :wink:
I agree. I also agree with using harsh tactics, but only when a real attack is imminent or when we've already been attacked. Since the orchestrated fαℓѕє fℓαg attacks on 9/11, and the subsequent U.S. military campaign effecting our imperialism in foreign lands, it is true more Muslims extremists have been spawned due to the horrendous treatment they've received. It's an intended Hegelian dialectic - Problem, Reaction, "Solution" - that keeps the War Machine turning indefinitely, however, prudence needs to be used when deciding when to use harsh treatment. Most of these Muslims are not a threat to America or the Constitution, despite their disdain and hatred for the U.S. If DHS and the DoD really wanted to keep the U.S. safe from Muslim terrorists, they would simply end immigration of Muslims from regions historically "hostile" to the U.S., and prohibit visas to the same people so they cannot travel here. There is the 99.9 percent of the "Muslim terrorist threat" solved, right there! What about U.S. installations in the Middle East and abroad? We need to pull out - NOW. Most of the U.S. presence in foreign lands needs to end immediately. This is another solution to preventing attacks on the U.S.; and it would save taxpayers exponential dollars.
Good for you, but even this obsession with the "free market" is based on fallacy, since regulations and taxes are needed on businesses and stiff regulations are definitely needed when it comes to our popular culture.
Obsession? :laugh2: Perhaps you are obsessed with New Deal programs of FDR and other sugar coated names of socialism and big government intrusions on the lives of people?
Keep U.S. jobs here by law. Prevent outsourcing and closing of factories by traitorous, mammon worshiping corporations; other than that, for the most part, there should be no govt intrusion, except regarding safety for workers or when there is a detriment to public health (such as Monsanto's GMOs). I believe there SHOULD BE mandatory labeling on GMO "food".
Let freedom reign; and keep it American and Christian, baby!! :dancing:
-
Logical fallacy. If you know what it means, then why are you attempting to conflate the massive profits incurred by military hardware, munitions, weapons, etc., companies such a Boeing, General Dynamic, Raytheon, etc., with the wars' negative consequences such as higher taxes and indebtedness bestowed on average American people? The MIC is not negatively effected by these costs and higher taxes, rather, it's how they make their livelihood.
I know the military industrial complex makes profit by having troops and military hardware in foreign lands.
and the DoD really wanted to keep the U.S. safe from Muslim terrorists, they would simply end immigration of Muslims from regions historically "hostile" to the U.S., and prohibit visas to the same people so they cannot travel here. There is the 99.9 percent of the "Muslim terrorist threat" solved, right there!
I agree though Mexico and Canda would have to get on board with that.
What about U.S. installations in the Middle East and abroad? We need to pull out - NOW. Most of the U.S. presence in foreign lands needs to end immediately. This is another solution to preventing attacks on the U.S.; and it would save taxpayers exponential dollars.
I agree that Muslims see America as an imperial, decadent infidel power and I agree that we need to pull our troops out of the Middle East. Hell I was opposed to the first war on Iraq, Desert Storm, and every war since.
Obsession? :laugh2: Perhaps you are obsessed with New Deal programs of FDR and other sugar coated names of socialism and bgovernment intrusions on the lives of people?
Yep I'm a real FDR and New Deal lover obviously sconsidering I've made more anti-FDR and anti-New Deal threads than any other member here. :wink:
Keep U.S. jobs here by law. Prevent outsourcing and closing of factories by traitorous, mammon worshiping corporations; other than that, for the most part, there should be no govt intrusion, except regarding safety for workers or when there is a detriment to public health (such as Monsanto's GMOs). I believe there SHOULD BE mandatory labeling on GMO "food".
What about when a vital component of American manufactoring is about to go dead like our car companies? The GOP had no problem telling Detriot to drop dead. Do you support Disney pouring out their filth to kids all over the world? How about Hollywood?
Let freedom reign; and keep it American and Christian, baby!! :dancing:
*sarcasm* Let us indeed dance to America's sick values and culture.
-
What about when a vital component of American manufactoring is about to go dead like our car companies? The GOP had no problem telling Detriot to drop dead. Do you support Disney pouring out their filth to kids all over the world? How about Hollywood?
There should NOT have been any bailouts for the Big 3 auto makers. NONE...ZILCH... Same goes for any U.S. corporation. No corporate bailouts or welfare. What did GM do with their bailout money? They invested it into manufacturing plants of engines in Mexico and other foreign nations, while giving themselves (CEOs and other executives) huge bonuses. The American workers saw none of that bailout money. If the govt is going to bailout corporations, then why don't they also bail out the huge numbers of post graduates who have incurred large student loan debt? If these bailouts are about helping actual common people, then why not student loan forgiveness? The country would fair much better with such a bailout, rather than than bailing out greedy, traitorous corporations. These CEOs and management who run corporations into the ground need to be held accountable, too. Perhaps stiff fines for them to pay from the hoards of money they made in bonuses and overinflated salaries would deter them from neglectful, or perhaps deliberate, management practices resulting in failures for a company while the executive officers make off like bandits.
No doubt Hollywood and Disney need to be fumigated, but I'm not sure govt can dictate what comes out of these two cesspools. First, you would need to fumigate the 3 Branches of govt before starting with Hollywierd. Morality must be instilled by families, and taught and defended by the Church and proper catechesis. I'm not sure I would want a central, God-less, governing authority dictating what is "morally acceptable", but I would still be open to ideas and its possibility because Hollywood is definitely a problem. TV has too much influence on peoples' minds, and that is very dangerous.
Pornography, on the other hand, can and should, be banned. I don't think it would be difficult to ban most of the hard and internet material. Production and distribution in a black market should be met with severe criminal punishment. This would make access by children via a quick click with their computer, or acquisition by adults via a short drive, nearly impossible.
-
There should NOT have been any bailouts for the Big 3 auto makers. NONE...ZILCH...
What you fail to realize is that if America loses the car industry we will truly be a Third World country in terms of manufactoring. Hell we already lost the television industry. Government has the right to take over businesses if the nation is in jeopardy.
then why don't they also bail out the huge numbers of post graduates who have incurred large student loan debt? If these bailouts are about helping actual common people, then why not student loan forgiveness?
Why should a bunch of dumb kids get bailed out for a stupid decision? College really doesn't do much for a young adult except make him more utopian and "away from the real world."
No doubt Hollywood and Disney need to be fumigated, but I'm not sure govt can dictate what comes out of these two cesspools. First, you would need to fumigate the 3 Branches of govt before starting with Hollywierd. Morality must be instilled by families, and taught and defended by the Church and proper catechesis. I'm not sure I would want a central, God-less, governing authority dictating what is "morally acceptable", but I would still be open to ideas and its possibility because Hollywood is definitely a problem. TV has too much influence on peoples' minds, and that is very dangerous.
Your problem is you see government itself as evil when it is not. It can be evil if given to the hands of the wrong people. Government does have the obligation to regulate popular culture however.
-
I am sorry but I would not force feed them. While I am not in favor of War I am student of History. Moselms have been trying to kill Catholics, Jєωs, and everyone else around them since its founding by Mohammed.
...and subjected to torture, both physical and psychological. The latter being relentless since it is deemed "not abuse..."
I don't want this comment to be taken as a defence of US neo-conservative policies, but I think it is helpful to remind everyone that the Church and Catholic countries had employed various forms of moderate judicial torture for many centuries, in accordance with Roman legal theory.
-
I don't want this comment to be taken as a defence of US neo-conservative policies, but I think it is helpful to remind everyone that the Church and Catholic countries had employed various forms of moderate judicial torture for many centuries, in accordance with Roman legal theory.
That is fine, and I support it, too, but NOT when it's done over a pretext - a fαℓѕє fℓαg attack - such a 9/11. It should only be done when there is an imminent threat or if we've been attacked first, by a real enemy, not by subterfuge to get "justification" to invade and bomb countries.
T G 20 says: What you fail to realize is that if America loses the car industry we will truly be a Third World country in terms of manufactoring. Hell we already lost the television industry. Government has the right to take over businesses if the nation is in jeopardy.
Ride a bike or start walking more... that will improve both physical and mental health of the American herd who suffer from self-induced obesity and depression due to a dystopia caused by the artificial world and materialism such as peoples' "precious" metal coffins on wheels. And, NO, govt does NOT have the right to take over AMERICAN sovereign businesses. It should only regulate in matters of worker safety and interests of public health. That's pretty much it.
Why should a bunch of dumb kids get bailed out for a stupid decision? College really doesn't do much for a young adult except make him more utopian and "away from the real world."
You fail to understand student loan debt is the next black swan, besides the LIBOR scandal. Forgiving the debt will actually stimulate the economy more comprehensively, and for a long time, because the people will actually be able to be consumers again without the hindrance of debt slavery. It's rather simple. This would have a more positive and long lasting effect on the economy rather than bailing out the 3 big auto makers. New auto makers will rise again, and they will learn not to make the same mistakes as the previous 3 idiotic monoliths.
Your problem is you see government itself as evil when it is not. It can be evil if given to the hands of the wrong people. Government does have the obligation to regulate popular culture however.
Your problem is you see the people belonging to and serving the govt, when the govt belongs to and serves the people.
-
Ex-Bush Official Willing to Testify Bush, Cheney Knew Gitmo Prisoners Innocent (http://www.truth-out.org/article/item/713:exbush-official-willing-to-testify-bush-cheney-knew-gitmo-prisoners-innocent)
-
I am sorry but I would not force feed them. While I am not in favor of War I am student of History. Moselms have been trying to kill Catholics, Jєωs, and everyone else around them since its founding by Mohammed.
...and subjected to torture, both physical and psychological. The latter being relentless since it is deemed "not abuse..."
I don't want this comment to be taken as a defence of US neo-conservative policies, but I think it is helpful to remind everyone that the Church and Catholic countries had employed various forms of moderate judicial torture for many centuries, in accordance with Roman legal theory.
The status quaestionis on the liceity of torture is murky to me. Do you have any insights?
-
I am sorry but I would not force feed them. While I am not in favor of War I am student of History. Moselms have been trying to kill Catholics, Jєωs, and everyone else around them since its founding by Mohammed.
...and subjected to torture, both physical and psychological. The latter being relentless since it is deemed "not abuse..."
I don't want this comment to be taken as a defence of US neo-conservative policies, but I think it is helpful to remind everyone that the Church and Catholic countries had employed various forms of moderate judicial torture for many centuries, in accordance with Roman legal theory.
The status quaestionis on the liceity of torture is murky to me. Do you have any insights?
Not particularly, no. I could speak about the topic generally and give some evidence, such as its universal practice by the Inquisition and by saecular Catholic governments, including that of Saint Louis (who even increased its usage, or at least felt no compulsion to hinder a trend of its increasing use), since roughly the beginning of the XIIIth century. It was also used in the Roman Empire since Theodosius, having been abandoned apparently in the West for a period of several centuries before being vigorously re-imposed as a regular judicial procedure for certain crimes. Apparently torture was suspended in the Roman codices during the environs of Easter, going forward until Pentecost, according to this article (http://secure.pdcnet.org/852575160057728D/file/631AACB7B29138988525789900588076/$FILE/agstm_2011_0051_0001_0192_0221.pdf) I just found.
Anyway, the idea that torture is intrinsically sinful would give rise to the logically consequent proposition that the Church -- and various holy men -- tolerated and endorsed something intrinsically sinful for the majority of Her history, something that I find to be, at the very least, temerarious to earnestly consider. The effort of the modern "neo-Thomist" do-gooder (no doubt sympathetic to the phenomenological project) to expunge the Church from such associations would necessarily have to lie in demonstrating that the Church never supported, only permitted, torture. I find such exercises to be distasteful, since they seem to wittingly or unwittingly conflate the unclearly defined evangelical spirit with the humanitarian ethics of universal empathy that have developed with liberalism and other kinds of non-Christian humanism (the language of which makes me feel unwell). In any case, that would be a rather difficult case to make, considering its free and vigorous use without protest for many centuries.
One of the conceptual problems that shrouds the torture question is the precise nature of how it could be wrong in the first place. I have one friend who, like me, cannot really think of why it would be wrong. For the purposes of establishing a conceptual framework for the question, here is a related one. Is a guilty criminal required to accuse himself (confess to a crime) if he is directly questioned by a magistrate, or is he entitled to be silent in an effort to spare himself from punishment ? English common law has considered the legal establishment of mandatory self-accusation to be inhumane since at least the early 1700's, and the principle of a "right to silence" has been common in Europe and North America since the Enlightenment, being based on the idea thatinsofar as it is overly severe to expect a man to condemn himself to punishment in the external forum when asked a true question.
Roman law, classically, has said the exact opposite, an understanding that was given strong endorsement by Pope Innocent IV's 1252 bull "Ad extirpanda," which teaches that the civil power is required to force heretics to confess both their crime and accomplices : "Since heretics are really brigands and murderers of souls and thieves of God's sacraments and the Christian faith, the secular power or the ruler is bound to force, without loss of limb or danger of death, all heretics he apprehends to expressly confess their errors. He must also force them to reveal other heretics whom they know, their defenders, just as thieves and robbers of temporal things are bound to reveal their accomplices and to confess the evil deeds which they committed." A question asked by one who possesses real authority merits a truthful response, and it does not belong to the criminal to fail to divulge information regarding transgressions against justice on account of the psychological difficulty of accusing himself and potentially condemning himself to some punishment. This is also the teaching of Saint Thomas and Saint Alphonsus. The theologian Natalis Alexander, commenting in 1694 on the Catechism of Trent's treatment of the subject (VIIIth Commandment), says that, when there is sufficient partial proof or infamy to warrant direct judicial interrogation in the first place, the accused mus confess "simply and without ambiguities, even though he knows certainly that by this confession he will condemn himself to death."
This principle was maintained in the Church through the procedures of the Roman Rota of 1910, wherein it was again affirmed that the accused is duty-bound to confess of his wrongdoing. This is a feature of inquisitorial judicial procedure which itself has its roots in the Roman Republic, particularly the dictatorship of Sulla, and developed organically from there. Unfortunately, the problem is not as clearcut as it might seem. Cardinal Journet claims that this papal legislation was merely directive, rather than magisterial, and he and many XIXth and XXth century theologians oppose the principle as such, despite the fact that the Catechism of Trent calls it "divine law." In the new Pio-Benedictine Code of 1917, permission is given for criminals to not condemn themselves when directly questioned. Liberals claim (http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/27/27.3/27.3.4.pdf) that this means that the "controversy" was "settled," and many erstwhile orthodox theologians and Catholic commentators of an apparently strange and rather slippery XXth-century liberalesque mentality proudly endorse this assertion. I think that this development, which is clearly against the common opinion of all but the most recent theologians on the subject, poses more difficulties than it would apparently be calculated to solve. In sum, the question of the morality of torture seems to hinge on the question of the individuals rights. There are many attempts to marry personal individual rights with the Aristotelian-Thomistic maxim regarding the individual's subjugation to the common good. I vigorously oppose these attempts and hold to the classical position against Maritain, et al., which in turn inclines me strongly in favour of judicial torture and punitive justice, of course including the death penalty in its various forms according to the crime it remedies.
I hope my brief foray into the question was helpful or at least stimulated some thought on the matter. The question as such seems to have the cosmological concerns related to sovereignty, the common good, and the individual that I listed. As such, the dramatis personae are easier to determine, and consideration of the question is likewise made easier.
-
Not particularly, no. I could speak about the topic generally and give some evidence, such as its universal practice by the Inquisition and by saecular Catholic governments, including that of Saint Louis (who even increased its usage, or at least felt no compulsion to hinder a trend of its increasing use), since roughly the beginning of the XIIIth century. It was also used in the Roman Empire since Theodosius, having been abandoned apparently in the West for a period of several centuries before being vigorously re-imposed as a regular judicial procedure for certain crimes. Apparently torture was suspended in the Roman codices during the environs of Easter, going forward until Pentecost, according to this article (http://secure.pdcnet.org/852575160057728D/file/631AACB7B29138988525789900588076/$FILE/agstm_2011_0051_0001_0192_0221.pdf) I just found.
Yes, it seems that Germanic custom favoured ordeals over torture, which explains why the practice was abandoned for a time. There's a longish article on sspx.org that actually frames torture as a kind of ordeal whereby an innocent man could gut a semiplena probatio by manfully withstanding the pain. What do you think of that?
Anyway, the idea that torture is intrinsically sinful would give rise to the logically consequent proposition that the Church -- and various holy men -- tolerated and endorsed something intrinsically sinful for the majority of Her history, something that I find to be, at the very least, temerarious to earnestly consider. The effort of the modern "neo-Thomist" do-gooder (no doubt sympathetic to the phenomenological project) to expunge the Church from such associations would necessarily have to lie in demonstrating that the Church never supported, only permitted, torture. I find such exercises to be distasteful, since they seem to wittingly or unwittingly conflate the unclearly defined evangelical spirit with the humanitarian ethics of universal empathy that have developed with liberalism and other kinds of non-Christian humanism (the language of which makes me feel unwell). In any case, that would be a rather difficult case to make, considering its free and vigorous use without protest for many centuries.
I agree. In the course of looking into this question over the past couple days I've read several articles by neo-Thomist do-gooders which, while informative, are irritating; something about their tone, within a few lines you can tell what you're dealing with. They let in liberal premises, then fiddle around on the defensive.
One of the conceptual problems that shrouds the torture question is the precise nature of how it could be wrong in the first place. I have one friend who, like me, cannot really think of why it would be wrong.
It seems the idea is that it is an intrinsic violation of that old canard human dignity. On a practical level, the belief is that "no trust can be placed in confessions under torture," as Aristotle wrote. The practice of requiring the suspect to re-affirm the confession subsequently in court seems to lay that to rest, though I wonder, was that a common practice in civil courts? By the way, your framing the question around the idea of confession is very helpful, I hadn't thought of it like that before, though I had realized who were the dramatis personae, as you put it.