Get E-Mail Updates

A Torture Apologist's Flawed Theology

The Washington Post has a new op-ed page writer drawing scrutiny for his hearty endorsement of "enhanced interrogation," which translated from Orwellian into English means torture. Marc Thiessen, the second George W. Bush speechwriter contributing to the Post, is in good company with several other professional pontificators who have argued that a little roughing up of the enemy is morally justified and an effective way to gather intelligence. Recent disclosures that abusive practices went even farther than previously known should give pause to some of the most committed torture apologists.

What makes Thiessen's views particularly unique is the use of faith to burnish his position. A Roman Catholic, he argues that specific acts such as waterboarding are not prohibited by Catholic teaching in his book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama is Inviting the Next Attack. (Subtle title, eh?)

At the very least, this level of rationalization takes a Houdini-like sleight of hand and at worst badly distorts church teaching for sinister ends. The Catechism of the Catholic Church condemns "torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions." The U.S. Catholic bishops' political responsibility statement, Faithful Citizenship, unambiguously references torture (along with genocide, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war) as something that can "never be justified." In 1993, Pope John Paul II wrote in his encyclical Veritatis splendor that some acts "are always seriously wrong by reason of their object," including "whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity."

Thiessen's suspect theology has earned criticism from Catholic progressives and conservatives, including First Things, the Catholic journal that under the late Rev. Richard John Neuhaus strongly supported the invasion of Iraq. Paul Baumann, the editor of the Catholic magazine Commonweal, told the Beliefs columnist at The New York Times that the largely unified Catholic opposition to Thiessen is "a good indication of how erroneous his view is."

Perhaps that will persuade EWTN, the global Catholic television station and arbiter of opinion, culture, and spirituality for many conservative Catholics, to think twice before inviting Thiessen back on the air. In a recent interview, Thiessen claimed torture never occurred under the Bush administration and received an uncritical hearing from host Raymond Arroyo, whose commentary and exchanges with guests frequently sound like banter you would hear over cocktails at a Republican National Committee retreat.

Torture is morally wrong. It undermines our highest ideals and values as a nation. Many experts also cite evidence that there are more effective ways of collecting intelligence. Pundits are entitled to their own opinions and indeed get a paycheck for expressing them. But those who spin the facts commit an even graver offense when they misuse faith to do it.

John Gehring is Director of Communications for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

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

by: kansasmennonite

03-10-2010 @ 10:22pm

I thought that Thiessen was a Mennonite name! What's this world coming to! Leaving the faith, justifying torture, wait-that's half of my fellow mennonites today.

by: ckgmail

03-12-2010 @ 4:20pm

Please note the first paragraph of the code of conduct: "I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect . . ."

I saw one of those "girls" whose name I sullied at some kind of gathering a few years ago. I related this incident to her, and she thought it was tremendously funny.

But I'm signing off from you now. I will not respond to any more of your comments, even as I flag this one.

by: NMRod

03-12-2010 @ 2:28am

Curious.

Jesus wouldn't have to torture, but we have to.
Jesus doesn't counsel evil, but we must.

Whatever Jesus is about, it's "not for us."

Jesus Himself was tortured by lovers of Empire and domination, and they had their good reasons. It was also "expedient for the nation" that "this man Jesus" be tortured and executed.

The useful lesson for us in all this, is that Americans are as much sinners as human beings everywhere. We have among us, inside government and out, people who counsel and commit evil acts, just as human beings in other nations do. How could it be otherwise? We are essentially "at war" with the whole world, seeking to dominate it through force with our "rods of God" able to be rained down anywhere on the entire globe - yet almost all of us are descendants of immigrants from other countries. If they are evil, then, blood of their blood, so are we, after all.

We think that people in other nations are too mentally unstable to be trusted with destructive weaponry - unlike us. Yet some of our own political leaders are just as unstable. We have whole swathes of our population swooning and genuflecting as mentally disturbed simpletons demagogue on national TV, gesticulating and crying as they scapegoat. We think of how militarists gained control of other nations in the past and now. Yet our own nation is now in the firm grip of militarists of similar paranoid mental outlook.

