Get E-Mail Updates

History Won't Wash Away Torture's Shame

According to a recent article in The Washington Post, the Bush administration has known and approved of "enhanced interrogation techniques," i.e., torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, since 2002, and provided written approval of such techniques to the CIA in 2003 and 2004. For many this is not new information. What is new information is that it seems everyone involved wanted someone else to be held responsible if these techniques ever became public knowledge.

The CIA requested the memos approving of the methods from the administration because they were using them without any written approval and wanted to be sure the administration was not leaving them out to hang if there was ever a public outcry like there was against Abu Ghraib. The Bush administration apparently postponed providing such a memo for more than a year, and still issued only a couple of internal memos total that we know of thus far, to avoid any direct link to the torture at Guantanamo Bay.

Everyone seems to have known that what they were involved in at Guantanamo was wrong, illegal, and immoral, and that if what was happening there ever became public knowledge, there would be a public outcry. That is why the CIA wanted the administration to officially be in bed with them. That is why the administration tried to avoid any official link that demonstrated its knowledge of the torture occurring at Guantanamo. It is why Condoleeza Rice demonstrated hesitancy and reservation about the use of such methods, and why John Ashcroft declared, "History will not judge us kindly." (Even though President Bush has repeatedly reminded us that history will vindicate him and his handling of the Iraq war.)

I am reminded of the story of Pilate. Pilate assumed that because he washed his hands he could remove himself from any guilt of the torture and murder of an innocent man -- even though he knowingly allowed it to happen, and in many ways was directly involved in it. We all know, even as young children in Sunday school, that he was unsuccessful. Pilate is responsible for the torture and murder of Jesus of Nazareth, no matter how hard he tried to avoid public identification with his crucifixion.

When we knowingly allow evil to occur and have the power to stop it, we are guilty of that evil. Martin Luther King Jr. repeatedly reminded us that it is not the evil acts of bad people that perpetuate violence and evil, but the silence of good people to stop it that does so. Many good people remained silent when they had the power to prevent the United States from sinking to a low it had not sunk to in the past, instead of speaking out against it. Let us not be those people today.

Jimmy McCartyJimmy McCarty is a student at Claremont School of Theology studying Christian ethics, a minister serving cross-racially at a church in inner-city Los Angeles, and a servant at a homeless shelter five days a week. He blogs at http://jimmymccarty.wordpress.com/.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 2:03pm

"Do you believe everything you hear in the news? Have you seen those documents?"

Well, using that logic, we have no reason for believing that anyone was tortured at all, do we?

CNN is hardly an apologist for our government. You haven't given any reason why they should be doubted.

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 2:13pm

The photographs from Abu Ghraib, the trial and CONVICTION of some of the service people who committed those CRIMES.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 2:18pm

"The photographs from Abu Ghraib, the trial and CONVICTION of some of the service people who committed those CRIMES."

Coulda been photoshopped. And were you at the trial of those being convicted?

Of course, that's ridiculous. To forge all that and maintain a conspiracy about it just isn't credible. But it's the same with KSM's guilt.

by: behindthecurtain

10-18-2008 @ 2:18pm

Since the first stories of Gitmo and Abu Graig surfaced on treatment of "detainees", back in was it 2004? The IRC, prisoner lawyers, human rights watchdog groups, and other government agencies released regularly reports of how many were there and the status of charges against them. Would you be comfortable knowing someone was detained unjustly for 2,3,4, years with no end in sight to the point that they committed suicide? Anywhere from 70-90% have no evidence against them other than they were caught near or around battles. In fact, many were consequently realeased gradually for lack of evidence against them. Even more sad many were brought in by political factions or associates in the community for magnificent bounty U.S taxpayers were funding to round up all the "sociopathic terrorist."

As for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, you're still not seeing the big picture. It's not just about him. Does his guilt or non-guilt somewhere give us clear advancement to proceed with "interrogation techniques" (catch all for any means necessary), endless detainment during the WOT, military tribunals void of rudimentary Magna Carta rights, etc., etc.?

Will you please appreciate the fact that we depreciate the value of our own Constitutional precepts of human rights when we abuse that of our own citizens and those we imprison in and out of war, far and abroad?

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 2:31pm

IMO, what is ridiculous is your persistent defense of the use of torture. What is ridiculous is to assume that the use of torture or, if you refer the euphemism, 'enhanced interrogation techniques' will have no negative consequences for both the people who torture and the people who condone torture.

As I said before, I plan to serve our Lord overseas. I've already experienced the negative consequences of U.S. arrogance and disregard for the dignity of other countries and people. I don't look forward to having to try to explain why some of my fellow countrymen feel that torture is ever justified

by: behindthecurtain

10-18-2008 @ 2:44pm

Brent wrote:
" I know your zeal has blinded you, but please try to avoid the very careless attention to detail shown by both respondents."

I know you think you know, but your very inattention to details (real evidence) has made your snarky zeal too apparent.

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 3:38pm

"I trust sinful cops to decide to shoot and when to shoot."

Bad analogy.

Police are supposed to use their weapons only when threatened. The police aren't supposed to shoot someone already in custody. The courts, not the police, decide whether or not the person is guilty and what their punishment should be.

by: vp123

10-19-2008 @ 12:39pm

Here's the hypothetical I judge torture by -

Imagine parents coming to a police station saying their 11 yr old girl is missing. She was supposed to walk home from a friends house several hours ago. The friends confirm she left in the correct direction. Police start gathering security tapes and find the little girl on several of them at the appropriate times. The last tape they find her on is from a car wash, focused on the back parking lot. Her they see her talking with a man and then walking away with him, a different direction than she should be going to get home. The tape is now 16 hours old.

On further review, the man in the tape is identified as a previously convicted sex offender towards children who lives within a 3 mile radius. He is arrested but will give the police no information. His home is searched but no sign of the little girl is found. Its now been 24 hours.

How far should we go to extract information from the arrested man?

I find this scenario interesting to think about on several levels.

- We're talking about the life of one girl (not thousands)
- We don't have physical evidence the arrested man talked walked away with the girl, just video
- The arrested man could be my brother
- The daughter could be mine
- At this moment we don't know if the girl is dead or alive

by: behindthecurtain

10-19-2008 @ 1:08pm

Follow the trend of this administration (always enveloped in the spectre of -
"it's all about 9-11") and you will see the undermining of all that was considered sacred to a free people as of only 8 short years ago.

Some off the top of my head:

-rejection of the Geneva Convention and its intent
-evisceration of the Military Code of Conduct
-reinterpretation of the Unitary Executive principle
-warrantless search and seizure (look at "sneak and peak" at what it permits)
-abuse of the President's "signing statements" (essentially making Congress' laws
-void
-Patriot Act I and II

These few examples are not temporary measures to make the country safer, but are glaringly exposed for what they are: A country that has lost its soul, its citizens fooled by the thought that fear of terror brought home to their doorstep (as inevitable as a baby's cry) was reason to dismantle everything.

We, the people must be so ignorant of history, for the signs were there, but so few of us noticed.

by: behindthecurtain

10-19-2008 @ 1:10pm

dlowen-

Thank you for your response, I thought there must've been cross confusion somewhere.

Blessings

by: behindthecurtain

10-19-2008 @ 1:32pm

vp123-

A very fine scenario to illustrate, indeed the quandary of real-life situations. Whether they happen frequently or not, to me, such hypotheticals (ticking time bombs as cited in my opening comment) demonstrates this very point .

Who gets to play God? I'll throw out another grenade into this discussion, late now into the dialogue.

For those too readily embracing the use of torture when they deem it so necessary. Did you ever question your own views of the NT scriptures that describe the eternal, agonizing torment of Hades?

From a psychological perspective, this is where one's indoctrination of this religious doctrine (Hell, a literal place) might lead an adherent to lower the barrier of repulsion. They might indeed promote torture, seeing it as good, as only a zealous "believer" might do.

This thought has perplexed me and struck at the very core of what I used to believe about the person and spirit of the Christian deity.

by: neuro_nurse

10-19-2008 @ 3:24pm

You are describing a "situation ethics" scenario; is doing wrong with the intention of creating a good outcome ever justified? Does the end justify the means?

The Catholic Church along with many other major non-Catholic denominations reject situation ethics and stipulate that doing wrong is NEVER justified.

"The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

"It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it."

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1754 & 1756

Pax Christi

by: behindthecurtain

10-19-2008 @ 4:55pm

neuro_nurse-

I'm not of the RC faith, but the Catechism that you cited, particularly- "One may not do evil so that good may result from it." sounds not only reasonable and principled, but most assuredly difficult to follow, if history is any judge.

Alas, such is our conflict as sovereign human beings with choices that are thrust upon us as good vs. evil will battle it out. I'll admit, that I couldn't predict what actions I might condone to save one or many people in life/death situations.

However, I will never hand over carelessly that same power to leaders who lie and have an agenda which tortures and obliterates life for the powerless to the advantage of the privileged.

Kudos to the Catholic Church for taking a stand!

by: neuro_nurse

10-19-2008 @ 7:33pm

I don't think one necessarily has to be Catholic to appreciate the teachings of the Church. I think one would have a hard time trying to argue that the Church is "liberal."

So many differences of opinion expressed here are based on how one interprets scripture. Within the Church, we're not left to interpret scripture independently, so there isn't a lot of room for argument.

by: behindthecurtain

10-19-2008 @ 8:08pm

Are you defending the Church? I'm not quite following you? Was I making an argument that the RC Church had a tinge of "liberalism"? About the only thing I see as liberal is whether they side with those opposing the war and torture.

I assure you I'm quite aware of the right-wing authoritarian foundation and views that demand complete compliance on such things as: abortion, birth control, and fitness for the priesthood and such. In addition my general view of the Church has been informed by comments from RCC members.

I understand that some folks need that absolute authority to tell them what is moral, ethical, and vital to live a life pleasing to God. They must also know they have absolution for their sins to enjoy the peace of salvation and reward of eternity bliss.

This is where I depart from reliance on such an hierarchy. When my own reason tells me a dictate from any person, government or church conflicts with this inner sense of justice or wisdom, then I'm driven by conscience and autonomy to do MY right thing. As I don't expect to always find agreement among the tangle of verses in scripture open to our biased interpretation. So, also I find conflicts and bias from those placed in authority who have demonstrated ulterior motives.

This is not rebellion or anarchy on my part, but self-preservation of my dignity in this tumultuous world.

by: neuro_nurse

10-19-2008 @ 8:33pm

I didn't take offense at what you wrote; I was only adding some thoughts to the conversation.

I'm quite comfortable being Catholic and find that the teachings of the Church mesh very well with my 'liberal' politics (if one doesn't consider support for abortion to be necessarily 'liberal' - I argue in favor of the civil rights of the fetus!)

I have found that when it comes to arguing a perspective that has been labeled (by those on the right) 'liberal,' I can almost always find the corresponding paragraph(s) in the Catechism that supports my opinions/beliefs/values.

I will admit that I don't always agree with Church teaching - contraception being the most notable exception, but for the most part, I don't feel that the Church is overly 'authoritarian'

by: dongisselbeck

10-19-2008 @ 11:39pm

It's too bad the CIA didn't ask Khalid Sheik Mohammed who was behind the Gunpowder Plot and the Kennedy assaination, he would have confessed.

by: littleroundtop

10-20-2008 @ 12:17am

I have been reading a good book on World War Two . It seems we acctually gave the Nazis information that showed when we wre launching certain bombing raids . Actually giving up the lives of some our own pilots .

This allowed them to send in their airforce to try and stop those bombing missions . This was done and other linked information to make them think their spies were given correct information in reporting , so when false the invasion plans were given to them they beefed up security way noth of Normandy .

What would Jesus do about torture , of course he would be against it . But then again he would be against us getting angry wth each other debating this , he called that murder Remember .
Jesus would be against a thousand things that led us into the war ,
Just seems to me is that war stinks .period . Using certain wrongs and downplaying other wrongs appear to be more political then really concerned about what Jesus would do .

I question the motives of why this is so often brought up , and other issues are down played as being unimportant . Not against speaking out against torture , but if your using Christ as one of your supporters , I would be carefull .

by: neuro_nurse

10-20-2008 @ 12:54am

Who's angry?

Argue: intransitive verb: 1. to give reason for or against something. 2. to contend or disagree in words. trasitive verb: 1. to give evidence of. 2. to consider the pros and cons of. 3. to maintain or try to prove by giving reasons. 4. to persuade by giving reasons.
Webster's

Anger is not mentioned in any of those definitions.

We'd never get anything done with that restriction.

Peace!

by: dlowen

10-18-2008 @ 9:29pm

Please forgive me. The post to which I was responding was BrentH's post. Behindthecurtain's post was completely in line with what I understand to be the teaching of Christ. Here! Here!

My apologies behindthecurtain. (Glad your handle did remind me about our government's response to the Soviet training manuals though.)

by: littleroundtop

10-20-2008 @ 3:56am

Who's angry?

I was not speaking directly regarding your tempermant neuro . You are usually intellectually engaged . I agree , we should be engaged in exchange of thougght and ideas . But say a comment like directed to another brother In Christ . Its above in an exchange with two others . Sounded somewhat angry to me ?
Mick

"Your excuses to do this are as vile as the torture of crowned thorns and Roman whips on the back of any accused Christ or image of God. "

by: letjusticerolldown

10-20-2008 @ 10:13am

"Some rules apply in every case:
One may never do evil so that good may result from it;" Catechism of CC

Does every human action have an inherent judgement attached to it as being "good" or being "evil?" Is locking up a sexual predator beyond their criminal sentence inherently good or inherently evil?

Can one separate the moral nature of the intent, from the act, from the outcome? Can one do right out of evil (or mixed) intent?

If the only justified human action is one that is of 100% righteous intent, 100% pure good in the act, and 100% good in it outcome -- then it is but by God's grace that we live. And that I believe to be true. But it also does not dismiss my obligation to live and act in my very impure processes.

Does the catechism teach that every evil outcome must be allowed to happen unless I can act with pure intent and pure action to stop it??

It the moral situation of the suspected child predator above--if I am the Father of the missing child and believe I see the man--am I allowed to chase, tackle, and pin him to the ground until the police arrive? What if I am not sure it is the man? Can I tackle him hard or do I need to ask him to gently lie down and wait while I give him a back massage?

by: behindthecurtain

10-20-2008 @ 2:22pm

You're allowed to address me directly, if you have issue with the use of my adjectives to make my point. I can take it.

It is not angry to paint a graphic image in the reader's mind. It is honest. What does make me "angry" (not necessary a vice) is when commentators like yourself make by inference "... are usually intellectually engaged ." that I and others are not intellectually engaged because we disagree.

Incidentally, littleroundtop, we are composed of all types here, "brothers", even sisters and some outside your particular faith, as uncomfortable as that might be.

I'll tone my rhetoric down, if you will, o.k.?

by: behindthecurtain

10-20-2008 @ 2:36pm

Thanks, neuro_nurse , as always I respect your honesty on this matter.

You said- "I don't feel that the Church is overly 'authoritarian'

by: behindthecurtain

10-20-2008 @ 2:40pm

Ya, torture's great if one wants to make their God-fearing, sweet grandmother a Muslim terrorist ready to place a briefcase nuclear bomb in the Chase Bank Headquarters in Manhattan.

If that was your point, I agree.

by: behindthecurtain

10-20-2008 @ 2:52pm

If you were the man chased: with a pacemaker, 72 years old, and chronically blessed with dislocation of the cervical vertebre-

What consideration would you want as a suspect?

by: letjusticerolldown

10-20-2008 @ 3:10pm

I would want everyone to leave me alone and pronounce me good.

Or I might feel like I deserve to be shot and end my life.

Or I might want to be arrested and hope the person chasing me is a 71-yr old on dialysis with a central line in his arm that he must protect who will only grab my shirt and not let go.

i.e. I have no clue. The possibilities are endless. Yes the suspect is a person of complete human dignity worthy of love; and very likely the perpetrator of great evil. Very much like a few of the elderly in my state who have been charged with heinous Klan crimes in the 1960's.

I was attempting to raise the issue of the impossibility of pure human goodness with the simultaneous obligation to act ethically and restrain evil.

I attempted to answer your question and would happy to have your reflections.

by: behindthecurtain

10-17-2008 @ 8:37pm

Mr. McCarty reiterated:

"Martin Luther King Jr. repeatedly reminded us that it is not the evil acts of bad people that perpetuate violence and evil, but the silence of good people to stop it that does so."

Perhaps we've heard this so often it has become trite. Sadly, there are some Christians who have anguished over and been horrified by the Christ's passion, but fail to empathize with present day victims of torture.

As McCarty referenced regarding disclosures/non disclosures by the actors in this cover up, I was reminded of something. From the start of all this back in 2003 Bush would appear regularly before the nation addressing questions on torture, warrant less searches, and general concerns raised about perceived illegalities in the DOD, Justice Dept and even Vice Pres Office. Like Gonzales later on in the intelligence and DOJ senate hearings, there was so much evasiveness and double talk, I knew the American people were being lied to.

My greatest fear has been surpassed and I had hoped that other Americans had noticed what was being done in our name and to our country.

by: neuro_nurse

10-20-2008 @ 3:11pm

I don't think we disagree at all.

There are plenty of people out there who are all too willing to let themselves be told what to think and what to do, and too many people out there who are aware of that and are all too willing to use those people. It's not just restricted to religion, of course.

That is why I voiced my concern about the dangers of autonomous interpretations of scripture. The people with the most dangerous ideas about God's will tend to be on the fringes but, unfortunately, some of them have gotten elevated to public office.

You mentioned justice as one of your concerns. I am, or at least, I try to be, highly motivated by the sense of justice I learned from being raised Catholic (parochial school through 9th grade). My 'liberal' politics are a direct extension of the Church's teachings on social justice.

Of course I understand your concerns. Although Christ is the head of the Church, churches are full of and run by sinful women and men. Religion is authoritative, and abuse occurs everywhere. I won't defend the crimes and injustices committed by men within the Church over the last two millenia, but those actions do not affect my beliefs or my faith.

Pax Christi

by: dave008

11-07-2008 @ 5:21am

Dear webmaster,This is Dave from Interracialmatch. I am the Marketing Manager. I am wondering if you have interest in running your own interracial dating site or work-at-home business. We would like to work with you setting it up.You can pick the name for your own interracial dating site, own the domain and brand. ( If you happen to have an extra related domain, that would be great) We take care of all the backend and engineering work. Also customer service work. You can earn money if you can get users registering at your dating site. (if you already have your account, so it would be quite easy for us to get started right away.)You don't have to worry that no one exists at your interracial dating site at the beginning. Your site will share hundreds of thousands of profiles with other interracial sites we have already set up. Your users can immediately contact hundreds of thousands of other users once they register at your dating site.

You can earn money if you have users registering at your site. It is easy to
get users visiting your interracial dating site by doing the followings:

1. Invite friends, friends of your friends to visit your interracial dating
site;
2. Write blogs on popular sites. Think about how to promote your dating site in
smart way;
3. Create friend circle on some social networking sites to get to know more
friends.;
4. Use business card, fly sheet to promote your dating site when joining social
activities; etc.

If you are interested or having any other requirement and thinking, please feel
free to let me know.

Best wishes,

Dave
Marketing Manager
http://www.Interracialmatch.com
Email me: marketingmanager008@gmail.com

by: behindthecurtain

10-20-2008 @ 3:46pm

letjusticerolldown-

And I was only attempting to demonstrate to some who feel (like torture advocates) that the safer, empathetic position for me is to recognize our inability to know everything when we attempt to respond to evil.

Much like cops, who daily play God, dispensing execution over suspects when they take or shoot them, many innocent, vulnerable and confused.

Personally, I'm frequently frightened when I see 25 squad cars and 30 paramilitary-clad cops descend upon a house or one suspect like stormtroopers called out to a international incident. It appears that it's not "cops need to protect themselves against all those dangerous suspects."

Rather, it's citizens of the U.S.A., be afraid because if we (law enforcement post 9-11) deem you suspect we literally have licence to kill you and without cause (we can sort it out later), but YOU ARE dead!

Again, it troubles me when I see so much weight given to authoritarian institutes that the balance is tipped too far, IMHO. Of course, my nature overall rejects overt machismo for its own sake in law enforcement, national initiatives and well, just anything.

Good dialogue all around, thanks all.

by: neuro_nurse

10-20-2008 @ 3:49pm

letjusticerolldown: "Is locking up a sexual predator beyond their criminal sentence inherently good or inherently evil?" "if I am the Father of the missing child and believe I see the man--am I allowed to chase, tackle, and pin him to the ground until the police arrive?" "Does the catechism teach that every evil outcome must be allowed to happen unless I can act with pure intent and pure action to stop it?"

CCC: Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. 2265

CCC: "Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense." 2266

letjusticerolldown: "Can one separate the moral nature of the intent, from the act, from the outcome? Can one do right out of evil (or mixed) intent?"

CCC: "In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action." 1752

CCC: "A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means." 1753

letjusticerolldown: "If the only justified human action is one that is of 100% righteous intent, 100% pure good in the act, and 100% good in it outcome -- then it is but by God's grace that we live."

CCC: "Justification has been merited to us by the Passion of Christ." 2020

CCC: We can have merit in God's sight only because of God's free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man's collaboration. Man's merit is due to God. 2025

(this may come as a shock to those who think that the Church teaches salvation/justification through works

by: behindthecurtain

10-17-2008 @ 8:52pm

Please don't let this discussion evolve into semantics over what torture is and ticking time bombs.

Torture is anything you would not your mother, brother, sister or self subjected to for whatever reason. A person's mind and body were never meant to withstand cold/hot extreme duration, stress positions, repeated asphyxiation in the air passages with water (waterboarding), complete sensory deprivation, repeated long duration of sleep deprivation, repeated long periods of loud sounds, and ones I'm not privy to.
If one thinks this abuse does not result in psychological and physical damage to the vessel created by God? May he forgive the hardened heart of the torturer.

It's beyond callousness to jeer at these concerns and call torture- not harmful. I'd suggest those folk take a course in human physiology and basic psychology.

by: behindthecurtain

10-20-2008 @ 3:52pm

Tried to say "taze" not take or shoot them."

by: carlcopas

10-20-2008 @ 3:58pm

Presumably not "Taize"?
:)

by: behindthecurtain

10-20-2008 @ 4:10pm

Indeed, there are many written and unwritten edicts by the RC Catechism and implied or not in all scriptures. Where does all this lead us? If all the devoted of various religious sects actually knew the entire (I'll call it code) developed in their particular faith, would it make it any easier to follow?

Granted, to those motivated to place their deepest faith in a "church's" pronouncements it will be a more comfortable, satisfying way to maneuver through life.

You have my deepest encouragement and respect to do so.

I guess life is complicated enough and I can't carry that much teaching. I feel like I need to consult the books on Tort law to see if my insurance policy is really protecting me.

by: vp123

10-19-2008 @ 12:39pm

Here's the hypothetical I judge torture by -

Imagine parents coming to a police station saying their 11 yr old girl is missing. She was supposed to walk home from a friends house several hours ago. The friends confirm she left in the correct direction. Police start gathering security tapes and find the little girl on several of them at the appropriate times. The last tape they find her on is from a car wash, focused on the back parking lot. Her they see her talking with a man and then walking away with him, a different direction than she should be going to get home. The tape is now 16 hours old.

On further review, the man in the tape is identified as a previously convicted sex offender towards children who lives within a 3 mile radius. He is arrested but will give the police no information. His home is searched but no sign of the little girl is found. Its now been 24 hours.

How far should we go to extract information from the arrested man?

I find this scenario interesting to think about on several levels.

- We're talking about the life of one girl (not thousands)
- We don't have physical evidence the arrested man talked walked away with the girl, just video
- The arrested man could be my brother
- The daughter could be mine
- At this moment we don't know if the girl is dead or alive

by: behindthecurtain

10-19-2008 @ 1:08pm

Follow the trend of this administration (always enveloped in the spectre of -
"it's all about 9-11") and you will see the undermining of all that was considered sacred to a free people as of only 8 short years ago.

Some off the top of my head:

-rejection of the Geneva Convention and its intent
-evisceration of the Military Code of Conduct
-reinterpretation of the Unitary Executive principle
-warrantless search and seizure (look at "sneak and peak" at what it permits)
-abuse of the President's "signing statements" (essentially making Congress' laws
-void
-Patriot Act I and II

These few examples are not temporary measures to make the country safer, but are glaringly exposed for what they are: A country that has lost its soul, its citizens fooled by the thought that fear of terror brought home to their doorstep (as inevitable as a baby's cry) was reason to dismantle everything.

We, the people must be so ignorant of history, for the signs were there, but so few of us noticed.

by: behindthecurtain

10-19-2008 @ 1:10pm

dlowen-

Thank you for your response, I thought there must've been cross confusion somewhere.

Blessings

by: behindthecurtain

10-20-2008 @ 4:25pm

Ah, yes, I was making an homonymic use of that word taze/taize to subliminally suggest the value of ecumenical communities and their value for law enforcement technigues ( a kinder, gentler, modus operandi).

O.K., I wasn't you got me, I did mean "taze", like in "Taze him, Dano."

by: behindthecurtain

10-19-2008 @ 1:32pm

vp123-

A very fine scenario to illustrate, indeed the quandary of real-life situations. Whether they happen frequently or not, to me, such hypotheticals (ticking time bombs as cited in my opening comment) demonstrates this very point .

Who gets to play God? I'll throw out another grenade into this discussion, late now into the dialogue.

For those too readily embracing the use of torture when they deem it so necessary. Did you ever question your own views of the NT scriptures that describe the eternal, agonizing torment of Hades?

From a psychological perspective, this is where one's indoctrination of this religious doctrine (Hell, a literal place) might lead an adherent to lower the barrier of repulsion. They might indeed promote torture, seeing it as good, as only a zealous "believer" might do.

This thought has perplexed me and struck at the very core of what I used to believe about the person and spirit of the Christian deity.

by: letjusticerolldown

10-20-2008 @ 4:37pm

I appreciate the catechism. I am not looking for a loophole to torture; but I also do not believe catechism answers the underlying ethical issues. In fact, I do not think there is a systematic theology that can answer.

The Answer was most revealed in the person of Jesus. The Word dwelt among us. And the answers are most fully worked out in the Body of Christ working out its salvation. And that, in its most perfected form here, is not 100% pure in intent, action or outcome.

Yet we cannot cease to live, act, exercise dominion, struggle against sin and death, lead lives of peace, love God, love neighbor, do justice, love mercy or walk humbly with God.

We live things out even while the consequences of sin plague our lives. Every president and every person makes daily decisions about our impure motivations, our broken actions and painful outcomes. Arguments such as the "end does not justify the means" are very instructive for our lives -- but they are not an apprehension of full Truth -- and they are instructive on working towards a conclusion--but they are not adequate conclusions.

And that is OK.

I would likely have to study thoroughly the teachings on conscience to more fairly respond to the Catholic Church's teachings on how to act as imperfect moral agents.

by: letjusticerolldown

10-20-2008 @ 4:40pm

Blessings today.

by: neuro_nurse

10-19-2008 @ 3:24pm

You are describing a "situation ethics" scenario; is doing wrong with the intention of creating a good outcome ever justified? Does the end justify the means?

The Catholic Church along with many other major non-Catholic denominations reject situation ethics and stipulate that doing wrong is NEVER justified.

"The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

"It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it."

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1754 & 1756

Pax Christi

by: neuro_nurse

10-20-2008 @ 4:42pm

The "rules" are really pretty simple. Christ's teachings tend to contradict human nature - what Paul called the flesh.

It only gets complicated when we start looking for those loopholes to satisfy those desires of the flesh.

by: neuro_nurse

10-20-2008 @ 4:56pm

"I also do not believe catechism answers the underlying ethical issues."

You shouldn't expect to find the answers in the few paragraphs from the Catechism I've posted. They were drawn from much more detailed sections related to the questions you've raised.

"In fact, I do not think there is a systematic theology that can answer."

Does that include Christianity? Studying God's Word is, by definition, theology.

"Arguments such as the "end does not justify the means" are very instructive for our lives -- but they are not an apprehension of full Truth -- and they are instructive on working towards a conclusion--but they are not adequate conclusions."

I thoroughly disagree, but you don't have to take my word for it. Most mainline Christian denominations reject teleologic ethics.

Yes, we are imperfect creatures, we are sinful. We're not expected to be perfect and act as perfect moral operators

by: behindthecurtain

10-19-2008 @ 4:55pm

neuro_nurse-

I'm not of the RC faith, but the Catechism that you cited, particularly- "One may not do evil so that good may result from it." sounds not only reasonable and principled, but most assuredly difficult to follow, if history is any judge.

Alas, such is our conflict as sovereign human beings with choices that are thrust upon us as good vs. evil will battle it out. I'll admit, that I couldn't predict what actions I might condone to save one or many people in life/death situations.

However, I will never hand over carelessly that same power to leaders who lie and have an agenda which tortures and obliterates life for the powerless to the advantage of the privileged.

Kudos to the Catholic Church for taking a stand!

by: behindthecurtain

10-20-2008 @ 5:09pm

I'll support you emphatically that a good follower of teachings derived from any religion will bear better fruit than "let your conscience be your guide." Many choices I have made (not all) were influenced by Bible stories and sermons heard from many years in Sunday School and church.

So, from a practical standpoint don't pitch out religion, too quickly- I agree.

Contra wise to my view, (you discerned properly) saying particularly in the last conjunction-

"I won't defend the crimes and injustices committed by men within the Church over the last two millenia, but those actions do not affect my beliefs or my faith."

Yet, it does affect my faith.There are too many irrationalists, perpetuating too many biases with attending agendas and so few detached thinkers calling the shots.

I could illustrate how this defiles the faith I once thought had value to change hearts and MINDS from all political spectres, and thus change the world. However, viewing the struggle of humankind's propensity for rule by emotion, devoid of reality- That once cherished certainty- "faith trumps all" has been destroyed.

What freedom to finally see for myself after many years, there is a limited value in belief, only if rationality (given presumably by God) is not rejected.

In our current political contest if one needs concrete examples of how "belief" can cloud thinking, there are numerous examples to which I will not allude.

Why would I find solace in reliance upon authoritarian-based, patriarchal traditions which don't work as well as a humanist, rational paradigm?

Greater thinkers than I have discussed this for millenia, without satisfaction.

by: letjusticerolldown

10-20-2008 @ 5:32pm

I think I am not communicating very well. I was originally responding to your response to the ethical question posed by vp123. It seems you are taking my questions as an attempt to excuse unethical behavior.

In simplest terms I am raising your last point that we do not act as perfect moral operators.

So just as an evil action is not justified by a good outcome; neither is the action ruled out because it is imperfect. Because there is not a perfect moral operator.

I am just noting there is a limit to the application of the teaching. If you conclude that the only action that be taken is the morally pure action; then no action is ever undertaken. And that too is immoral.

To acknowledge the limits is to not dismiss the teachings. Part of apprehending truth (to the degree we can) is the recognition of its limits--otherwise we push it to where it is not true.

Likewise good actions

by: neuro_nurse

10-19-2008 @ 7:33pm

I don't think one necessarily has to be Catholic to appreciate the teachings of the Church. I think one would have a hard time trying to argue that the Church is "liberal."

So many differences of opinion expressed here are based on how one interprets scripture. Within the Church, we're not left to interpret scripture independently, so there isn't a lot of room for argument.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: behindthecurtain

10-17-2008 @ 8:37pm

Mr. McCarty reiterated:

"Martin Luther King Jr. repeatedly reminded us that it is not the evil acts of bad people that perpetuate violence and evil, but the silence of good people to stop it that does so."

Perhaps we've heard this so often it has become trite. Sadly, there are some Christians who have anguished over and been horrified by the Christ's passion, but fail to empathize with present day victims of torture.

As McCarty referenced regarding disclosures/non disclosures by the actors in this cover up, I was reminded of something. From the start of all this back in 2003 Bush would appear regularly before the nation addressing questions on torture, warrant less searches, and general concerns raised about perceived illegalities in the DOD, Justice Dept and even Vice Pres Office. Like Gonzales later on in the intelligence and DOJ senate hearings, there was so much evasiveness and double talk, I knew the American people were being lied to.

My greatest fear has been surpassed and I had hoped that other Americans had noticed what was being done in our name and to our country.

by: behindthecurtain

10-17-2008 @ 8:37pm

Mr. McCarty reiterated:

"Martin Luther King Jr. repeatedly reminded us that it is not the evil acts of bad people that perpetuate violence and evil, but the silence of good people to stop it that does so."

Perhaps we've heard this so often it has become trite. Sadly, there are some Christians who have anguished over and been horrified by the Christ's passion, but fail to empathize with present day victims of torture.

As McCarty referenced regarding disclosures/non disclosures by the actors in this cover up, I was reminded of something. From the start of all this back in 2003 Bush would appear regularly before the nation addressing questions on torture, warrant less searches, and general concerns raised about perceived illegalities in the DOD, Justice Dept and even Vice Pres Office. Like Gonzales later on in the intelligence and DOJ senate hearings, there was so much evasiveness and double talk, I knew the American people were being lied to.

My greatest fear has been surpassed and I had hoped that other Americans had noticed what was being done in our name and to our country.

by: behindthecurtain

10-17-2008 @ 8:52pm

Please don't let this discussion evolve into semantics over what torture is and ticking time bombs.

Torture is anything you would not your mother, brother, sister or self subjected to for whatever reason. A person's mind and body were never meant to withstand cold/hot extreme duration, stress positions, repeated asphyxiation in the air passages with water (waterboarding), complete sensory deprivation, repeated long duration of sleep deprivation, repeated long periods of loud sounds, and ones I'm not privy to.
If one thinks this abuse does not result in psychological and physical damage to the vessel created by God? May he forgive the hardened heart of the torturer.

It's beyond callousness to jeer at these concerns and call torture- not harmful. I'd suggest those folk take a course in human physiology and basic psychology.

by: behindthecurtain

10-17-2008 @ 8:52pm

Please don't let this discussion evolve into semantics over what torture is and ticking time bombs.

Torture is anything you would not your mother, brother, sister or self subjected to for whatever reason. A person's mind and body were never meant to withstand cold/hot extreme duration, stress positions, repeated asphyxiation in the air passages with water (waterboarding), complete sensory deprivation, repeated long duration of sleep deprivation, repeated long periods of loud sounds, and ones I'm not privy to.
If one thinks this abuse does not result in psychological and physical damage to the vessel created by God? May he forgive the hardened heart of the torturer.

It's beyond callousness to jeer at these concerns and call torture- not harmful. I'd suggest those folk take a course in human physiology and basic psychology.

by: wayouthere

10-18-2008 @ 12:50am

I think Time magazine said President Bush prayed and read from the Bible every morning. I could not understand how he could do that and at the same time kill people from the land of the Bible, disfigure people from the land of the Bible, make orphans of people from the land of the Bible and torture people from the land of the Bible. All because he wanted the oil from the land of the Bible I guess.

by: wayouthere

10-18-2008 @ 12:50am

I think Time magazine said President Bush prayed and read from the Bible every morning. I could not understand how he could do that and at the same time kill people from the land of the Bible, disfigure people from the land of the Bible, make orphans of people from the land of the Bible and torture people from the land of the Bible. All because he wanted the oil from the land of the Bible I guess.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 12:53am

"Torture is anything you would not your mother, brother, sister or self subjected to for whatever reason."

Well, if my brother, mother, sister, or I was a sociopathic terrorist who lived a life of killing and endangering civilians, and he held information vital to stop the killing of a lot more innocent civilians, then waterboarding, mock executions, and sleep deprivation do not meet the definition of torture for me. Even if it was someone of my family, I do realize there is a point where someone forfeits the right to be treated with dignity. The lives of innocent civilians who are made in God's image have a much higher priority than the psychological well-being of people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who certianly have earned the death penalty.

Have abuses occured? Absolutely. The cases where these things should be used should be rare. But never? I won't go that far.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 12:53am

"Torture is anything you would not your mother, brother, sister or self subjected to for whatever reason."

Well, if my brother, mother, sister, or I was a sociopathic terrorist who lived a life of killing and endangering civilians, and he held information vital to stop the killing of a lot more innocent civilians, then waterboarding, mock executions, and sleep deprivation do not meet the definition of torture for me. Even if it was someone of my family, I do realize there is a point where someone forfeits the right to be treated with dignity. The lives of innocent civilians who are made in God's image have a much higher priority than the psychological well-being of people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who certianly have earned the death penalty.

Have abuses occured? Absolutely. The cases where these things should be used should be rare. But never? I won't go that far.

by: letjusticerolldown

10-18-2008 @ 1:40am

What is new information is that it seems everyone involved wanted someone else to be held responsible if these techniques ever became public knowledge.

Maybe everyone involved wished to fulfill their responsibilities up and down a chain of command.

What is the basis for assigning motivations to conversations and actions from six years ago? Are the comments of involved persons casting a negative light on other involved persons by chance at all suspect?

Frankly, with so many failures chaos and destruction in this decade--it is a wee bit assuring that parties involved in, at best, cruel and harsh conduct sought authorization up the chain of command.

by: letjusticerolldown

10-18-2008 @ 1:40am

What is new information is that it seems everyone involved wanted someone else to be held responsible if these techniques ever became public knowledge.

Maybe everyone involved wished to fulfill their responsibilities up and down a chain of command.

What is the basis for assigning motivations to conversations and actions from six years ago? Are the comments of involved persons casting a negative light on other involved persons by chance at all suspect?

Frankly, with so many failures chaos and destruction in this decade--it is a wee bit assuring that parties involved in, at best, cruel and harsh conduct sought authorization up the chain of command.

by: SkipinPT

10-18-2008 @ 6:02am

When the Torah taught "An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth," The point wasn't
get all the revenge you can before crossing the line. The point was to eliminate
the possibility of escalation, and the horrific affects of escalation on the individuals and
the communities in which they lived (physical and phychological and social).

Then Jesus reinterpreted for the crowd: But I say to you love your enemy and pray for those
who persecute you.

Governments are not called to obey this but the followers of Jesus are.
And this is not just to protect our enemies from us but it is to protect us from what
happens to us, what we become when we are willing to torture (or kill, IMO) another
human made in the image of God.

The Kingdom of God is the Cross. And Jesus is our Poster Child: not saving his life
but willingly losing it.

by: SkipinPT

10-18-2008 @ 6:02am

When the Torah taught "An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth," The point wasn't
get all the revenge you can before crossing the line. The point was to eliminate
the possibility of escalation, and the horrific affects of escalation on the individuals and
the communities in which they lived (physical and phychological and social).

Then Jesus reinterpreted for the crowd: But I say to you love your enemy and pray for those
who persecute you.

Governments are not called to obey this but the followers of Jesus are.
And this is not just to protect our enemies from us but it is to protect us from what
happens to us, what we become when we are willing to torture (or kill, IMO) another
human made in the image of God.

The Kingdom of God is the Cross. And Jesus is our Poster Child: not saving his life
but willingly losing it.

by: dlowen

10-18-2008 @ 12:38pm

I know that there are many who believe as Behindthecurtain above. All I can say is shame on you for letting your fear drive you to the point of doing whatever is necessary to make you feel safe and not letting love drive you to do what is right.

How ironic that you have chosen this moniker. Our government considered all of these "enhanced interrogation methods" to be torture when they were found in the old Cold War Soviet Union training manuals. As Christians, even as citizens of this great nation, we must stand up against the creation of an American gulag.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -- Ben Franklin

by: dlowen

10-18-2008 @ 12:38pm

I know that there are many who believe as Behindthecurtain above. All I can say is shame on you for letting your fear drive you to the point of doing whatever is necessary to make you feel safe and not letting love drive you to do what is right.

How ironic that you have chosen this moniker. Our government considered all of these "enhanced interrogation methods" to be torture when they were found in the old Cold War Soviet Union training manuals. As Christians, even as citizens of this great nation, we must stand up against the creation of an American gulag.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -- Ben Franklin

by: dlowen

10-18-2008 @ 12:44pm

Sorry, I realized the above is not a quote, but a paraphrase. The quote is:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

by: dlowen

10-18-2008 @ 12:44pm

Sorry, I realized the above is not a quote, but a paraphrase. The quote is:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

by: behindthecurtain

10-18-2008 @ 1:18pm

You are the king of rationalizations to justify cruelty against most of whom have only been accused- not convicted or proven to be the (as you put it) "sociopathic terrorists." How very Constitutionally American you are. Your excuses to do this are as vile as the torture of crowned thorns and Roman whips on the back of any accused Christ or image of God.

I 'll propose a mental hypothetical so that you might see a more empathetic view of torture's horror. Incidently, the failure in any argument for /against an issue is usually assured if one can never mentally switch positions (in this case imagine YOU have been snatched up by an occupational army/or even your own government).

It's so easy to pronounce callous dictates on who should be tortured, for what reasons and by whom. I'll ask you directly to swith positions for a moment: (hypothetical):

I sincerely believe it would serve my political, financial and hedonistic desire to see you sit before me, under my power to inflict upon you whatever sadistic techniques I can come up with. I don't like the way you dress, talk, worship God, or the party you ascribe to. You're a... is mine so to speak. Furthermore, to me it's irrelevant whether you're really a bad person or not, besides I'm enjoying seeing you cringe, bound naked before the gaping mouth of my vicious dogs snapping inches from your manhood. I'm not to worry either, for most of my friends and even government have directly or indirectly given tacit approval of what I'm doing.

I won't go on. Either you get it or I will go out on a limb here and conclude from your earlier response to my comments on torture that you actually think that such minimizing the effects of one human's complete, cruel control over another is Christworthy and proven effective.

There is one God- I'm too afraid to play that role. Why aren't you?

History is replete with governments that lie to their people about anything, in a fog of appeals to national security interest insulated by non-disclosure, unaccountability and greed. America (if you look) is no exception. Read and see, so you will not perpetuate the horrors you endorse.

by: behindthecurtain

10-18-2008 @ 1:18pm

You are the king of rationalizations to justify cruelty against most of whom have only been accused- not convicted or proven to be the (as you put it) "sociopathic terrorists." How very Constitutionally American you are. Your excuses to do this are as vile as the torture of crowned thorns and Roman whips on the back of any accused Christ or image of God.

I 'll propose a mental hypothetical so that you might see a more empathetic view of torture's horror. Incidently, the failure in any argument for /against an issue is usually assured if one can never mentally switch positions (in this case imagine YOU have been snatched up by an occupational army/or even your own government).

It's so easy to pronounce callous dictates on who should be tortured, for what reasons and by whom. I'll ask you directly to swith positions for a moment: (hypothetical):

I sincerely believe it would serve my political, financial and hedonistic desire to see you sit before me, under my power to inflict upon you whatever sadistic techniques I can come up with. I don't like the way you dress, talk, worship God, or the party you ascribe to. You're a... is mine so to speak. Furthermore, to me it's irrelevant whether you're really a bad person or not, besides I'm enjoying seeing you cringe, bound naked before the gaping mouth of my vicious dogs snapping inches from your manhood. I'm not to worry either, for most of my friends and even government have directly or indirectly given tacit approval of what I'm doing.

I won't go on. Either you get it or I will go out on a limb here and conclude from your earlier response to my comments on torture that you actually think that such minimizing the effects of one human's complete, cruel control over another is Christworthy and proven effective.

There is one God- I'm too afraid to play that role. Why aren't you?

History is replete with governments that lie to their people about anything, in a fog of appeals to national security interest insulated by non-disclosure, unaccountability and greed. America (if you look) is no exception. Read and see, so you will not perpetuate the horrors you endorse.

by: letjusticerolldown

10-18-2008 @ 1:18pm

My disconnected mind is not following from behindthecurtain's post to your response. Could you give a couple more sentences explaining?

by: letjusticerolldown

10-18-2008 @ 1:18pm

My disconnected mind is not following from behindthecurtain's post to your response. Could you give a couple more sentences explaining?

by: behindthecurtain

10-18-2008 @ 1:25pm

To all concerned on this topic, if I haven't been clear-

Read this: TORTURE DOESN'T WORK AND WE HUMANS BECOME LESS THAN HUMAN WHEN WE TORTURE!

Praying and hoping for a less-cruel world.

by: behindthecurtain

10-18-2008 @ 1:25pm

To all concerned on this topic, if I haven't been clear-

Read this: TORTURE DOESN'T WORK AND WE HUMANS BECOME LESS THAN HUMAN WHEN WE TORTURE!

Praying and hoping for a less-cruel world.

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 1:26pm

What evidence do you have that the people whose torture you condone are guilty of those crimes? Have any of them ever been convicted of a crime, or are they not entitled to basic human rights and dignity because they are suspected of being terrorists?

There was an article in Christianity Today a couple of years ago about why torture is always wrong. I don't remember all of the reasons, but one of them was that puts too much trust in government.

If we accept your premise, are people who have the means and license to torture others trustworthy enough to decide who should be tortured and who should not?

I reject your premise that anyone could ever forfeit their right to dignity. It is contrary not only to the laws of this country, but also to the fundamental principles of Christianity. My rejection of your premise is not based solely on my opinion or feelings, but on the teachings of the Catholic Church. http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chp...

I can with all certainty tell you that you are wrong.

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 1:26pm

What evidence do you have that the people whose torture you condone are guilty of those crimes? Have any of them ever been convicted of a crime, or are they not entitled to basic human rights and dignity because they are suspected of being terrorists?

There was an article in Christianity Today a couple of years ago about why torture is always wrong. I don't remember all of the reasons, but one of them was that puts too much trust in government.

If we accept your premise, are people who have the means and license to torture others trustworthy enough to decide who should be tortured and who should not?

I reject your premise that anyone could ever forfeit their right to dignity. It is contrary not only to the laws of this country, but also to the fundamental principles of Christianity. My rejection of your premise is not based solely on my opinion or feelings, but on the teachings of the Catholic Church. http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chp...

I can with all certainty tell you that you are wrong.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 1:33pm

"You are the king of rationalizations to justify cruelty against most of whom have only been accused- not convicted or proven to be the (as you put it) "sociopathic terrorists." "

So you actually think Khalid Sheik Mohammed isn't guilty?

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 1:33pm

"You are the king of rationalizations to justify cruelty against most of whom have only been accused- not convicted or proven to be the (as you put it) "sociopathic terrorists." "

So you actually think Khalid Sheik Mohammed isn't guilty?

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 1:37pm

What evidence do you have that he is? Cite your sources.

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 1:37pm

What evidence do you have that he is? Cite your sources.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 1:39pm

"What evidence do you have that the people whose torture you condone are guilty of those crimes? Have any of them ever been convicted of a crime, or are they not entitled to basic human rights and dignity because they are suspected of being terrorists?"

Same question I posed above- do you actually think Khalid Sheik Mohammed isn't guilty? That's beyond any rational doubt. And everyone, I know your zeal has blinded you, but please try to avoid the very careless attention to detail shown by both respondents. These cases where more extreme interrogation tactics should be used should be rare, and only for the hard-core whose depraved guilt is beyond doubt.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 1:39pm

"What evidence do you have that the people whose torture you condone are guilty of those crimes? Have any of them ever been convicted of a crime, or are they not entitled to basic human rights and dignity because they are suspected of being terrorists?"

Same question I posed above- do you actually think Khalid Sheik Mohammed isn't guilty? That's beyond any rational doubt. And everyone, I know your zeal has blinded you, but please try to avoid the very careless attention to detail shown by both respondents. These cases where more extreme interrogation tactics should be used should be rare, and only for the hard-core whose depraved guilt is beyond doubt.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 1:51pm

It's embarrassing that I'm even having to point out a fact that is so conspicuous and well established.:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/15/guantanamo.moh...

"Mohammed claimed he was tortured while in CIA custody, but he told the judge he was speaking freely at the hearing."

Money quote

He's confessed to just about everything, admitted to being a top leader in Al Aqueda, and there are documents that establish this.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 1:51pm

It's embarrassing that I'm even having to point out a fact that is so conspicuous and well established.:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/15/guantanamo.moh...

"Mohammed claimed he was tortured while in CIA custody, but he told the judge he was speaking freely at the hearing."

Money quote

He's confessed to just about everything, admitted to being a top leader in Al Aqueda, and there are documents that establish this.

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 1:54pm

Do you believe everything you hear in the news? Have you seen those documents?

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 1:54pm

Do you believe everything you hear in the news? Have you seen those documents?

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 1:56pm

Do you trust sinful men to decide when to torture and when not to torture?

Again, I completely reject your premise that torture is ever justified.

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 1:56pm

Do you trust sinful men to decide when to torture and when not to torture?

Again, I completely reject your premise that torture is ever justified.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 1:59pm

"Do you trust sinful men to decide when to torture and when not to torture?"

Yep, just as I trust sinful cops to decide to shoot and when to shoot.

"Again, I completely reject your premise that torture is ever justified."

You haven't refuted it, though.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 1:59pm

"Do you trust sinful men to decide when to torture and when not to torture?"

Yep, just as I trust sinful cops to decide to shoot and when to shoot.

"Again, I completely reject your premise that torture is ever justified."

You haven't refuted it, though.

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 2:02pm

Refute what? That torture is morally wrong?

I stand by the Church's teaching on that one.

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 2:02pm

Refute what? That torture is morally wrong?

I stand by the Church's teaching on that one.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 2:03pm

"Do you believe everything you hear in the news? Have you seen those documents?"

Well, using that logic, we have no reason for believing that anyone was tortured at all, do we?

CNN is hardly an apologist for our government. You haven't given any reason why they should be doubted.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 2:03pm

"Do you believe everything you hear in the news? Have you seen those documents?"

Well, using that logic, we have no reason for believing that anyone was tortured at all, do we?

CNN is hardly an apologist for our government. You haven't given any reason why they should be doubted.

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 2:13pm

The photographs from Abu Ghraib, the trial and CONVICTION of some of the service people who committed those CRIMES.

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 2:13pm

The photographs from Abu Ghraib, the trial and CONVICTION of some of the service people who committed those CRIMES.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 2:18pm

"The photographs from Abu Ghraib, the trial and CONVICTION of some of the service people who committed those CRIMES."

Coulda been photoshopped. And were you at the trial of those being convicted?

Of course, that's ridiculous. To forge all that and maintain a conspiracy about it just isn't credible. But it's the same with KSM's guilt.

by: BrentH

10-18-2008 @ 2:18pm

"The photographs from Abu Ghraib, the trial and CONVICTION of some of the service people who committed those CRIMES."

Coulda been photoshopped. And were you at the trial of those being convicted?

Of course, that's ridiculous. To forge all that and maintain a conspiracy about it just isn't credible. But it's the same with KSM's guilt.

by: behindthecurtain

10-18-2008 @ 2:18pm

Since the first stories of Gitmo and Abu Graig surfaced on treatment of "detainees", back in was it 2004? The IRC, prisoner lawyers, human rights watchdog groups, and other government agencies released regularly reports of how many were there and the status of charges against them. Would you be comfortable knowing someone was detained unjustly for 2,3,4, years with no end in sight to the point that they committed suicide? Anywhere from 70-90% have no evidence against them other than they were caught near or around battles. In fact, many were consequently realeased gradually for lack of evidence against them. Even more sad many were brought in by political factions or associates in the community for magnificent bounty U.S taxpayers were funding to round up all the "sociopathic terrorist."

As for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, you're still not seeing the big picture. It's not just about him. Does his guilt or non-guilt somewhere give us clear advancement to proceed with "interrogation techniques" (catch all for any means necessary), endless detainment during the WOT, military tribunals void of rudimentary Magna Carta rights, etc., etc.?

Will you please appreciate the fact that we depreciate the value of our own Constitutional precepts of human rights when we abuse that of our own citizens and those we imprison in and out of war, far and abroad?

by: behindthecurtain

10-18-2008 @ 2:18pm

Since the first stories of Gitmo and Abu Graig surfaced on treatment of "detainees", back in was it 2004? The IRC, prisoner lawyers, human rights watchdog groups, and other government agencies released regularly reports of how many were there and the status of charges against them. Would you be comfortable knowing someone was detained unjustly for 2,3,4, years with no end in sight to the point that they committed suicide? Anywhere from 70-90% have no evidence against them other than they were caught near or around battles. In fact, many were consequently realeased gradually for lack of evidence against them. Even more sad many were brought in by political factions or associates in the community for magnificent bounty U.S taxpayers were funding to round up all the "sociopathic terrorist."

As for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, you're still not seeing the big picture. It's not just about him. Does his guilt or non-guilt somewhere give us clear advancement to proceed with "interrogation techniques" (catch all for any means necessary), endless detainment during the WOT, military tribunals void of rudimentary Magna Carta rights, etc., etc.?

Will you please appreciate the fact that we depreciate the value of our own Constitutional precepts of human rights when we abuse that of our own citizens and those we imprison in and out of war, far and abroad?

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 2:31pm

IMO, what is ridiculous is your persistent defense of the use of torture. What is ridiculous is to assume that the use of torture or, if you refer the euphemism, 'enhanced interrogation techniques' will have no negative consequences for both the people who torture and the people who condone torture.

As I said before, I plan to serve our Lord overseas. I've already experienced the negative consequences of U.S. arrogance and disregard for the dignity of other countries and people. I don't look forward to having to try to explain why some of my fellow countrymen feel that torture is ever justified

by: neuro_nurse

10-18-2008 @ 2:31pm

IMO, what is ridiculous is your persistent defense of the use of torture. What is ridiculous is to assume that the use of torture or, if you refer the euphemism, 'enhanced interrogation techniques' will have no negative consequences for both the people who torture and the people who condone torture.

As I said before, I plan to serve our Lord overseas. I've already experienced the negative consequences of U.S. arrogance and disregard for the dignity of other countries and people. I don't look forward to having to try to explain why some of my fellow countrymen feel that torture is ever justified