April 10, 1996: Bill Clinton vetoes the partial-birth abortion ban.
March 8, 2008: George Bush vetoes a ban on waterboarding torture.
This should be the final nail in the coffin of the idea, peddled largely by his Catholic supporters, that Bush is more pro-life, or more in line with Catholic teaching, than his predecessor or his political opponents. For this veto amounts to an embrace of a hideous act, an intrinsically evil act, on the basest of consequentualist reasoning. And remember: Clinton’s veto, disgusting as it was, probably did nothing to affect abortion one way or the other. Bush, on the other hand, is the author and architect of the US’s dalliance with torture techniques once associated with regimes like the Khmer Rouge. For Catholics in particular, it is telling that this veto comes days before Holy Week, before we commemorate the torture and death of Jesus the Christ.
Update: Obama comments:
“We need a Commander in Chief who has never wavered on whether or not it is acceptable for America to torture, because it is never acceptable. While I have consistently opposed torture, in the course of this primary campaign Hillary Clinton has flip-flopped from her past position of tolerating torture. When I am president, the American people and the world will be able to trust that I will outlaw torture, because unlike Senator Clinton I have never made an exception for torture and I never will.”
Except for the unborn he’s willing to have tortured and killed, you [idiot].
One need not defend torture to recognize significant differences of context:
Waterboarding (let’s call it torture) has been used by the U.S. government three times (that we know of). All were on homocidal fanatics like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Abortion is homocide by the many hundreds of thousands. Partial-birth abortion is indisputably infanticide, and it is performed by the hundreds (and maybe thousands) every year. One of Ron Paul’s best lines is that as a doctor, he knows this procedure is NEVER necessary.
In other words, it is right and proper to be significantly more concerned about one issue – the wholesale slaughter of children in the womb.
Bush has been excellent on issues of life, especially compared to Clinton.
“You killed embroyes to do scientific research on them? Good job! Here’s your governmental funding” Bush has been good on issues of life? He made it a big campaign issue in 2004 that he did this! That’s not pro-life. Bush has NOT been excellent on issues of life. He hindered many life issues — and has been known to GLOAT in the death of others.
Jonathan, I think you still think pro-life is about abortion. It isn’t. It is about LIFE. And if you find reason for any stage of life to disregard its sacred nature (which includes its dignity), THAT justifies the ability to kill it any other; if you say “they are a threat to society, so it’s ok to kill them,” then the child in the womb is a “threat to society, and to the mother” so it’s ok. Once you justify one, you justify all. That’s why so many people are not pro-life. They don’t recognize the sacred nature of all life; and they think it’s a number’s game. It isn’t. It’s about life. Period. The contradiction you allow justifies all the evil.
Oh, and never before has any major candidate for president been so in the pocket of the abortion lobby (Obama).
I do not know enough about the dispute over this particular method of attempting to ban torture to have a strong opinion on whether this particular veto was a good idea. However, in assessing whether this is a “veto of evil” it may be worthwile to look at what Bush actually said. Mirror of Justice posted some of remarks which included the following:
http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/2008/03/more-on-the-pre.html
While details of the current CIA program are classified, the Attorney General has reviewed it and determined that it is lawful under existing domestic and international law, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. I remain committed to an intelligence-gathering program that complies with our legal obligations and our basic values as a people. The United States opposes torture, and I remain committed to following international and domestic law regarding the humane treatment of people in its custody, including the “Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.”
My disagreement over section 327 is not over any particular interrogation technique; for instance, it is not over waterboarding, which is not part of the current CIA program. Rather, my concern is the need to maintain a separate CIA program that will shield from disclosure to al Qaeda and other terrorists the interrogation techniques they may face upon capture. In accordance with a clear purpose of the “Military Commissions Act of 2006,” my veto is intended to allow the continuation of a separate and classified CIA interrogation program that the Department of Justice has determined is lawful and that operates according to rules distinct from the more general rules applicable to the Department of Defense.
“The Attorney General said what I wanted him to say” just like the “CIA investigators were sure of WMDs in Iraq, because I told them to be,” Bush doesn’t convince me with such arguments.
It’s like I start beating you up, and say “Well, it’s not assult because my toadie tells me it isn’t.”
Contradiction? Please. I’m not defending Bush on every matter.
But it needs to be recognized that he has been excellent on abortion, that he faced down significant pressure for federal funding of ESCR, that he has been strong against cloning.
What would Obama do for federal funding of abortion – civilian, military, foreign aid, ect. and ESCR? Hillary? These are policies that directly impact the life of hundreds of thousands of unborn children. Bush has been solid here and deserves our credit and admiration on that point.
From WIKI
” President Bush announced, on August 9, 2001 that federal funds, for the first time, would be made available for hESC research on currently existing stem cell lines; however, the Bush Administration chose not to permit taxpayer funding for research on hESC cell lines not currently in existence, thus limiting federal funding to research in which “the life-and-death decision has already been made” (in vitro fertilization matter already decided on for that use..paren.mine). [36] The Bush Administration’s guidelines differ from the Clinton Administration guidelines which did not distinguish between currently existing and not-yet-existing hESC. Both the Bush and Clinton guidelines agree that the federal government should not fund hESC research that directly destroys embryos.
“In the wind”
Again, if Bush thought killing embryoes is murder, he wouldn’t give ANY funding to those who had killed embryos for scientific research, no matter what time period they did it. Moreover, he seems to have no problem with the research itself — which is why he is talking about its funding! And he BRAGGED about it in 2004 as one of the things he did — saying he didn’t have any problems with embryonic stem cell research.
HK
In vitro fertilization is legal in America and unlike abortion….is probably widely believed in by Protestants and citizens in general….and produces stem cell matter that is going to be discarded regardless. Not just Bush but a staunch Catholic president in that context…..theoretically would have a hard time explaining why one could not use such stem cell matter if it came from a widely supported legal procedure that gives infertile couples children and results in matter that would be destroyed anyway.
Jonathan: First, to choose between two intrinsically evil acts based on “lesser evil” is an exercise in proportionalism and is illicit, if not heretical.
But your argument is even worse. You claim that waterboarding was only undertaken on “homicidal maniacs”. Are you trying to argue that that makes it more justifiable? This is truly abhorrant. This constant Calvinistic reasoning makes me wonder abour your conversion…
Nice language, Irenaeus. Yes, I saw what you called me before somebody decided to edit it for civilized company.
“In the wind”
So much for being pro-life, then.
Bush “excellent on life”– what an utterly disgusting statement. Tell that to the Iraqis.
jonathanjones02, even if I agree that abortion is a greater problem than torture, just because a piece of legislation has the word “abortion” in it doesn’t necessarily make it of paramount importance.
Why does it always seem to be necessary to pull the words you are projecting onto me out of the Internet atmosphere?
This isn’t that difficult: waterboarding is not abortion. One is a significantly larger concern in the public sphere. Abortion matters more than anything else, as it is the large-scale slaughter of children. And whatever the number two issue is, it ain’t close to the first in terms of importance. It is vital to extend legal protections to the unborn whenever possible.
I advocate for neither abortion nor torture and will never defend either. So stop projecting.
“This constant Calvinistic reasoning makes me wonder abour your conversion…”
And your so cheaply throwing around terms like “racist” “Gnostic” and “Calvin” makes we wonder about the ideological blinders that seem so firmly attached to your eyelids. Or perhaps you are fine with words losing their meaning.
Oh, and Morning’s Minion I also wonder about your holier-than-thou attitude, but I don’t consider it necessary to assign personal motives to unknown people over the Internet and would hope you feel the same. There are better and more productive ways to feel good about yourself.
In any event, enough procrastination. Pleasant day.
“Tell that to the Iraqis”
Well since we are going off topic I suppose I can say to can tell that “As to the Africans” Which you can review here
http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/02/21/bush-and-hillary-are-both-dancing/
and here
http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/02/19/did-you-know-bush-is-still-in-africa/
and here
http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/02/28/geldof-on-bush-hes-curious-and-quick/
Just to be clear… is being not pro-life enough tantamount to being not really pro-life at all?
I can’t defend torture, and I am no apologist for war. I also can’t say that I have ever bought into the rhetoric and salesmanship (salespersonship?) offered by talking heads who are wishing to paint the GOP as far more actively pro-life/anti-abortion than it is…
But is this a clarion call for him to be more prolife and to educate folks on what a big task it is, or more an attempt to not let the matter of slowing down – if not being able to stop – 1 abortion every 3 seconds take pride of place just out of a sense of proportionality?
I think it fair to declare “You are on the right track with this one, but that alone isn’t going to cut it.”
“First, to choose between two intrinsically evil acts based on “lesser evil” is an exercise in proportionalism and is illicit, if not heretical.”
Prove it:
“If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person.”
“A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”
There is no specific decree for other intrinsic evils. If something can be diminished it means that there are variations in severity. If there are variations, not all in that category are equal.
Henry, MM,
I wasn’t quoting Bush’s statement as some sort of “Bush says it’s okay, so it must be” argument. However, since the spin of the post seemed to be, “Bush wants to keep waterboarding legal” it seemed relevant to me that he stated that his was not vetoing it because of specific techniques, but rather because of the inappropriate use of the army field manual.
If Democrats are serious about banning torture, I would encourage them to work with ammenable Republicans (it wouldn’t surprise me if McCain was open to join sponsoring something along these lines) a “Fight With Honor” bill which specifically set for the principle of differentiating the US from its opponents in how it treats its prisoners and listed off the specific things which the bill sought to ban.
If the administration saw fit to veto something that was specific, clear and direct to its purpose, then we would know where they stood. If, on the other hand, the interest is primarily in making political hay by passing ammendments that are broad and which seem to misapply guidelines between services, then we will know this is about politics rather than how we treat detainees.
I’m in concurrence with MM that waterboarding is both torture and an intrinsic evil that Bush ought not use and ought to support a ban of. Further, I would say its not “pro-life” to the extent that it violates human dignity. That said, I think it’s difficult to jump from there to it being the “final nail in the coffin of the idea, peddled largely by his Catholic supporters, that Bush is more pro-life, or more in line with Catholic teaching, than his predecessor or his political opponents.”
First, he begs the question of how we compare the relative “pro-lifeness” of candidates. Should we be measuring by the number of lives affected by a policy? The magnitude of the impact on each life? Indirect or direct consequences? Or is the term an absolutist one; black and white with no space for gray? If so, then presumably violating any tenant of pro-life beliefs makes you no longer pro-life.
For my part, I offer that we should not take the absolutist approach in applying the term or we would almost never have a pro-life politician. For the simple reason of being able to apply one term or the other to a candidate and be able to debate their relative merits that rejection seems necessary. That said, the question is what scale do we use?
I would offer that in asking which candidate is pro-life or more pro-life, we ought to consider both the number of direct and indirect victims and consider the magnitude of the evil imposed upon them. This will necessarily give more weight to direct victims of the worst offenses. The child aborted deserves more weight in the judgment than the post-abortive woman; which is not to say that the post-abortive woman does not deserve sympathy and support, simply that her loss was not as great or greater than the child. Likewise, although we ought to consider the impact of torture on society in general, it should not receive more weight than the impact on the torture victim himself who bore the brunt of the procedure.
Bringing this back to MM’s assertion, I would maintain that Bush remains better than Clinton. I assert this on the grounds that torture has directly touched fewer lives than abortion has, and done so in a less serious (though certainly still serious) way. We can try to make reparations to torture victims; we cannot for aborted children. Further, Bush’s judicial nominees have cleared the way for more restrictive laws on abortion. While this is not to elevate nominations to an end-all be-all, it is worth noting that even had Clinton appointed appointed half that number of pro-life judges we would have had a different outcome in Carhart and perhaps Casey. Further, without excusing Bush’s own record on ESCR, Clinton (and McCain) favors an expansion of the research that would be much worse.
UPDATE: Obama quotes:
“Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”
“I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don’t make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that’s where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.”
“This bill affects diseases that attack Americans – regardless of their gender, age, economic status, ethnicity, race or political affiliation. This is about a commitment to medical research, under strict federal guidelines. I call on leaders in Illinois and President Bush in Washington to stop playing politics on this critical issue and expand the current policy on embryonic stem cell research so that we can begin finding the cures of tomorrow today.”
“If, on the other hand, the interest is primarily in making political hay by passing ammendments that are broad and which seem to misapply guidelines between services, then we will know this is about politics rather than how we treat detainees”
Some could say the same thing about — say, “partial birth abortion” when it does not stop ONE abortion, and indeed, it gives way to the idea that birth is different from non-birth. It was clear it was a political tool to convince pro-lifers people are doing something for the position of life, but when its guidelines changes nothing — well, what then?
Henry,
So are you arguing that we should not blame people for opposing either the army field manual ammendment or the partial birth abortion ban?
I’ll say this much, I did read articles by pro-lifers at the time the partial birth abortion ban was under discussion in which they argued that it was a bad idea because it banned only the technique and not late term abortions in general — thus granting a point of sorts to the opposition. While I think there was a value in the ban in that it emphasized the barbarism of what pro-choicers have no problem supporting (and probably did slightly decrease very late term abortions by taking one of the methods thereof off the table) I would not blame someone who was otherwise pro-life for opposing the ban on that reasoning. The reason why we blame Clinton for opposing the ban is that he was not otherwise pro-life, he thought it was perfectly fine for that procedure and all other abortion procedures to remain legal and in common use.
To be fair, you seem to blame Bush in this case because you believe that regardless of whether he was right to object to this particular approach to banning certain forms of interrogation, you assume that he’s in favor of torture without limits generally.
Obama’s position on both abortion and embryonic stem cell research seem rather reasonable to me, and, if the Catholic Church REALLY wants to stop both abortion and embryonic stem cell research, she really only has TWO choices: use the coercive force of the law to stop ONLY poorer women from having access to this procedure; or, try to change women’s minds and the culture of feminism ONE WOMAN AT A TIME.
In all the absolutist posturing on this issue, I notice an utter failure to recognise that the “liberal” Democratic position of providing sex education and pre-abortion counseling to young women has ACTUALLY reduced the number of abortions lately, whereas the right-wing Republican politicizing of these issues has done little to halt abortions in the United States. As one Democratic politician put it, “Let’s make abortion legal but rare.” I’d say that the COMPASSIONATE Christian position in the culture we have would be to say, “Amen to that.”
Another indication of the blatant hyprocrisy of the polarizing, “pro-life” political movement in this country is its constant, repeated failure to condemn in-vitro fertilization as an immoral, “anti-life” procedure. It produces scores of zygotes, and I never hear these pulpit-pounding politicians who are the rank-and-file of the “John Paul II” priesthood villify rich white women and their doctors from the pulpit–only legislators and politicians, And I NEVER hear them offer to “funeralize” the zygotes in their churches. If they really cared about changing the “culture of death,” we’d hear a lot more about the evils of artificial insemination and the responsibility of sterile couples to ADOPT, rather than resort to an enormously expensive procedure that results, every year, in innumerable embryos which these priests would rather consign to the dumpster than either use to help sick people or funeralize in their churches.
Could it be that, in demonizing the politicians, and calculatedly holding their tongues about doctors, these pious hypocrites ACTUALLY care more about the checks thrown into their collection baskets than the poor embryos that are being used so “callously” that others might live? I know that, were I an embryo, I’d rather have my body parts used to help another human being than funeralized in some hypocrite cleric’s church.
A dose of reality:
Most people in this country WILL NOT support a repeal of Roe V Wade, nor will Congress vote for it, and, consequently, the Supreme Court will not get involved in any repeal action.
The only way abortions will diminish is when the people who have the opportunity to participate in them decide not to.
The Catholic Church and others who are anti-abortion have FAILED in their arguments to persuade the masses. Only persuasion will work; coercion will not.
Earth to digbydolben, Earth to digbydolben, Come in…
Just as there is a hierarchy of truths, so is there a hierarchy of goods, and hence a hierarchy of violations against those goods. Not all intrinsic evils are equally evil. Lying is intrinsically evil, but it isn’t as evil as torture, which isn’t as evil as abortion. To acknowledge as much in no way means that we are authorized to overlook evils which aren’t *as* evil, any more than we are authorized to ignore some truths (doctrines) which aren’t as central to our faith as others.
How many babies in the U.S.will be actually saved in the 24 years of a GOP presidency, directly since Roe v Wade 35 years ago? What a wonderful track record of real commitment and real change. Need I only mention David Souter. How many actual innocent civilian deaths in the past 4 years were the actually the consequence, direct OR indirect, of the series of events we put into play and should have pudently foressen with our unjust invasion of Iraq?
Will you be giving us those figures? Is it even possible to secure the first group of figures?
Mark D.
I’m not sure what “pudently foressen” means, but I’ll assume you mean prudently foreseen. The answer is that there have been many deaths of consequence. Iraq was a mistake, yet it was a mistake that Clinton supported the invasion. (here)As a point of fact, a great many lives have been saved by Republican actions. Perhaps the most substantial act was the Hyde Amendment that prevented tax dollars from being spent on abortion services; state level action has had similarly beneficial consequences, even when you control for the economy. (here)
I by no means want to suggest that Bush has been perfect — I may not even extend “predominantly good” — on pro-life issues. I merely show that he has been better than Clinton, on the whole. The lesser of two evils is still evil, but its also the one most will vote for.
Is it licit to vote for “the lesser of two evils”? Not if voting entails formal cooperation in evil; then to make such a choice would be an excercise in proportionalism. But votong for a candidate who supports an intrinsically evil act can be remote material cooperaration, assuming you don’t share the evil intent (and it worries me when people here talk of the victims of torture as “homicidal fanatics”- as if that mattered).
In this case, the proportional considerations do not simply go beyond adding up the number of killed unborn versus the number of tortured prisoners; one needs to address proximity. And the proximity of Clinton to the act of abortion (especially partial birth abortion) is more distant than that of Bush to each act of torture. To put it another way, Bush could wave his hand and ged rid of torture. Even if he wanted, Clinton could have little impact on abortion.
Is it licit to vote for the lesser of two evils? I’m inclined to say not, though the Bishops have recently said that you can. It’s something to struggle through in this election as neither candidate is 100% sound on the intrinsically evil issues. That said, my point in bringing it up was simply an acknowledgment that it is the weak analysis that most people use when they vote.
I would agree with you that the proportional considerations do figure in, and it was something I should have added in my brief thoughts. That said, the impact that elected officials can have tends to be understated by the left and overstated by the right. I won’t rehash the arguments here, but anyone following Giuliani’s now defunct candidacy has heard them.
Finally, I’ll leave by firmly disagreeing that even “if he wanted, Clinton could have little impact on abortion.” He had two Supreme Court picks. If he had gone pro-life on both of them (and he could have, it was simply not politically expedient) then Roe would have been overturned by now. That would be no small victory over abortion.
Am I right in observing that there seems to be some kind of equivocation in this article between torture and the death sentence? I agree with Stephen.
Also, to Morning’s Minion who said, ‘Tell that to the Iraquis”–ie that GWB is pro-life. I talked to an Iraqui from Bagdad who is a refugee–he would like to have a statue of GWB made of gold put in the city center in Bagdad. He asked me to tell the Americans ‘thank you.’ You might be surprised how Iraquis feel about it. War is hell–but to many Iraqui’s, worth it for the chance to be free from Saddam–who wasn’t exactly pro-life himself.
I surmise that the children and other innocents caught dead in a civil warlike crossfire, in a land we grossly failed to secure, would say otherwise, if they could tell us how they feel.
Mark
Right about the children (and this is a truth which goes back all the way to the first Iraq war and US policy with Iraq afterwards).
I would also add in response to those who think everything is great in Iraq — talking to one Iraqi in the middle of the city Bush took the greatest effort to make “safe” — is not the same as talking to Iraqis (in plural). For example, I am sure if you talk to bandits who are making a profit in a land of war, you will find people happy about war — the question is not whether some people find themselves in a better position after the US invasion, but 1) what is the situation of the majority of Iraqis and it isn’t so grand 2) why are they looking to Iran if it is so great? 3) why is the majority of the conflits in Iraq with Iraqis and 4) even if the Iraqis were happy with the results, does it make it just? So many people forget criteria for just war indicates that the ends do not justify the means.
[...] started thinking about this yesterday when I stumbled across this post at Vox Nova that basically says water boarding and sticking scissors in the back of a baby’s head are [...]
Perhaps the Iraqi Carole is speaking of is a member of the corrupt Oil Ministry, who are milking the country’s chief resource to send it to the West, rather than using it to electrify the country:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11zorpette.html
Most right-wing American Catholics are in a state of complete denial regarding the colossal villainy that is America’s occupation of Iraq.
…or all those who vultures who are somehow tied to–as Naomi Klein puts it–the new Shock Capitalism, that exploitation or outright production of catastrophe, so that privatization can then swoop in with virtually no resistance and…
If a technicality prevented McCain and others from supporting this ban on torture, they should compose a ban on torture they could support, and support it with utmost haste.
Most left-wing American Catholics are in a state of complete denial regarding the colossal villainy that is America’s abortion on demand rules.
Ipsit dixit reigns supreme!
I beg to differ. We look squarely into the face of the horrid evil but also every day bump painfully up against the complex multitude of factors involved. This effectively strips us of the deception that abortion’s alleviation is primarily a matter of our gathering what candidates for national office tell us are their positions with respect to the proper criteria for Supreme Court nominees.
On Iraq: just read the polls: http://vox-nova.com/2007/09/11/latest-iraqi-poll/
Overview:
63 percent think invasion and occupatio by US was wrong; 80 percent disapprove of what US is doing in Iraq; 57 percent think attacks on occupying troops are acceptable.
And listen to the Church. Bishop Wardani of Baghdad said clearly that life was better under Saddam.
Didn’t Obama veto a “Born Alive Protection Bill” or, in other words, doesn’t he approve of the infanticide of babies born alive following a botched abortion?
MM,
nice little bit of moral equivalency there. I tell you what, if I was a baby about to be aborted I would voluntarily undergo waterboarding every day for a week in order to be reprieved from having a forcep shoved into my skull and my brains vacumed out.
the proximity of Clinton to the act of abortion (especially partial birth abortion) is more distant than that of Bush to each act of torture. To put it another way, Bush could wave his hand and ged rid of torture. Even if he wanted, Clinton could have little impact on abortion.
That’s absolutely ridiculous. Clinton furthered the cause of abortion in his actions by approving funding and by his appointments. You really can’t bring yourself to put the babies ahead of the terrorists can you?
God Bless,
Matt
And this moderate American Catholic knows that overturning Roe v. Wade means that women with means will simply climb on a plane to New York City, and changing minds does far more, in the long run, than legislative or judicial force.
Legislators don’t veto things.
Digby,
My Iraqui friend is a young Catholic 20-something refugee to a European country studying medicine. His cousins are the Iraqui’s in Detroit– you remember the TV footage, the ones who were revelling with joy the day Saddam’s statue came down. I don’t mean to downplay the loss of life/children’s lives that you referred to–but American freedom (Revolutionary War), African American freedom (Civil War), Jewish freedom (WWII) costed exactly that. I for one am grateful for those who laid their lives down so that I could be free. Perhaps one day, the cause of freedom will require my own life as well. Frankly, I’d prefer to be a casualty than be in a world ‘at peace’ but at the expense of my right to govern myself, to follow my conscience, to worship the one true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent, and to lead others to do likewise.
For all the chatter here about American injustice, I’ve seen precious little analysis of the atrocities that were committed against human life in Iraq by the previous regime–these went well beyond waterboarding. It seems as if some people here think the Iraqui’s were just relaxing in a desert oasis in a hammock in those idyllic days. How many more mass graves do you think we might find over there? Would like to see you give equal time to your criticism of Saddam’s policies and methods.
Lastly, as to waterboarding. It looks like, indeed, a terrible suffering, if what I saw on film is what it is–having a pillowcase on your head while they pour water on your face till you are ready to talk. However….you can recover from it. While no doubt it’s an awful experience, it seems much less serious, to me, than being ripped limb from limb till you are dead.
Carole
The ends do not justify the means. Please, repeat after me, the ends do not justify the means. One more time. The ends do not justify the means.
Now why do I say this? Of course we know things were not great in Iraq. However, things are not great in the United States either (millions are killed via abortion, right? would that justify Iran coming into the US and liberating the nation because of its brutal policies against its own?)
To engage in war requires strict rules; there are rules which deal with when one can go to war (the Church said no; and still says no); rules of what one can do when in war (cluster bombs don’t meet that); rules of expectations and conduct after the war (which have not been met). So yes, you can tell us about Iraqis who are living out of Iraq who are not affected by what is happening in Iraq today are so happy to see Saddam gone (which sounds like satisfaction of the desire for revenge, not a Christian thing); but that doesn’t deal with the Iraqis currently in Iraq who experience the chaos and death squads (some from our own soldiers) currently in Iraq now.
Henry,
The Church doesn’t dictate when one can go to war. It isn’t in the war business. The decision to go to war is one that is left to civil authorities. Specifically, when it involves an international conflict, it should be handled by the United Nations. In this case, the United Nations did not insist that our friend Saddam live by the rules that were agreed to when Iraq became a member of the United Nations. The whole point of the UN is to preserve the peace. So what happens when the UN abdicates responsibility?
Pope John Paul II was saying NO to war, it’s true–and seeking from every angle to prevent it, including an un-heeded appeal to Saddam to COOPERATE with the UN weapons inspectors. Saddam could have listened to the Pope–but instead, Saddam chose to play a shell game. Repeat after me, Henry: Saddam didn’t listen to the Pope, or the UN. And the UN did not hold him accountable. Say it again.
The war was avoidable, it’s true–if Saddam had let the weapons inspectors prove his situation. Was American military action justified? You think absolutely not. I’m not absolutely sure. I’d say that is very hard to evaluate in light of Saddam’s non-cooperation with the requirements of the UN–and the testimony of the International Intelligence Community on his possession of WMDs. Standing in the tension of those two things, what was the responsible thing to do–wait and see?
I don’t think my friend’s remark about Saddam was so much satisfaction of desire for revenge–as just plain ole relief.
Carole
“It isn’t in the war business.” Which is why it has many declarations about war. It most certainly IS in the war business because war is a moral issue, and the Church speaks of faith AND morality (which are not really distinct). But in this it is in the war business as a critic of war and the moral voice which declares the justice or lack of justice of war.
“The decision to go to war is one that is left to civil authorities,” but not the decision of the morality or lack of moraity of that war. And if a civil authority decides to engage in war, it doesn’t mean that the war is justified (after all, Saddam himself decided to take on Kuwait; does that mean he was just when he did so? ) Your position is not Catholic, it is in fact, anti-Catholic because it shares in the height of arbitrary morality where it is left for political figures to decide when moral rules apply. OF course, let’s take what you said further; I hope you are against abortion, but is it not another war which is going on, with state-backed authority declaring it just? So I guess you will not do anything against this war against the unborn, will you? Or will you declare the state is in error in this war?
JPII not only said no to war, he also said that there are moral issues to war which must be accepted. The state is not the final decider of morality. Now whether or not Saddam listened to the Pope has no issue on whether or not the war is just. Bush didn’t listen to the Pope (so should Iran invade the US on that? )
Saddam WAS letting the weapon inspectors in; Bush was the one taking them out. The data at the time was clear that Bush only cherry picked those things which supported war; and EVEN IF what Bush said was true about WMDS — that doesn’t a just war make. Repeat after me — there are rules for just war. The “king of the hill” bully syndrome which says “we have them, you can’t and you are a threat” isn’t one.
The same justification Bush used for war was the one Hitler used for war, and the one many tyrants use for war. The state is the final decider. The Church always says otherwise. The Church says when war is justified (when, not at any time) then it is up to the authority of the state to determine if they will go to war (not that it is a necessity). And even IF that happens, that doesn’t make questions of morality in war go away — but makes them that much more central. Thinking war makes them all go away is just an excuse for abuse.
You still have yet to reflect on all the Iraqis IN IRAQ NOW.
[...] that torture is an intrinsic evil. President Bush’s policies on torture are clear: Last March he vetoed a bill that would ban water boarding as a mode of torture in interrogation. I note parenthetically that [...]