by: ckgmail

03-11-2010 @ 12:44am

Torture cannot be justified morally. Advocates of torture should stick to pragmatic grounds. But I don't think torture can be justified pragmaticly either. I remember in September 1946, I came as a little country kid freshman to the town high school. (I was/am a country boy, and went to a country school through elementary.) In those days hazing was condoned in this particular town high school. There were belt lines which I could endure, and other humiliating practices. But I remember initiation into the FFA (Future Farmers of America) chapter at the town high school. I was blindfolded. One end of a wire was tied around my little toe, the other end to an old crank telephone. One of the upperclassmen asked me who my girl friend was. I said I don't have a girl friend. Somebody turned the crank and sent electricity pulsing into my little toe. Not much fun. They asked me again, "Who's your girl friend?" I answered again, "I don't have a girl friend!" Now that was the truth. It was not necessarily the truth I wanted,, but it was the truth. But it was not the desired answer. So somebody turned the crank a little faster and a little longer. After this had happened maybe three times I started naming names of any girls I could think of. My hazers got an answer, but they didn't get the truth. Torture may get an answer without getting the truth.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 5:52pm

"...why don't we interrogate everyone that way?"

Excellent post! Maybe if we had used that procedure on the ex-football player who murdered his wife, we could have locked him up years earlier. I used to watch NYPD Blue and that little guy on there was pretty effective in getting confessions.

by: Ngchen

03-11-2010 @ 5:38pm

A related question then is well, where shall we draw the line? If "enhanced interrogation" is so great, why don't we interrogate everyone that way? If we can prevent the next murder by routinely tearing condemned inmates apart with horses (one hitched to each limb), why don't we?

Now, it's very true but sad how people are quick to say "forget about human rights and civil liberties," until the person finds himself as someone who's suddenly less popular, and maybe even accused of doing something.

There is a line that has to be drawn somewhere if we're going to be able to credibly claim to be a civilized society. Remember the biblical command of how it's expressly forbidden to do something evil, even if it's to secure a good result.

by: Ngchen

03-11-2010 @ 5:33pm

Have you considered the possibility that BOTH are torture?

by: SamHamilton

03-13-2010 @ 5:22pm

Thiessen is Roman Catholic, according to what John wrote. He didn't "leave the faith".

by: Ngchen

03-11-2010 @ 5:32pm

You raise an excellent point. Psychologists have noted that almost everyone will break with enough torture. The question (putting morality aside for now) is what will the information given be? Will it really be the truth, or just what the interrogator wants to hear? False confessions are a big enough problem already; who wants to make them worse?

by: squeaky

03-13-2010 @ 5:04pm

Are you defending Nathan Bedford? I can only assume you are because he's the only one being rude here. Nathan Bedford is neither a prophet nor Jesus. If we are to justify making such statements, we better have the mind of God behind us. He is justifying torture, so I don't think he has the mind of God on his side. Do you?

by: Patricia

03-11-2010 @ 5:30pm

In the wake of World War II, the United States of America declared that "holding...heads underwater for a couple of minutes" IS torture. So much so, that we put people who had engaged in exactly that practice (mostly Japanese interrogators) to death.

If it was torture in 1946, it is torture now.

The only thing that changed since then is that instead of having it done to us, we decided we wanted to do it to "them". And so we did.

by: mark731

03-13-2010 @ 3:34pm

So calling someone a brood of vipers is off limits. How about white washed tombs full of dead mans bones. If that is the truth then it is not loving to avoid it. Or how about Elijah mocking the prophets of baal saying, "maybe your god is on vacation or taking a nap." Very curious that Jesus the Apostles and Prophets would all be condemned, flagged and kicked off this forum for saying what the truth is.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 5:02pm

Holding their heads underwater for a couple minutes is not torture. From what I have read, they don't bathe very often and those little sessions in the water have the added benefit of ridding them of body odor.

One of my friends was in the Korean War. He said that the communists who captured our boys would insert glass rods into their private parts and then break the rods. In my opinion, that is torture.

by: NMRod

03-11-2010 @ 3:20am

Who would Jesus torture?

No one.

Those who seek to self-justify it are not in His will at all, but wholly caught up within their own very human sin.

In this line of "work," only those who really enjoy it, stay with it. They are truly the sick among us, on all sides.

God have mercy on the torturer, who defiles his own humanity while he tries to destroy that of others.

by: DCPrince1

03-11-2010 @ 3:12am

The results of the enhanced interrogation has yielded results tha have saved the lives of many people. I am comfortable with the use of these techniques, and I really have time with the pompous attitudes, such as, "They'll be called to account for their actions." We all will, and we all should be prepared. But those who disagree should also be prepared to answer the question, "Why didn't you try to stop the killers?"

by: meurig

03-12-2010 @ 5:22am

The poor quality of the information obtained under torture was recognised as long ago as the early 1600s, when James VI of Scotland and I of England banned it for that very reason.

The advocates of torture wish to return to Tudor standards of evidence.

by: mark731

03-13-2010 @ 1:34pm

So calling someone a brood of vipers is off limits. How about white washed tombs full of dead mans bones. If that is the truth then it is not loving to avoid it. Or how about Elijah mocking the prophets of baal saying, "maybe your god is on vacation or taking a nap." Very curious that Jesus the Apostles and Prophets would all be condemned, flagged and kicked off this forum for saying what the truth is.

by: Patricia

03-11-2010 @ 1:51pm

That is not true. The "quality" of the information gained as a result of torture has been quite suspect, actually. There are several government reports which document this fact.

So, morality aside (as it is so easily cast by those who support torture), even on pragmatic grounds, torture is not working for us.

by: P3T3RK3Y5

03-11-2010 @ 1:26pm

Back in the Reagen / Clinton years - Those in the US Military were taught the 5 S's = Search, Silence, Segregate, Safeguard, Speed to the rear, as how we should treat prisoners. We were to treat them well because then the adversary would be quick to surrender, and we would maintain the moral high ground. The strong moral center of this kind of action was why I thought it was so important to have Christians in the military.

That all of this has been undermined by those who supposedly have the strongest grasp on morality (conservatives / evangelicals) and those they voted for should not be missed.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-12-2010 @ 11:12am

I was in the Army during Viet Nam. They warned us that we might be tortured if we were captured, but they sighted the Geneva Convention and siad all we were to give were our name, rank, and cereal number. You sullied the names of those girls over a little crank; I'm glad you were'nt in my company in Nam.

by: SamHamilton

03-13-2010 @ 3:22pm

Thiessen is Roman Catholic, according to what John wrote. He didn't "leave the faith".

by: squeaky

03-13-2010 @ 3:04pm

Are you defending Nathan Bedford? I can only assume you are because he's the only one being rude here. Nathan Bedford is neither a prophet nor Jesus. If we are to justify making such statements, we better have the mind of God behind us. He is justifying torture, so I don't think he has the mind of God on his side. Do you?

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 6:47pm

Sorry patricia. My comment was deleted so readers can't tell what you were referring to.

I was merely arguing that the courts have never condemned the relatively mild treatment initiated by the Bush Administration of subjecting captured terrorists to waterboarding which is close to drowning, but as far as I know no one ever actually drowned.

Then I think that the part of my post that lead to its being deleted was when I referred to the actual torture practiced by the North Koreans. unfortunately I used the term 'private parts" when I should have used the more clinical term "penises". I apologize and will try to adhere to the rules of this blog.

by: DJ9791

03-10-2010 @ 6:21pm

Thiessen and others like him will be called to account for their words one day...

We must all pray that those who advocate violence (that's what torture is) against anyone will cease to fly in the face of Jesus' Words to love our enemies. They do so at their peril.

Pray For Peace And Dare To Act!

by: Filiagape

03-10-2010 @ 8:00pm

Why is it that when it comes to the least ambiguous of issues--torture--the same people who complain about moral relativism with other issues suddenly find themselves willing to move the line to fit whatever best fits their nees of the moment? Does Theissen really think that when he stands before God, he'll get thumbs up for his justification of torture, no matter what the rationale?

by: ckgmail

03-12-2010 @ 4:20pm

Please note the first paragraph of the code of conduct: "I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect . . ."

I saw one of those "girls" whose name I sullied at some kind of gathering a few years ago. I related this incident to her, and she thought it was tremendously funny.

But I'm signing off from you now. I will not respond to any more of your comments, even as I flag this one.

by: DCPrince1

03-12-2010 @ 1:29am

So, we're once again directing the most negative comments toward conservatives. It really shows what I've come to believe about this webplace...it's all about one mind, and one thought, that being well left-of-center.

As far as why we don't interrogate everyone that way, it's because we don't need to. As far as whether Jesus would torture, I don't think he would have to. And "justice" doesn't always mean what those involved in the social justice movement think. Sometimes, and even Christ knew this, it meant you reap what you sow.

by: kansasmennonite

03-10-2010 @ 10:22pm

I thought that Thiessen was a Mennonite name! What's this world coming to! Leaving the faith, justifying torture, wait-that's half of my fellow mennonites today.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 5:52pm

"...why don't we interrogate everyone that way?"

Excellent post! Maybe if we had used that procedure on the ex-football player who murdered his wife, we could have locked him up years earlier. I used to watch NYPD Blue and that little guy on there was pretty effective in getting confessions.

by: Ngchen

03-11-2010 @ 5:38pm

A related question then is well, where shall we draw the line? If "enhanced interrogation" is so great, why don't we interrogate everyone that way? If we can prevent the next murder by routinely tearing condemned inmates apart with horses (one hitched to each limb), why don't we?

Now, it's very true but sad how people are quick to say "forget about human rights and civil liberties," until the person finds himself as someone who's suddenly less popular, and maybe even accused of doing something.

There is a line that has to be drawn somewhere if we're going to be able to credibly claim to be a civilized society. Remember the biblical command of how it's expressly forbidden to do something evil, even if it's to secure a good result.

by: Ngchen

03-11-2010 @ 5:33pm

Have you considered the possibility that BOTH are torture?

by: NMRod

03-12-2010 @ 2:28am

Curious.

Jesus wouldn't have to torture, but we have to.
Jesus doesn't counsel evil, but we must.

Whatever Jesus is about, it's "not for us."

Jesus Himself was tortured by lovers of Empire and domination, and they had their good reasons. It was also "expedient for the nation" that "this man Jesus" be tortured and executed.

The useful lesson for us in all this, is that Americans are as much sinners as human beings everywhere. We have among us, inside government and out, people who counsel and commit evil acts, just as human beings in other nations do. How could it be otherwise? We are essentially "at war" with the whole world, seeking to dominate it through force with our "rods of God" able to be rained down anywhere on the entire globe - yet almost all of us are descendants of immigrants from other countries. If they are evil, then, blood of their blood, so are we, after all.

We think that people in other nations are too mentally unstable to be trusted with destructive weaponry - unlike us. Yet some of our own political leaders are just as unstable. We have whole swathes of our population swooning and genuflecting as mentally disturbed simpletons demagogue on national TV, gesticulating and crying as they scapegoat. We think of how militarists gained control of other nations in the past and now. Yet our own nation is now in the firm grip of militarists of similar paranoid mental outlook.

by: Ngchen

03-11-2010 @ 5:32pm

You raise an excellent point. Psychologists have noted that almost everyone will break with enough torture. The question (putting morality aside for now) is what will the information given be? Will it really be the truth, or just what the interrogator wants to hear? False confessions are a big enough problem already; who wants to make them worse?

by: Patricia

03-11-2010 @ 5:30pm

In the wake of World War II, the United States of America declared that "holding...heads underwater for a couple of minutes" IS torture. So much so, that we put people who had engaged in exactly that practice (mostly Japanese interrogators) to death.

If it was torture in 1946, it is torture now.

The only thing that changed since then is that instead of having it done to us, we decided we wanted to do it to "them". And so we did.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 5:02pm

Holding their heads underwater for a couple minutes is not torture. From what I have read, they don't bathe very often and those little sessions in the water have the added benefit of ridding them of body odor.

One of my friends was in the Korean War. He said that the communists who captured our boys would insert glass rods into their private parts and then break the rods. In my opinion, that is torture.

by: ckgmail

03-11-2010 @ 12:44am

Torture cannot be justified morally. Advocates of torture should stick to pragmatic grounds. But I don't think torture can be justified pragmaticly either. I remember in September 1946, I came as a little country kid freshman to the town high school. (I was/am a country boy, and went to a country school through elementary.) In those days hazing was condoned in this particular town high school. There were belt lines which I could endure, and other humiliating practices. But I remember initiation into the FFA (Future Farmers of America) chapter at the town high school. I was blindfolded. One end of a wire was tied around my little toe, the other end to an old crank telephone. One of the upperclassmen asked me who my girl friend was. I said I don't have a girl friend. Somebody turned the crank and sent electricity pulsing into my little toe. Not much fun. They asked me again, "Who's your girl friend?" I answered again, "I don't have a girl friend!" Now that was the truth. It was not necessarily the truth I wanted,, but it was the truth. But it was not the desired answer. So somebody turned the crank a little faster and a little longer. After this had happened maybe three times I started naming names of any girls I could think of. My hazers got an answer, but they didn't get the truth. Torture may get an answer without getting the truth.

by: SamHamilton

03-13-2010 @ 5:22pm

Thiessen is Roman Catholic, according to what John wrote. He didn't "leave the faith".

by: squeaky

03-13-2010 @ 5:04pm

Are you defending Nathan Bedford? I can only assume you are because he's the only one being rude here. Nathan Bedford is neither a prophet nor Jesus. If we are to justify making such statements, we better have the mind of God behind us. He is justifying torture, so I don't think he has the mind of God on his side. Do you?

by: mark731

03-13-2010 @ 3:34pm

So calling someone a brood of vipers is off limits. How about white washed tombs full of dead mans bones. If that is the truth then it is not loving to avoid it. Or how about Elijah mocking the prophets of baal saying, "maybe your god is on vacation or taking a nap." Very curious that Jesus the Apostles and Prophets would all be condemned, flagged and kicked off this forum for saying what the truth is.

by: NMRod

03-11-2010 @ 3:20am

Who would Jesus torture?

No one.

Those who seek to self-justify it are not in His will at all, but wholly caught up within their own very human sin.

In this line of "work," only those who really enjoy it, stay with it. They are truly the sick among us, on all sides.

God have mercy on the torturer, who defiles his own humanity while he tries to destroy that of others.

by: DCPrince1

03-11-2010 @ 3:12am

The results of the enhanced interrogation has yielded results tha have saved the lives of many people. I am comfortable with the use of these techniques, and I really have time with the pompous attitudes, such as, "They'll be called to account for their actions." We all will, and we all should be prepared. But those who disagree should also be prepared to answer the question, "Why didn't you try to stop the killers?"

by: meurig

03-12-2010 @ 5:22am

The poor quality of the information obtained under torture was recognised as long ago as the early 1600s, when James VI of Scotland and I of England banned it for that very reason.

The advocates of torture wish to return to Tudor standards of evidence.

by: mark731

03-13-2010 @ 1:34pm

So calling someone a brood of vipers is off limits. How about white washed tombs full of dead mans bones. If that is the truth then it is not loving to avoid it. Or how about Elijah mocking the prophets of baal saying, "maybe your god is on vacation or taking a nap." Very curious that Jesus the Apostles and Prophets would all be condemned, flagged and kicked off this forum for saying what the truth is.

by: SamHamilton

03-13-2010 @ 3:22pm

Thiessen is Roman Catholic, according to what John wrote. He didn't "leave the faith".

by: squeaky

03-13-2010 @ 3:04pm

Are you defending Nathan Bedford? I can only assume you are because he's the only one being rude here. Nathan Bedford is neither a prophet nor Jesus. If we are to justify making such statements, we better have the mind of God behind us. He is justifying torture, so I don't think he has the mind of God on his side. Do you?

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 6:47pm

Sorry patricia. My comment was deleted so readers can't tell what you were referring to.

I was merely arguing that the courts have never condemned the relatively mild treatment initiated by the Bush Administration of subjecting captured terrorists to waterboarding which is close to drowning, but as far as I know no one ever actually drowned.

Then I think that the part of my post that lead to its being deleted was when I referred to the actual torture practiced by the North Koreans. unfortunately I used the term 'private parts" when I should have used the more clinical term "penises". I apologize and will try to adhere to the rules of this blog.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-12-2010 @ 11:12am

I was in the Army during Viet Nam. They warned us that we might be tortured if we were captured, but they sighted the Geneva Convention and siad all we were to give were our name, rank, and cereal number. You sullied the names of those girls over a little crank; I'm glad you were'nt in my company in Nam.

by: Patricia

03-11-2010 @ 1:51pm

That is not true. The "quality" of the information gained as a result of torture has been quite suspect, actually. There are several government reports which document this fact.

So, morality aside (as it is so easily cast by those who support torture), even on pragmatic grounds, torture is not working for us.

by: P3T3RK3Y5

03-11-2010 @ 1:26pm

Back in the Reagen / Clinton years - Those in the US Military were taught the 5 S's = Search, Silence, Segregate, Safeguard, Speed to the rear, as how we should treat prisoners. We were to treat them well because then the adversary would be quick to surrender, and we would maintain the moral high ground. The strong moral center of this kind of action was why I thought it was so important to have Christians in the military.

That all of this has been undermined by those who supposedly have the strongest grasp on morality (conservatives / evangelicals) and those they voted for should not be missed.

by: DJ9791

03-10-2010 @ 6:21pm

Thiessen and others like him will be called to account for their words one day...

We must all pray that those who advocate violence (that's what torture is) against anyone will cease to fly in the face of Jesus' Words to love our enemies. They do so at their peril.

Pray For Peace And Dare To Act!

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

by: DJ9791

03-10-2010 @ 6:21pm

Thiessen and others like him will be called to account for their words one day...

We must all pray that those who advocate violence (that's what torture is) against anyone will cease to fly in the face of Jesus' Words to love our enemies. They do so at their peril.

Pray For Peace And Dare To Act!

by: DJ9791

03-10-2010 @ 6:21pm

Thiessen and others like him will be called to account for their words one day...

We must all pray that those who advocate violence (that's what torture is) against anyone will cease to fly in the face of Jesus' Words to love our enemies. They do so at their peril.

Pray For Peace And Dare To Act!

by: Filiagape

03-10-2010 @ 8:00pm

Why is it that when it comes to the least ambiguous of issues--torture--the same people who complain about moral relativism with other issues suddenly find themselves willing to move the line to fit whatever best fits their nees of the moment? Does Theissen really think that when he stands before God, he'll get thumbs up for his justification of torture, no matter what the rationale?

by: Filiagape

03-10-2010 @ 8:00pm

Why is it that when it comes to the least ambiguous of issues--torture--the same people who complain about moral relativism with other issues suddenly find themselves willing to move the line to fit whatever best fits their nees of the moment? Does Theissen really think that when he stands before God, he'll get thumbs up for his justification of torture, no matter what the rationale?

by: kansasmennonite

03-10-2010 @ 10:22pm

I thought that Thiessen was a Mennonite name! What's this world coming to! Leaving the faith, justifying torture, wait-that's half of my fellow mennonites today.

by: kansasmennonite

03-10-2010 @ 10:22pm

I thought that Thiessen was a Mennonite name! What's this world coming to! Leaving the faith, justifying torture, wait-that's half of my fellow mennonites today.

by: ckgmail

03-11-2010 @ 12:44am

Torture cannot be justified morally. Advocates of torture should stick to pragmatic grounds. But I don't think torture can be justified pragmaticly either. I remember in September 1946, I came as a little country kid freshman to the town high school. (I was/am a country boy, and went to a country school through elementary.) In those days hazing was condoned in this particular town high school. There were belt lines which I could endure, and other humiliating practices. But I remember initiation into the FFA (Future Farmers of America) chapter at the town high school. I was blindfolded. One end of a wire was tied around my little toe, the other end to an old crank telephone. One of the upperclassmen asked me who my girl friend was. I said I don't have a girl friend. Somebody turned the crank and sent electricity pulsing into my little toe. Not much fun. They asked me again, "Who's your girl friend?" I answered again, "I don't have a girl friend!" Now that was the truth. It was not necessarily the truth I wanted,, but it was the truth. But it was not the desired answer. So somebody turned the crank a little faster and a little longer. After this had happened maybe three times I started naming names of any girls I could think of. My hazers got an answer, but they didn't get the truth. Torture may get an answer without getting the truth.

by: ckgmail

03-11-2010 @ 12:44am

Torture cannot be justified morally. Advocates of torture should stick to pragmatic grounds. But I don't think torture can be justified pragmaticly either. I remember in September 1946, I came as a little country kid freshman to the town high school. (I was/am a country boy, and went to a country school through elementary.) In those days hazing was condoned in this particular town high school. There were belt lines which I could endure, and other humiliating practices. But I remember initiation into the FFA (Future Farmers of America) chapter at the town high school. I was blindfolded. One end of a wire was tied around my little toe, the other end to an old crank telephone. One of the upperclassmen asked me who my girl friend was. I said I don't have a girl friend. Somebody turned the crank and sent electricity pulsing into my little toe. Not much fun. They asked me again, "Who's your girl friend?" I answered again, "I don't have a girl friend!" Now that was the truth. It was not necessarily the truth I wanted,, but it was the truth. But it was not the desired answer. So somebody turned the crank a little faster and a little longer. After this had happened maybe three times I started naming names of any girls I could think of. My hazers got an answer, but they didn't get the truth. Torture may get an answer without getting the truth.

by: DCPrince1

03-11-2010 @ 3:12am

The results of the enhanced interrogation has yielded results tha have saved the lives of many people. I am comfortable with the use of these techniques, and I really have time with the pompous attitudes, such as, "They'll be called to account for their actions." We all will, and we all should be prepared. But those who disagree should also be prepared to answer the question, "Why didn't you try to stop the killers?"

by: DCPrince1

03-11-2010 @ 3:12am

The results of the enhanced interrogation has yielded results tha have saved the lives of many people. I am comfortable with the use of these techniques, and I really have time with the pompous attitudes, such as, "They'll be called to account for their actions." We all will, and we all should be prepared. But those who disagree should also be prepared to answer the question, "Why didn't you try to stop the killers?"

by: NMRod

03-11-2010 @ 3:20am

Who would Jesus torture?

No one.

Those who seek to self-justify it are not in His will at all, but wholly caught up within their own very human sin.

In this line of "work," only those who really enjoy it, stay with it. They are truly the sick among us, on all sides.

God have mercy on the torturer, who defiles his own humanity while he tries to destroy that of others.

by: NMRod

03-11-2010 @ 3:20am

Who would Jesus torture?

No one.

Those who seek to self-justify it are not in His will at all, but wholly caught up within their own very human sin.

In this line of "work," only those who really enjoy it, stay with it. They are truly the sick among us, on all sides.

God have mercy on the torturer, who defiles his own humanity while he tries to destroy that of others.

by: P3T3RK3Y5

03-11-2010 @ 1:26pm

Back in the Reagen / Clinton years - Those in the US Military were taught the 5 S's = Search, Silence, Segregate, Safeguard, Speed to the rear, as how we should treat prisoners. We were to treat them well because then the adversary would be quick to surrender, and we would maintain the moral high ground. The strong moral center of this kind of action was why I thought it was so important to have Christians in the military.

That all of this has been undermined by those who supposedly have the strongest grasp on morality (conservatives / evangelicals) and those they voted for should not be missed.

by: P3T3RK3Y5

03-11-2010 @ 1:26pm

Back in the Reagen / Clinton years - Those in the US Military were taught the 5 S's = Search, Silence, Segregate, Safeguard, Speed to the rear, as how we should treat prisoners. We were to treat them well because then the adversary would be quick to surrender, and we would maintain the moral high ground. The strong moral center of this kind of action was why I thought it was so important to have Christians in the military.

That all of this has been undermined by those who supposedly have the strongest grasp on morality (conservatives / evangelicals) and those they voted for should not be missed.

by: Patricia

03-11-2010 @ 1:51pm

That is not true. The "quality" of the information gained as a result of torture has been quite suspect, actually. There are several government reports which document this fact.

So, morality aside (as it is so easily cast by those who support torture), even on pragmatic grounds, torture is not working for us.

by: Patricia

03-11-2010 @ 1:51pm

That is not true. The "quality" of the information gained as a result of torture has been quite suspect, actually. There are several government reports which document this fact.

So, morality aside (as it is so easily cast by those who support torture), even on pragmatic grounds, torture is not working for us.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 5:02pm

Holding their heads underwater for a couple minutes is not torture. From what I have read, they don't bathe very often and those little sessions in the water have the added benefit of ridding them of body odor.

One of my friends was in the Korean War. He said that the communists who captured our boys would insert glass rods into their private parts and then break the rods. In my opinion, that is torture.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 5:02pm

Holding their heads underwater for a couple minutes is not torture. From what I have read, they don't bathe very often and those little sessions in the water have the added benefit of ridding them of body odor.

One of my friends was in the Korean War. He said that the communists who captured our boys would insert glass rods into their private parts and then break the rods. In my opinion, that is torture.

by: Patricia

03-11-2010 @ 5:30pm

In the wake of World War II, the United States of America declared that "holding...heads underwater for a couple of minutes" IS torture. So much so, that we put people who had engaged in exactly that practice (mostly Japanese interrogators) to death.

If it was torture in 1946, it is torture now.

The only thing that changed since then is that instead of having it done to us, we decided we wanted to do it to "them". And so we did.

by: Patricia

03-11-2010 @ 5:30pm

In the wake of World War II, the United States of America declared that "holding...heads underwater for a couple of minutes" IS torture. So much so, that we put people who had engaged in exactly that practice (mostly Japanese interrogators) to death.

If it was torture in 1946, it is torture now.

The only thing that changed since then is that instead of having it done to us, we decided we wanted to do it to "them". And so we did.

by: Ngchen

03-11-2010 @ 5:32pm

You raise an excellent point. Psychologists have noted that almost everyone will break with enough torture. The question (putting morality aside for now) is what will the information given be? Will it really be the truth, or just what the interrogator wants to hear? False confessions are a big enough problem already; who wants to make them worse?

by: Ngchen

03-11-2010 @ 5:32pm

You raise an excellent point. Psychologists have noted that almost everyone will break with enough torture. The question (putting morality aside for now) is what will the information given be? Will it really be the truth, or just what the interrogator wants to hear? False confessions are a big enough problem already; who wants to make them worse?

by: Ngchen

03-11-2010 @ 5:33pm

Have you considered the possibility that BOTH are torture?

by: Ngchen

03-11-2010 @ 5:33pm

Have you considered the possibility that BOTH are torture?

by: Ngchen

03-11-2010 @ 5:38pm

A related question then is well, where shall we draw the line? If "enhanced interrogation" is so great, why don't we interrogate everyone that way? If we can prevent the next murder by routinely tearing condemned inmates apart with horses (one hitched to each limb), why don't we?

Now, it's very true but sad how people are quick to say "forget about human rights and civil liberties," until the person finds himself as someone who's suddenly less popular, and maybe even accused of doing something.

There is a line that has to be drawn somewhere if we're going to be able to credibly claim to be a civilized society. Remember the biblical command of how it's expressly forbidden to do something evil, even if it's to secure a good result.

by: Ngchen

03-11-2010 @ 5:38pm

A related question then is well, where shall we draw the line? If "enhanced interrogation" is so great, why don't we interrogate everyone that way? If we can prevent the next murder by routinely tearing condemned inmates apart with horses (one hitched to each limb), why don't we?

Now, it's very true but sad how people are quick to say "forget about human rights and civil liberties," until the person finds himself as someone who's suddenly less popular, and maybe even accused of doing something.

There is a line that has to be drawn somewhere if we're going to be able to credibly claim to be a civilized society. Remember the biblical command of how it's expressly forbidden to do something evil, even if it's to secure a good result.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 5:52pm

"...why don't we interrogate everyone that way?"

Excellent post! Maybe if we had used that procedure on the ex-football player who murdered his wife, we could have locked him up years earlier. I used to watch NYPD Blue and that little guy on there was pretty effective in getting confessions.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 5:52pm

"...why don't we interrogate everyone that way?"

Excellent post! Maybe if we had used that procedure on the ex-football player who murdered his wife, we could have locked him up years earlier. I used to watch NYPD Blue and that little guy on there was pretty effective in getting confessions.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 6:47pm

Sorry patricia. My comment was deleted so readers can't tell what you were referring to.

I was merely arguing that the courts have never condemned the relatively mild treatment initiated by the Bush Administration of subjecting captured terrorists to waterboarding which is close to drowning, but as far as I know no one ever actually drowned.

Then I think that the part of my post that lead to its being deleted was when I referred to the actual torture practiced by the North Koreans. unfortunately I used the term 'private parts" when I should have used the more clinical term "penises". I apologize and will try to adhere to the rules of this blog.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 6:47pm

Sorry patricia. My comment was deleted so readers can't tell what you were referring to.

I was merely arguing that the courts have never condemned the relatively mild treatment initiated by the Bush Administration of subjecting captured terrorists to waterboarding which is close to drowning, but as far as I know no one ever actually drowned.

Then I think that the part of my post that lead to its being deleted was when I referred to the actual torture practiced by the North Koreans. unfortunately I used the term 'private parts" when I should have used the more clinical term "penises". I apologize and will try to adhere to the rules of this blog.

by: DCPrince1

03-12-2010 @ 1:29am

So, we're once again directing the most negative comments toward conservatives. It really shows what I've come to believe about this webplace...it's all about one mind, and one thought, that being well left-of-center.

As far as why we don't interrogate everyone that way, it's because we don't need to. As far as whether Jesus would torture, I don't think he would have to. And "justice" doesn't always mean what those involved in the social justice movement think. Sometimes, and even Christ knew this, it meant you reap what you sow.

by: DCPrince1

03-12-2010 @ 1:29am

So, we're once again directing the most negative comments toward conservatives. It really shows what I've come to believe about this webplace...it's all about one mind, and one thought, that being well left-of-center.

As far as why we don't interrogate everyone that way, it's because we don't need to. As far as whether Jesus would torture, I don't think he would have to. And "justice" doesn't always mean what those involved in the social justice movement think. