Get E-Mail Updates

Torture: A Crime that Requires a Verdict

Dear President Obama,

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

War No More

Ten years. Thousands of lives. Billions of dollars.

Thank you for making the four memos approving of and describing the torture done to children of God in our name public even though many pleaded for you not to. Thank you for letting me know that my tax dollars were used to torture those carrying God's image. I have known we made helpless people think they were drowning for a while now, but now I know we kept some awake for almost two weeks straight. Now I know we put collars around the necks of defenseless people and slammed their heads into walls. And now I know we put people in boxes so small they couldn't move and put insects in those boxes the prisoners thought could seriously injure them with no way of escape.

We cannot know what we need to repent of without knowing what sins we have committed. Thank you for letting me know. Now I pray that we as a nation ask for God's forgiveness for what we, because of our fear and complacency, allowed to happen in our name and work to ensure it never happens again.

Thank you also for vowing that we will never do this again. As a Christian I know God declares these actions completely sinful. There is no theological or ethical justification for torturing another human being. In doing so we demonstrated that we place our faith not in God, or some abstract notion of justice or liberty, but in violence and power. These foundations will not sustain us. Those who live by the sword die by it, and I am now afraid that we have lived by torture so long that we will also die by torture. We must never torture again, and we must work to make amends for the sins we have already committed.

I am not in complete agreement with what you have said, however. You have said no one will be held accountable for the acts of torture because they were approved by the justice department. While I understand the premise of your reasoning, I think it is wrong.

Perhaps those interrogators who physically administered the acts of torture were following orders, but those who gave them were not. They made a decision to pervert justice. Those in the know have not apologized for their conduct or admitted it was wrong; in fact they have vehemently defended it. What they did was illegal according to multiple international treaties and laws. We have prosecuted people from other nations for doing the exact same things we did. We cannot sweep this under the rug. While it may be deemed unnecessary, or impractical, to prosecute all involved from the top down, someone must be held responsible. Those officials that perverted our previously agreed upon notions of justice must be held responsible.

There must be an independent commission of inquiry into the actions of the Bush administration. Everyone, from former President Bush and former Vice-president Dick Cheney down to the justice department, who made the decisions to approve of torture must be brought before the American public and be held responsible. It is the only way the rest of the world will believe we have discarded these evil methods and know we are no longer a nation that tortures. Not to do so is to be complicit in the cover-up of the ways we have sinned and the perpetuation of that reputation of us throughout the world.

It is a sad day in American history. May God have mercy on us.

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 jimmymccarty.wordpress.com.

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

by: 1Grace

04-20-2009 @ 11:51pm

"Hammerud, I am having some trouble picturing a probable scenario "

JoannaCW I agree with you that torture is morally wrong . But I do not understand your inability to consider what you would do say if say there was a known terrorist , who knew when the next 9/11 was , or knew of even a smaller terrorist plot why some would consider it the lesser of two evils to torture the information out of the person . Inorder to save a multitude of lives .

I would say it was wrong , if you need to say it was Un Christian do so , I rather Hope God never puts me into a position where i know the person has information that could save many lives and I had complete control of that person and what I could do about it .

I see where we as a nation need to stand up to torture , agree we will not go there , but the fact that one side thinks they are more Christian then the other in this debate just sort of goes over my head . To me its not what Jesus would do in this situation , its more but for the Grace of God Thank you Lord , I don't have to deal with it .

Knowing a person giving information could save possibly thousands of lives must be hard on anyone .

by: 1Grace

04-21-2009 @ 2:26am

"if your daughter's life hangs in the balance, wouldn't you prefer the interrogator use techniques that work?"

Unless your the dad in the movie Taken I watched yesterday . Then I go for him . Nothing to do with the serious conversation , just a good action pack movie where all the bad guys loose .

by: Police Auctions

07-25-2011 @ 1:47pm

Police Car Auctions...

Howdy! I could have sworn I've been to this blog before but after reading through some of the post I realized it's new to me. Anyhow, I'm definitely delighted I found it and I'll be bookmarking and checking back frequently!...

by: kosmetyki naturalne

07-21-2011 @ 5:33pm

kosmetyki...

Hello! I could have sworn I've been to this website before but after reading through some of the post I realized it's new to me. Nonetheless, I'm definitely happy I found it and I'll be book-marking and checking back frequently!...

by: Philips Lighting

07-11-2011 @ 10:07am

Major thanks for the blog.Really looking forward to read more. Awesome....

I really enjoy the article.Really looking forward to read more. Great....

by: Registry Cleaners

07-26-2011 @ 1:11pm

Registry Cleaners...

Hi there! This is kind of off topic but I need some advice from an established blog. Is it difficult to set up your own blog? I'm not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty quick. I'm thinking about creating my own but I'm not sure where ...

by: letjusticerolldown

04-17-2009 @ 8:58pm

I don't know the details. My immediate response is a middle ground. A prosecution would be a legal response. A decision not to prosecute is a legal decision.

I believe we ought have a clear and full public briefing of the legal/political considerations as to whether or not to charge officials with the violation of laws; and the rationale for not doing so.

It is not just the outcome (i.e. torture) we have a concern with --but the legal/political processes which took us there. So, making right what was wrong, demands a clear assertion of the rule of just law.

Grave injustices go on every day throughout the land, committed by petty criminals, the 'high and mighty,' police officers, and public officials. We don't get the best result simply by demanding there be all kinds of prosecution whenever there has been injustice.

But in such a central case it is imperative we have full explanation (not just a generic sentence or two from the President).

by: hammerud

04-28-2009 @ 12:28am

I'm not in favor of torture. What we did is not in the same category
of what Islamists do. Not in the same category at all. What was
allowed for the US to get information was run thru the Intelligence
Oversight Committee and the Justice Dept. This is an evil, fallen
world. My point is that we should not have any blanket prohibition to
doing the things that were authorized and now have been handed to the
Jihadists. Jesus did not live in unreality. He recognized the dangers
of a world with sinful men. Luke 22:36 is another reference involving
Jesus and the sword.

by: Police Car Auctions

06-26-2011 @ 2:40pm

Car Auctions...

Hiya! Quick question that's totally off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My weblog looks weird when viewing from my iphone4. I'm trying to find a template or plugin that might be able to resolve this problem. If you have any ...

by: DavidHawkins

04-27-2009 @ 10:56pm

Let's explore the concept of using any means necessary to try and rescue my child should that child be kidnapped. What would happen to me if, in this country, I started grabbing people off the street and torturing them for information about my little girl? What would be the public and civic reaction if I picked up someone who looked like or had the same name as the supposed kidnapper and used whatever means I deemed necessary to compel them to tell me where she was being held? Would it matter to judges, the police, my neighbors if I tortured any innocent people? Would everyone walk away happy if my efforts hurt some who were innocent along with some who were guilty but ultimately resulted in finding my little girl? Is the ultimate answer for Americans that the end justifies the means? If that is our criteria for determining how we conduct ourselves then we share a common motivation with the terrorists. They also believe that their every act is justified by their ultimate goal. And since we have already thrown out morality or any higher concepts because they are inconvenient or unrealistic in this fallen world, victory will come down to who can be the most barbaric.

As for Peter, I wonder if it was as easy to get a sword back then as it is to get a gun today. But regardless of how he got it or when, Jesus didn't give him an attaboy for his hack work. He told him to put the sword away, then stuck the ear back on the hapless victim. Jesus did that even though the man had come to take him to his death. Hmmmm, what example should followers of Jesus glean from that?

To extrapolate just a little further, in the subsequent passion play, who were the torturers? Soldiers and government officials who believed their actions were justified by the end result. It was the high priest of Israel who said, when launching the plot to kill Christ: It is better that one man die than the whole nation perish.

by: environut

04-17-2009 @ 9:35pm

I think we should have tea and cookies with the terrorists ... I mean resistance freedom fighters and help them to get in touch with their feelings and then try to understand their point of view and then have a dialogue and perhaps create a collage that represents feelings of hope and change and hopefully progress to a nature of mutual understanding and love and support and inclusivity and modern sensebilities which have been endowed to us by our most beneficent leader and social justice adovcates in all levels of government and in our centers of social awareness that are public schools and then maybe the U.S. can see the errors of its elitist ways and most insensitive social policies that have long since hurt the Muslims' feelings and maybe we can undo Bush's barbaric and most uninclusive treatment of the environmental populace of various hemispheres and their global sensibilites and global warming which his harming penguins and promoting pesticides that end up in non organic food supplies that the Somalian pirates are eating and thus creating an environmen ripe for piracy against imperial aggressors.

by: justintime

04-17-2009 @ 10:01pm

You first, environut.
I'll watch.

by: canucklehead

04-17-2009 @ 10:28pm

nut, for sure

by: Jezyk Angielski Dabrowa G

08-16-2011 @ 2:07am

Angielski Chorzów...

Hi, i read your blog from time to time and i own a similar one and i was just wondering if you get a lot of spam comments? If so how do you prevent it, any plugin or anything you can advise? I get so much lately it's driving me mad so any assistance i...

by: justintime

04-18-2009 @ 12:12am

Look who's talking, canucklehead.

by: Treasure Hunters Roadshow

05-13-2011 @ 12:57pm

awesome!...

[..]this page kicked butt[..]...

by: SisterMarie

04-18-2009 @ 1:39am

It is time for us to let justice roll down (and up).

by: DavidHawkins

04-27-2009 @ 8:56pm

Let's explore the concept of using any means necessary to try and rescue my child should that child be kidnapped. What would happen to me if, in this country, I started grabbing people off the street and torturing them for information about my little girl? What would be the public and civic reaction if I picked up someone who looked like or had the same name as the supposed kidnapper and used whatever means I deemed necessary to compel them to tell me where she was being held? Would it matter to judges, the police, my neighbors if I tortured any innocent people? Would everyone walk away happy if my efforts hurt some who were innocent along with some who were guilty but ultimately resulted in finding my little girl? Is the ultimate answer for Americans that the end justifies the means? If that is our criteria for determining how we conduct ourselves then we hare a common motivation with the terrorists. They also believe that their every act is justified by their ultimate goal. And since we have already thrown morality or any higher concepts out as inconvenient or unrealistic in this fallen world, victory will come down to who can be the most barbaric.

As for Peter, I wonder if it was as easy to get a sword back then as it is to get a gun today. But regardless of how he got it or when, Jesus didn't give him an attaboy for his hack work. He told him to put the sword away, then stuck the ear back on the hapless victim. Jesus did that even though the man had come to take him to his death. Hmmmm, what example should followers of Jesus glean from that?

To extrapolate just a little further, in the subsequent passion play, who were the torturers? Soldiers and government officials who believed their actions were justified by the end result. It was the high priest of Israel who said, when launching the plot to kill Christ: It is better that one man die than the whole nation perish.

by: hammerud

04-27-2009 @ 10:28pm

I'm not in favor of torture. What we did is not in the same category
of what Islamists do. Not in the same category at all. What was
allowed for the US to get information was run thru the Intelligence
Oversight Committee and the Justice Dept. This is an evil, fallen
world. My point is that we should not have any blanket prohibition to
doing the things that were authorized and now have been handed to the
Jihadists. Jesus did not live in unreality. He recognized the dangers
of a world with sinful men. Luke 22:36 is another reference involving
Jesus and the sword.

by: jordan4459

04-18-2009 @ 9:47am

The world is watching and judging. If we don't have the power or courage to face our sins, redirect our nation, or hold accountable those who connived to abuse our justice system, it'll be done for us. That's just life. We reap what we sow.

We live in an unprecidented era where our nation's table of plenty's been tilted toward the gluttonous few whose hunger cannot be satiated, but they'd steel the crumbs from the hungry and spread violence to make widows and orphans rather than protect them.

by: letjusticerolldown

04-17-2009 @ 8:58pm

I don't know the details. My immediate response is a middle ground. A prosecution would be a legal response. A decision not to prosecute is a legal decision.

I believe we ought have a clear and full public briefing of the legal/political considerations as to whether or not to charge officials with the violation of laws; and the rationale for not doing so.

It is not just the outcome (i.e. torture) we have a concern with --but the legal/political processes which took us there. So, making right what was wrong, demands a clear assertion of the rule of just law.

Grave injustices go on every day throughout the land, committed by petty criminals, the 'high and mighty,' police officers, and public officials. We don't get the best result simply by demanding there be all kinds of prosecution whenever there has been injustice.

But in such a central case it is imperative we have full explanation (not just a generic sentence or two from the President).

by: environut

04-17-2009 @ 9:35pm

I think we should have tea and cookies with the terrorists ... I mean resistance freedom fighters and help them to get in touch with their feelings and then try to understand their point of view and then have a dialogue and perhaps create a collage that represents feelings of hope and change and hopefully progress to a nature of mutual understanding and love and support and inclusivity and modern sensebilities which have been endowed to us by our most beneficent leader and social justice adovcates in all levels of government and in our centers of social awareness that are public schools and then maybe the U.S. can see the errors of its elitist ways and most insensitive social policies that have long since hurt the Muslims' feelings and maybe we can undo Bush's barbaric and most uninclusive treatment of the environmental populace of various hemispheres and their global sensibilites and global warming which his harming penguins and promoting pesticides that end up in non organic food supplies that the Somalian pirates are eating and thus creating an environmen ripe for piracy against imperial aggressors.

by: justintime

04-17-2009 @ 10:01pm

You first, environut.
I'll watch.

by: duhsciple

04-18-2009 @ 1:08pm

This issue is all a matter of proper perspective

When we torture, it's for the cause of freedom.
When they torture, it's because they are barbaric beasts.

When we are the freedom fighters, we are spreading freedom to the world.
When they are the freedom fighters, they are fighting against freedom.

When we kill people, it is just.
When they kill people, it's because they are jihad extremist terrorists.

When we announce our decision to "hunt them down," it is good.
When they shout "death to America", it is evil.

When we drop bombs, it is necessary for national security.
When they become suicide bombers, it is insanity times wickedness squared.

We are servants of the world who are unappreciated.
They are arrogant monsters who think they're doing the world a favor.

Plain and simple.
No shades of gray.
What is right and what is wrong depends upon WHO is doing it.

I post this as an American.
However, if I was on the other side, it would all be reversed.
Accident of birth.
I really don't know what we do about this.

Is there something between "tea and cookies" and "demonizing in order to justify what we do"?

Now you know why they call me "Duh" because... Duh, I don't get it

by: canucklehead

04-17-2009 @ 10:28pm

nut, for sure

by: WaveTossed

04-18-2009 @ 2:29pm

From the article: " am not in complete agreement with what you have said, however. You have said no one will be held accountable for the acts of torture because they were approved by the justice department. While I understand the premise of your reasoning, I think it is wrong."

Those from the justice department who approved and ordered this torture need to be brought to justice and held accountable for their crimes.

by: justintime

04-18-2009 @ 12:12am

Look who's talking, canucklehead.

by: Call

07-31-2011 @ 2:16pm

Rets...

[

by: SisterMarie

04-18-2009 @ 1:39am

It is time for us to let justice roll down (and up).

by: DavidHawkins

04-27-2009 @ 8:56pm

Let's explore the concept of using any means necessary to try and rescue my child should that child be kidnapped. What would happen to me if, in this country, I started grabbing people off the street and torturing them for information about my little girl? What would be the public and civic reaction if I picked up someone who looked like or had the same name as the supposed kidnapper and used whatever means I deemed necessary to compel them to tell me where she was being held? Would it matter to judges, the police, my neighbors if I tortured any innocent people? Would everyone walk away happy if my efforts hurt some who were innocent along with some who were guilty but ultimately resulted in finding my little girl? Is the ultimate answer for Americans that the end justifies the means? If that is our criteria for determining how we conduct ourselves then we hare a common motivation with the terrorists. They also believe that their every act is justified by their ultimate goal. And since we have already thrown morality or any higher concepts out as inconvenient or unrealistic in this fallen world, victory will come down to who can be the most barbaric.

As for Peter, I wonder if it was as easy to get a sword back then as it is to get a gun today. But regardless of how he got it or when, Jesus didn't give him an attaboy for his hack work. He told him to put the sword away, then stuck the ear back on the hapless victim. Jesus did that even though the man had come to take him to his death. Hmmmm, what example should followers of Jesus glean from that?

To extrapolate just a little further, in the subsequent passion play, who were the torturers? Soldiers and government officials who believed their actions were justified by the end result. It was the high priest of Israel who said, when launching the plot to kill Christ: It is better that one man die than the whole nation perish.

by: hammerud

04-27-2009 @ 10:28pm

I'm not in favor of torture. What we did is not in the same category
of what Islamists do. Not in the same category at all. What was
allowed for the US to get information was run thru the Intelligence
Oversight Committee and the Justice Dept. This is an evil, fallen
world. My point is that we should not have any blanket prohibition to
doing the things that were authorized and now have been handed to the
Jihadists. Jesus did not live in unreality. He recognized the dangers
of a world with sinful men. Luke 22:36 is another reference involving
Jesus and the sword.

by: smokem

04-18-2009 @ 5:26pm

I can't tell you the number of hours of sleep I've lost because we put a terrorist in a box with a caterpillar. Or water boarding either. It's just so darn terrible. Personally, I think we should have just dropped them somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic.

Why should we repent, anyway? President B.O. has made it clear we're not a Christian nation.

by: jordan4459

04-18-2009 @ 9:47am

The world is watching and judging. If we don't have the power or courage to face our sins, redirect our nation, or hold accountable those who connived to abuse our justice system, it'll be done for us. That's just life. We reap what we sow.

We live in an unprecidented era where our nation's table of plenty's been tilted toward the gluttonous few whose hunger cannot be satiated, but they'd steel the crumbs from the hungry and spread violence to make widows and orphans rather than protect them.

by: Sam

08-15-2011 @ 12:13pm

Nose...

[

by: nissan juke 4x4

07-19-2011 @ 7:22am

nissan z350...

Awesome post, I've linked back to your blog here http://www.vwsuv.net/sites-we-like/ return the favor if you can, thanks!...

by: duhsciple

04-18-2009 @ 1:08pm

This issue is all a matter of proper perspective

When we torture, it's for the cause of freedom.
When they torture, it's because they are barbaric beasts.

When we are the freedom fighters, we are spreading freedom to the world.
When they are the freedom fighters, they are fighting against freedom.

When we kill people, it is just.
When they kill people, it's because they are jihad extremist terrorists.

When we announce our decision to "hunt them down," it is good.
When they shout "death to America", it is evil.

When we drop bombs, it is necessary for national security.
When they become suicide bombers, it is insanity times wickedness squared.

We are servants of the world who are unappreciated.
They are arrogant monsters who think they're doing the world a favor.

Plain and simple.
No shades of gray.
What is right and what is wrong depends upon WHO is doing it.

I post this as an American.
However, if I was on the other side, it would all be reversed.
Accident of birth.
I really don't know what we do about this.

Is there something between "tea and cookies" and "demonizing in order to justify what we do"?

Now you know why they call me "Duh" because... Duh, I don't get it

by: hammerud

04-18-2009 @ 9:11pm

I agree with environut. I guess my question is whether any of us would be willing to use the techniques? In case you haven't noticed, this is a really screwed up world with really screwed up people. If someone kidnapped my little girl and I didn't know where she was or what was happening to her, and I got ahold of someone who did know, you can believe that I would find out where she was. Is there no depth of thought here?? If our intelligence personnel had someone in custody that knew details of a suitcase nuclear device that was being brought into New York or something, don't you think they should be allowed to use the techniques that have been revealed (that now, thanks to the great wisdom of our leaders, likely will be ineffective) to get that information? I guess we need to hold the moral high ground and just allow some of these crazies to nuc all the people in one of our cities. And believe me, they are out there.

by: WaveTossed

04-18-2009 @ 2:29pm

From the article: " am not in complete agreement with what you have said, however. You have said no one will be held accountable for the acts of torture because they were approved by the justice department. While I understand the premise of your reasoning, I think it is wrong."

Those from the justice department who approved and ordered this torture need to be brought to justice and held accountable for their crimes.

by: Lasted

08-04-2011 @ 12:13am

Microscope...

[

by: squeaky

04-18-2009 @ 11:59pm

Wow...talk about a run-on sentence. Did you faint while writing it?

I am always a bit confused when Christians defend torture. Could you explain to me how it squares with your faith? When did Jesus advocate torture? And if we are to live like Him, then where do we get the idea that torture is OK from the example He gave? Please explain this to me.

You also have set up quite a strawman. I'm not sure why it is that people who are pro-torture think that people who are anti-torture want terrorists to sun themselves on a blanket on the beaches of Guantanamo sipping Mojitos and singing KumBayYa. Last I understood, treatment of prisoners of war is determined by the Geneva Convention, which does not advocate torture. Nor does it advocate KumBayYa. They are still prisoners and treated as such. It doesn't mean you can't interrogate, it doesn't mean you can't imprison, it doesn't mean their lives will be full of sunny daisies and hopping bunnies. It means you can't torture. Period. It's a standard that has served us well and allows us the high road for decades.

by: smokem

04-18-2009 @ 5:26pm

I can't tell you the number of hours of sleep I've lost because we put a terrorist in a box with a caterpillar. Or water boarding either. It's just so darn terrible. Personally, I think we should have just dropped them somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic.

Why should we repent, anyway? President B.O. has made it clear we're not a Christian nation.

by: justintime

04-19-2009 @ 12:29am

Hammerud didn't get the memo:

TORTURE DOESN'T WORK!

He's been watching too many action adventure movies.

by: hammerud

04-18-2009 @ 9:11pm

I agree with environut. I guess my question is whether any of us would be willing to use the techniques? In case you haven't noticed, this is a really screwed up world with really screwed up people. If someone kidnapped my little girl and I didn't know where she was or what was happening to her, and I got ahold of someone who did know, you can believe that I would find out where she was. Is there no depth of thought here?? If our intelligence personnel had someone in custody that knew details of a suitcase nuclear device that was being brought into New York or something, don't you think they should be allowed to use the techniques that have been revealed (that now, thanks to the great wisdom of our leaders, likely will be ineffective) to get that information? I guess we need to hold the moral high ground and just allow some of these crazies to nuc all the people in one of our cities. And believe me, they are out there.

by: hammerud

04-19-2009 @ 4:31am

It is the response to environut above your response.

by: Beevo

04-23-2009 @ 3:54pm

It is a fact that we prosecuted and I believe may have executed people after WWII for the use of waterboarding.. if we meekly accept having this done by our own peple we are surely such hypocrites we should have no standing in the world for anything.
So, we had better stop and deal with this before we move on.

by: Beevo

04-23-2009 @ 3:57pm

I thought I was the queen of snide...but you take the prize. congratulations
I relinquish my crown!

by: JoannaCW

04-19-2009 @ 1:58pm

I see 3 major objections to this, one practical, one moral, one in both fields:

1--We're talking about torture, not some kind of truth drug. Under torture, some innocent people will confess to crimes they haven't committed in order to stop the pain; some of those who have planned terrorist actions probably will manage to withhold or falsify information. I''ve read that torture is usually an effective way to get the victim to say what the torturer wants to hear, but not to actually get accurate information.

2--I don't see why moral laws should cease to be binding when they become difficult. If torture is wrong, it's not made right because we think we might get hurt if we don't do it. This would be like arguing that fraud is wrong but not if you're really in financial trouble, or that adultery is wrong but not if self-restraint is making you really miserable.

3--What about the torturers? What happens to their minds, to their souls? What kind of people are they becoming? What kind of parents, spouses, neighbors will they be once we've convinced them that sufficient fear justifies abuse of other human beings?

by: hammerud

04-19-2009 @ 2:38pm

Joanna -- What about the thing that I wrote about a circumstance where
one of my little girls was abducted and I didn't know what was
happening to her? And then I got ahold of somebody that knew, but
wouldn't say. My thinking is that I would be more than willing to use
the techniques that the CIA was using to get the information --
actually, in the panic to get my child, I believe I would be willing
to do much worse if necessary, and I do not believe God would blame
me. If it was my little girl, you can believe I would get the
information and, as far as morality goes, it would be immoral for me
not to do so. This is a sick, fallen world. I find it interesting
that Peter was carrying a sword, which he used to cut off the
soldier's ear in the garden of Gethsemane, at the end of the three
years he spent with Jesus. Evidently Jesus never asked him what he
was doing carrying a sword.

Also, your assertion that accurate information was not obtained, from
what I understand, is not correct.

by: squeaky

04-18-2009 @ 11:59pm

Wow...talk about a run-on sentence. Did you faint while writing it?

I am always a bit confused when Christians defend torture. Could you explain to me how it squares with your faith? When did Jesus advocate torture? And if we are to live like Him, then where do we get the idea that torture is OK from the example He gave? Please explain this to me.

You also have set up quite a strawman. I'm not sure why it is that people who are pro-torture think that people who are anti-torture want terrorists to sun themselves on a blanket on the beaches of Guantanamo sipping Mojitos and singing KumBayYa. Last I understood, treatment of prisoners of war is determined by the Geneva Convention, which does not advocate torture. Nor does it advocate KumBayYa. They are still prisoners and treated as such. It doesn't mean you can't interrogate, it doesn't mean you can't imprison, it doesn't mean their lives will be full of sunny daisies and hopping bunnies. It means you can't torture. Period. It's a standard that has served us well and allows us the high road for decades.

by: Lord_Voldemort

04-19-2009 @ 2:40pm

"Last I understood, treatment of prisoners of war is determined by the Geneva Convention, which does not advocate torture.'

You are mistaken. The Geneva conventions apply to lawful combatants, who engage mostly military targets, who wear a uniform or ensignia to distinguish themselves from civilians, and who are subject to military discipline. Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention. That doesn't mean we should consider ourselves free to torture willy-nilly, but if you're going to lecture us on legalities, at least get the legalities right.

LV

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

by: letjusticerolldown

04-17-2009 @ 8:58pm

I don't know the details. My immediate response is a middle ground. A prosecution would be a legal response. A decision not to prosecute is a legal decision.

I believe we ought have a clear and full public briefing of the legal/political considerations as to whether or not to charge officials with the violation of laws; and the rationale for not doing so.

It is not just the outcome (i.e. torture) we have a concern with --but the legal/political processes which took us there. So, making right what was wrong, demands a clear assertion of the rule of just law.

Grave injustices go on every day throughout the land, committed by petty criminals, the 'high and mighty,' police officers, and public officials. We don't get the best result simply by demanding there be all kinds of prosecution whenever there has been injustice.

But in such a central case it is imperative we have full explanation (not just a generic sentence or two from the President).

by: letjusticerolldown

04-17-2009 @ 8:58pm

I don't know the details. My immediate response is a middle ground. A prosecution would be a legal response. A decision not to prosecute is a legal decision.

I believe we ought have a clear and full public briefing of the legal/political considerations as to whether or not to charge officials with the violation of laws; and the rationale for not doing so.

It is not just the outcome (i.e. torture) we have a concern with --but the legal/political processes which took us there. So, making right what was wrong, demands a clear assertion of the rule of just law.

Grave injustices go on every day throughout the land, committed by petty criminals, the 'high and mighty,' police officers, and public officials. We don't get the best result simply by demanding there be all kinds of prosecution whenever there has been injustice.

But in such a central case it is imperative we have full explanation (not just a generic sentence or two from the President).

by: environut

04-17-2009 @ 9:35pm

I think we should have tea and cookies with the terrorists ... I mean resistance freedom fighters and help them to get in touch with their feelings and then try to understand their point of view and then have a dialogue and perhaps create a collage that represents feelings of hope and change and hopefully progress to a nature of mutual understanding and love and support and inclusivity and modern sensebilities which have been endowed to us by our most beneficent leader and social justice adovcates in all levels of government and in our centers of social awareness that are public schools and then maybe the U.S. can see the errors of its elitist ways and most insensitive social policies that have long since hurt the Muslims' feelings and maybe we can undo Bush's barbaric and most uninclusive treatment of the environmental populace of various hemispheres and their global sensibilites and global warming which his harming penguins and promoting pesticides that end up in non organic food supplies that the Somalian pirates are eating and thus creating an environmen ripe for piracy against imperial aggressors.

by: environut

04-17-2009 @ 9:35pm

I think we should have tea and cookies with the terrorists ... I mean resistance freedom fighters and help them to get in touch with their feelings and then try to understand their point of view and then have a dialogue and perhaps create a collage that represents feelings of hope and change and hopefully progress to a nature of mutual understanding and love and support and inclusivity and modern sensebilities which have been endowed to us by our most beneficent leader and social justice adovcates in all levels of government and in our centers of social awareness that are public schools and then maybe the U.S. can see the errors of its elitist ways and most insensitive social policies that have long since hurt the Muslims' feelings and maybe we can undo Bush's barbaric and most uninclusive treatment of the environmental populace of various hemispheres and their global sensibilites and global warming which his harming penguins and promoting pesticides that end up in non organic food supplies that the Somalian pirates are eating and thus creating an environmen ripe for piracy against imperial aggressors.

by: justintime

04-17-2009 @ 10:01pm

You first, environut.
I'll watch.

by: justintime

04-17-2009 @ 10:01pm

You first, environut.
I'll watch.

by: canucklehead

04-17-2009 @ 10:28pm

nut, for sure

by: canucklehead

04-17-2009 @ 10:28pm

nut, for sure

by: justintime

04-18-2009 @ 12:12am

Look who's talking, canucklehead.

by: justintime

04-18-2009 @ 12:12am

Look who's talking, canucklehead.

by: SisterMarie

04-18-2009 @ 1:39am

It is time for us to let justice roll down (and up).

by: SisterMarie

04-18-2009 @ 1:39am

It is time for us to let justice roll down (and up).

by: jordan4459

04-18-2009 @ 9:47am

The world is watching and judging. If we don't have the power or courage to face our sins, redirect our nation, or hold accountable those who connived to abuse our justice system, it'll be done for us. That's just life. We reap what we sow.

We live in an unprecidented era where our nation's table of plenty's been tilted toward the gluttonous few whose hunger cannot be satiated, but they'd steel the crumbs from the hungry and spread violence to make widows and orphans rather than protect them.

by: jordan4459

04-18-2009 @ 9:47am

The world is watching and judging. If we don't have the power or courage to face our sins, redirect our nation, or hold accountable those who connived to abuse our justice system, it'll be done for us. That's just life. We reap what we sow.

We live in an unprecidented era where our nation's table of plenty's been tilted toward the gluttonous few whose hunger cannot be satiated, but they'd steel the crumbs from the hungry and spread violence to make widows and orphans rather than protect them.

by: duhsciple

04-18-2009 @ 1:08pm

This issue is all a matter of proper perspective

When we torture, it's for the cause of freedom.
When they torture, it's because they are barbaric beasts.

When we are the freedom fighters, we are spreading freedom to the world.
When they are the freedom fighters, they are fighting against freedom.

When we kill people, it is just.
When they kill people, it's because they are jihad extremist terrorists.

When we announce our decision to "hunt them down," it is good.
When they shout "death to America", it is evil.

When we drop bombs, it is necessary for national security.
When they become suicide bombers, it is insanity times wickedness squared.

We are servants of the world who are unappreciated.
They are arrogant monsters who think they're doing the world a favor.

Plain and simple.
No shades of gray.
What is right and what is wrong depends upon WHO is doing it.

I post this as an American.
However, if I was on the other side, it would all be reversed.
Accident of birth.
I really don't know what we do about this.

Is there something between "tea and cookies" and "demonizing in order to justify what we do"?

Now you know why they call me "Duh" because... Duh, I don't get it

by: duhsciple

04-18-2009 @ 1:08pm

This issue is all a matter of proper perspective

When we torture, it's for the cause of freedom.
When they torture, it's because they are barbaric beasts.

When we are the freedom fighters, we are spreading freedom to the world.
When they are the freedom fighters, they are fighting against freedom.

When we kill people, it is just.
When they kill people, it's because they are jihad extremist terrorists.

When we announce our decision to "hunt them down," it is good.
When they shout "death to America", it is evil.

When we drop bombs, it is necessary for national security.
When they become suicide bombers, it is insanity times wickedness squared.

We are servants of the world who are unappreciated.
They are arrogant monsters who think they're doing the world a favor.

Plain and simple.
No shades of gray.
What is right and what is wrong depends upon WHO is doing it.

I post this as an American.
However, if I was on the other side, it would all be reversed.
Accident of birth.
I really don't know what we do about this.

Is there something between "tea and cookies" and "demonizing in order to justify what we do"?

Now you know why they call me "Duh" because... Duh, I don't get it

by: WaveTossed

04-18-2009 @ 2:29pm

From the article: " am not in complete agreement with what you have said, however. You have said no one will be held accountable for the acts of torture because they were approved by the justice department. While I understand the premise of your reasoning, I think it is wrong."

Those from the justice department who approved and ordered this torture need to be brought to justice and held accountable for their crimes.

by: WaveTossed

04-18-2009 @ 2:29pm

From the article: " am not in complete agreement with what you have said, however. You have said no one will be held accountable for the acts of torture because they were approved by the justice department. While I understand the premise of your reasoning, I think it is wrong."

Those from the justice department who approved and ordered this torture need to be brought to justice and held accountable for their crimes.

by: smokem

04-18-2009 @ 5:26pm

I can't tell you the number of hours of sleep I've lost because we put a terrorist in a box with a caterpillar. Or water boarding either. It's just so darn terrible. Personally, I think we should have just dropped them somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic.

Why should we repent, anyway? President B.O. has made it clear we're not a Christian nation.

by: smokem

04-18-2009 @ 5:26pm

I can't tell you the number of hours of sleep I've lost because we put a terrorist in a box with a caterpillar. Or water boarding either. It's just so darn terrible. Personally, I think we should have just dropped them somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic.

Why should we repent, anyway? President B.O. has made it clear we're not a Christian nation.

by: hammerud

04-18-2009 @ 9:11pm

I agree with environut. I guess my question is whether any of us would be willing to use the techniques? In case you haven't noticed, this is a really screwed up world with really screwed up people. If someone kidnapped my little girl and I didn't know where she was or what was happening to her, and I got ahold of someone who did know, you can believe that I would find out where she was. Is there no depth of thought here?? If our intelligence personnel had someone in custody that knew details of a suitcase nuclear device that was being brought into New York or something, don't you think they should be allowed to use the techniques that have been revealed (that now, thanks to the great wisdom of our leaders, likely will be ineffective) to get that information? I guess we need to hold the moral high ground and just allow some of these crazies to nuc all the people in one of our cities. And believe me, they are out there.

by: hammerud

04-18-2009 @ 9:11pm

I agree with environut. I guess my question is whether any of us would be willing to use the techniques? In case you haven't noticed, this is a really screwed up world with really screwed up people. If someone kidnapped my little girl and I didn't know where she was or what was happening to her, and I got ahold of someone who did know, you can believe that I would find out where she was. Is there no depth of thought here?? If our intelligence personnel had someone in custody that knew details of a suitcase nuclear device that was being brought into New York or something, don't you think they should be allowed to use the techniques that have been revealed (that now, thanks to the great wisdom of our leaders, likely will be ineffective) to get that information? I guess we need to hold the moral high ground and just allow some of these crazies to nuc all the people in one of our cities. And believe me, they are out there.

by: squeaky

04-18-2009 @ 11:59pm

Wow...talk about a run-on sentence. Did you faint while writing it?

I am always a bit confused when Christians defend torture. Could you explain to me how it squares with your faith? When did Jesus advocate torture? And if we are to live like Him, then where do we get the idea that torture is OK from the example He gave? Please explain this to me.

You also have set up quite a strawman. I'm not sure why it is that people who are pro-torture think that people who are anti-torture want terrorists to sun themselves on a blanket on the beaches of Guantanamo sipping Mojitos and singing KumBayYa. Last I understood, treatment of prisoners of war is determined by the Geneva Convention, which does not advocate torture. Nor does it advocate KumBayYa. They are still prisoners and treated as such. It doesn't mean you can't interrogate, it doesn't mean you can't imprison, it doesn't mean their lives will be full of sunny daisies and hopping bunnies. It means you can't torture. Period. It's a standard that has served us well and allows us the high road for decades.

by: squeaky

04-18-2009 @ 11:59pm

Wow...talk about a run-on sentence. Did you faint while writing it?

I am always a bit confused when Christians defend torture. Could you explain to me how it squares with your faith? When did Jesus advocate torture? And if we are to live like Him, then where do we get the idea that torture is OK from the example He gave? Please explain this to me.

You also have set up quite a strawman. I'm not sure why it is that people who are pro-torture think that people who are anti-torture want terrorists to sun themselves on a blanket on the beaches of Guantanamo sipping Mojitos and singing KumBayYa. Last I understood, treatment of prisoners of war is determined by the Geneva Convention, which does not advocate torture. Nor does it advocate KumBayYa. They are still prisoners and treated as such. It doesn't mean you can't interrogate, it doesn't mean you can't imprison, it doesn't mean their lives will be full of sunny daisies and hopping bunnies. It means you can't torture. Period. It's a standard that has served us well and allows us the high road for decades.

by: justintime

04-19-2009 @ 12:29am

Hammerud didn't get the memo:

TORTURE DOESN'T WORK!

He's been watching too many action adventure movies.

by: justintime

04-19-2009 @ 12:29am

Hammerud didn't get the memo:

TORTURE DOESN'T WORK!

He's been watching too many action adventure movies.

by: hammerud

04-19-2009 @ 4:31am

It is the response to environut above your response.

by: hammerud

04-19-2009 @ 4:31am

It is the response to environut above your response.

by: JoannaCW

04-19-2009 @ 1:58pm

I see 3 major objections to this, one practical, one moral, one in both fields:

1--We're talking about torture, not some kind of truth drug. Under torture, some innocent people will confess to crimes they haven't committed in order to stop the pain; some of those who have planned terrorist actions probably will manage to withhold or falsify information. I''ve read that torture is usually an effective way to get the victim to say what the torturer wants to hear, but not to actually get accurate information.

2--I don't see why moral laws should cease to be binding when they become difficult. If torture is wrong, it's not made right because we think we might get hurt if we don't do it. This would be like arguing that fraud is wrong but not if you're really in financial trouble, or that adultery is wrong but not if self-restraint is making you really miserable.

3--What about the torturers? What happens to their minds, to their souls? What kind of people are they becoming? What kind of parents, spouses, neighbors will they be once we've convinced them that sufficient fear justifies abuse of other human beings?

by: JoannaCW

04-19-2009 @ 1:58pm

I see 3 major objections to this, one practical, one moral, one in both fields:

1--We're talking about torture, not some kind of truth drug. Under torture, some innocent people will confess to crimes they haven't committed in order to stop the pain; some of those who have planned terrorist actions probably will manage to withhold or falsify information. I''ve read that torture is usually an effective way to get the victim to say what the torturer wants to hear, but not to actually get accurate information.

2--I don't see why moral laws should cease to be binding when they become difficult. If torture is wrong, it's not made right because we think we might get hurt if we don't do it. This would be like arguing that fraud is wrong but not if you're really in financial trouble, or that adultery is wrong but not if self-restraint is making you really miserable.

3--What about the torturers? What happens to their minds, to their souls? What kind of people are they becoming? What kind of parents, spouses, neighbors will they be once we've convinced them that sufficient fear justifies abuse of other human beings?

by: hammerud

04-19-2009 @ 2:38pm

Joanna -- What about the thing that I wrote about a circumstance where
one of my little girls was abducted and I didn't know what was
happening to her? And then I got ahold of somebody that knew, but
wouldn't say. My thinking is that I would be more than willing to use
the techniques that the CIA was using to get the information --
actually, in the panic to get my child, I believe I would be willing
to do much worse if necessary, and I do not believe God would blame
me. If it was my little girl, you can believe I would get the
information and, as far as morality goes, it would be immoral for me
not to do so. This is a sick, fallen world. I find it interesting
that Peter was carrying a sword, which he used to cut off the
soldier's ear in the garden of Gethsemane, at the end of the three
years he spent with Jesus. Evidently Jesus never asked him what he
was doing carrying a sword.

Also, your assertion that accurate information was not obtained, from
what I understand, is not correct.

by: hammerud

04-19-2009 @ 2:38pm

Joanna -- What about the thing that I wrote about a circumstance where
one of my little girls was abducted and I didn't know what was
happening to her? And then I got ahold of somebody that knew, but
wouldn't say. My thinking is that I would be more than willing to use
the techniques that the CIA was using to get the information --
actually, in the panic to get my child, I believe I would be willing
to do much worse if necessary, and I do not believe God would blame
me. If it was my little girl, you can believe I would get the
information and, as far as morality goes, it would be immoral for me
not to do so. This is a sick, fallen world. I find it interesting
that Peter was carrying a sword, which he used to cut off the
soldier's ear in the garden of Gethsemane, at the end of the three
years he spent with Jesus. Evidently Jesus never asked him what he
was doing carrying a sword.

Also, your assertion that accurate information was not obtained, from
what I understand, is not correct.

by: Lord_Voldemort

04-19-2009 @ 2:40pm

"Last I understood, treatment of prisoners of war is determined by the Geneva Convention, which does not advocate torture.'

You are mistaken. The Geneva conventions apply to lawful combatants, who engage mostly military targets, who wear a uniform or ensignia to distinguish themselves from civilians, and who are subject to military discipline. Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention. That doesn't mean we should consider ourselves free to torture willy-nilly, but if you're going to lecture us on legalities, at least get the legalities right.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

04-19-2009 @ 2:40pm

"Last I understood, treatment of prisoners of war is determined by the Geneva Convention, which does not advocate torture.'

You are mistaken. The Geneva conventions apply to lawful combatants, who engage mostly military targets, who wear a uniform or ensignia to distinguish themselves from civilians, and who are subject to military discipline. Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention. That doesn't mean we should consider ourselves free to torture willy-nilly, but if you're going to lecture us on legalities, at least get the legalities right.

LV

by: squeaky

04-19-2009 @ 3:00pm

I'm well aware of that. It also seems to me that it has been used as an excuse to torture--more of a loophole than anything. I highly doubt that the framers of the Geneva Convention had in their minds that if someone didn't wear a uniform it was just fine and dandy to torture them. We therefore have guidelines as to the treatment of our enemies, and the spirit of those guidelines should apply regardless of whether the Geneva Convention strictly applies.

by: squeaky

04-19-2009 @ 3:00pm

I'm well aware of that. It also seems to me that it has been used as an excuse to torture--more of a loophole than anything. I highly doubt that the framers of the Geneva Convention had in their minds that if someone didn't wear a uniform it was just fine and dandy to torture them. We therefore have guidelines as to the treatment of our enemies, and the spirit of those guidelines should apply regardless of whether the Geneva Convention strictly applies.

by: Lord_Voldemort

04-19-2009 @ 3:20pm

Taking your points one-by-one.

1. You're confusing your scenarios here. This isn't the Spanish Inquisition. An intelligence officer accomplishes nothing by securing a false confession. As a general rule you're right -- torture is an unreliable way to get information -- which is why the administration generally avoided interrogation techniques that even approached the line.

Frankly speaking, the threat of torture is probably more valuable than the act. In a way, by continuously alleging torture is commonplace, the left is doing a lot to keep the threat credible, and in the process advancing the ends of our military intelligence. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

2. Even if we concede that moral precepts were violated, context matters in terms of measuring out an appropriate punishment. An intelligence agent who resorts to torture because he honestly and reasonably believes that lives will be lost unless he secures some important peace of information quickly is less culpable than a prison guard who torments prisoners purely for personal pleasure.

Recognizing mitigating circumstances is one of the things that separates a fair and humble judge from a sef-righteous twit. People's lives were and are at stake. A lot of innocent lives had already been taken by terrorists. That might not justify everything that had been done, but it's not something that can just be dismissed as irrelevant.

3. Hopefully, they will realize that, to the extent that what they did could ever be justified, it was in a rare and extreme situation, one that they should want never to find themselves in again.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

04-19-2009 @ 3:20pm

Taking your points one-by-one.

1. You're confusing your scenarios here. This isn't the Spanish Inquisition. An intelligence officer accomplishes nothing by securing a false confession. As a general rule you're right -- torture is an unreliable way to get information -- which is why the administration generally avoided interrogation techniques that even approached the line.

Frankly speaking, the threat of torture is probably more valuable than the act. In a way, by continuously alleging torture is commonplace, the left is doing a lot to keep the threat credible, and in the process advancing the ends of our military intelligence. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

2. Even if we concede that moral precepts were violated, context matters in terms of measuring out an appropriate punishment. An intelligence agent who resorts to torture because he honestly and reasonably believes that lives will be lost unless he secures some important peace of information quickly is less culpable than a prison guard who torments prisoners purely for personal pleasure.

Recognizing mitigating circumstances is one of the things that separates a fair and humble judge from a sef-righteous twit. People's lives were and are at stake. A lot of innocent lives had already been taken by terrorists. That might not justify everything that had been done, but it's not something that can just be dismissed as irrelevant.

3. Hopefully, they will realize that, to the extent that what they did could ever be justified, it was in a rare and extreme situation, one that they should want never to find themselves in again.

LV

by: justintime

04-19-2009 @ 3:43pm

Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

Yes they are, LV, John Yoo's bogus legal opinions notwithstanding.
The US Supreme Court (a rather conservative group, wouldn't you say?) has already trashed the Bush administration's labeling of Guantanamo residents as "enemy combatants" in order to deny them habeas corpus.
This much is settled law.
You can expect the same ruling to come down vis a vis 'enemy combatants', torture and the Geneva Conventions.

by: justintime

04-19-2009 @ 3:43pm

Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

Yes they are, LV, John Yoo's bogus legal opinions notwithstanding.
The US Supreme Court (a rather conservative group, wouldn't you say?) has already trashed the Bush administration's labeling of Guantanamo residents as "enemy combatants" in order to deny them habeas corpus.
This much is settled law.
You can expect the same ruling to come down vis a vis 'enemy combatants', torture and the Geneva Conventions.

by: squeaky

04-19-2009 @ 4:11pm

But Peter was also rebuked, remember.

by: squeaky

04-19-2009 @ 4:11pm

But Peter was also rebuked, remember.

by: justintime

04-19-2009 @ 4:15pm

You're missing the entire point of this discussion, LV.
We're talking about war crimes here, not just violation of moral precepts.
Torture was happening on a large scale over a period of several years.
Rush Limbaugh dismisses American torture as "no worse than college fraternity hazing."
Rush Limbaugh is in denial about American torture.
Your comments illustrate that you too are in a state of denial of extensive evidence that Americans were routinely torturing in the name of America.

... the administration generally avoided interrogation techniques that even approached the line.

...it was in a rare and extreme situation,

You're defending the indefensible and you're dead wrong , LV.

by: JoannaCW

04-19-2009 @ 7:16pm

1. I think the threat of torture would be unreliable in the same way as actual torture, given a victim with sufficient imagination.

2. I'm not arguing for punishing the interrogators who acted under orders, only approving the forbidding of torture. A mitigating circumstance is not a justification.

I expect that some of the 'terrorists' saw themselves as avenging or protecting innocent lives.

3. I share your hope, but I am not sure it works out this way. I would think that extreme guilt or PTSD, or on the other end uncontrolled aggression, are possble consequences.

by: JoannaCW

04-19-2009 @ 7:16pm

1. I think the threat of torture would be unreliable in the same way as actual torture, given a victim with sufficient imagination.

2. I'm not arguing for punishing the interrogators who acted under orders, only approving the forbidding of torture. A mitigating circumstance is not a justification.

I expect that some of the 'terrorists' saw themselves as avenging or protecting innocent lives.

3. I share your hope, but I am not sure it works out this way. I would think that extreme guilt or PTSD, or on the other end uncontrolled aggression, are possble consequences.

by: hammerud

04-19-2009 @ 7:53pm

Joanna - I guess we're just on different pages on this thing. Horrible
stuff happens in this sin sick world, and there is such a thing as
evil. I don't like the idea of any kind of torture, but I don't like
a lot of the evil that goes on day after day either. I just don't
agree with the idea of an absolute commitment to never do this or do
that under any conceivable circumstance. I agree that the scenario I
described is highly unlikely and theoretical, but not impossible. My
point is that in such a circumstance I would not want to have
eliminated an option that could rescue my child. The government is
responsible for national security, and, in this day of craziness,
government needs to be able to get information. Some of these guys
they captured, from what I understand, had information that they
divulged after some of these techniques were applied that saved lives.

Just another thought: Torture is not a good thing, lying is not a good
thing, but there are situations in the Bible where an individual lied
to save lives that were not condemned by God (Rahab and the spies is
one, and there are others). In fact Rahab is listed in Hebrews 11 as a
positive example of faith. If Rahab held an absolute commitment to
never lie it would have led to the death of the Israeli spies. God
does not condone lying, but He did not condemn it in Rahab when she
was confronted with that particular circumstance. Just a thought.

by: hammerud

04-19-2009 @ 7:53pm

Joanna - I guess we're just on different pages on this thing. Horrible
stuff happens in this sin sick world, and there is such a thing as
evil. I don't like the idea of any kind of torture, but I don't like
a lot of the evil that goes on day after day either. I just don't
agree with the idea of an absolute commitment to never do this or do
that under any conceivable circumstance. I agree that the scenario I
described is highly unlikely and theoretical, but not impossible. My
point is that in such a circumstance I would not want to have
eliminated an option that could rescue my child. The government is
responsible for national security, and, in this day of craziness,
government needs to be able to get information. Some of these guys
they captured, from what I understand, had information that they
divulged after some of these techniques were applied that saved lives.

Just another thought: Torture is not a good thing, lying is not a good
thing, but there are situations in the Bible where an individual lied
to save lives that were not condemned by God (Rahab and the spies is
one, and there are others). In fact Rahab is listed in Hebrews 11 as a
positive example of faith. If Rahab held an absolute commitment to
never lie it would have led to the death of the Israeli spies. God
does not condone lying, but He did not condemn it in Rahab when she
was confronted with that particular circumstance. Just a thought.

by: squeaky

04-19-2009 @ 8:10pm

I don't see anywhere in the Bible, though, where torture is advocated.

I know we are in a sin sick world, but to advocate sin to combat sin just doesn't fly. I just don't see anywhere where Jesus allows us to be relative about such issues.

Also, as far as interrogation techniques, it seems that the input of an actual interrogator should be very seriously considered. When a profession interrogator says torture is not effective, it seems that right there should end the discussion (see scat's comments at the top of the thread if you are in the community pages). Which begs the question, if your daughter's life hangs in the balance, wouldn't you prefer the interrogator use techniques that work?

by: squeaky

04-19-2009 @ 8:10pm

I don't see anywhere in the Bible, though, where torture is advocated.

I know we are in a sin sick world, but to advocate sin to combat sin just doesn't fly. I just don't see anywhere where Jesus allows us to be relative about such issues.

Also, as far as interrogation techniques, it seems that the input of an actual interrogator should be very seriously considered. When a profession interrogator says torture is not effective, it seems that right there should end the discussion (see scat's comments at the top of the thread if you are in the community pages). Which begs the question, if your daughter's life hangs in the balance, wouldn't you prefer the interrogator use techniques that work?

by: JoannaCW

04-19-2009 @ 8:23pm

Yes, I think we are basically on different pages, and both of us can construct examples and quote Scriptures to defend our positions. I am beginning with a fundamental conviction that it is better to risk suffering evil than to do evil. (This is not the same as being passive in the face of evil.) I'm also beginning with a conviction that to deliberately damage another person's mind, body and spirit is evil and I can't imagine a circumstance which would justify this. (I agree with you that in some cases lying may save lives and be less evil than telling the truth to someone who intends to do harm--plenty of examples from the Holocaust etc.) I don't think I can be argued out of thee convictions. I doubt it's helpful to try to argue you out of the basic premises that make you believe that in some circumstances torture is justified. I don't intend to try. If you're willing to post them I'd be interested in seeing what they are; I would like
to undesrtand the other side better.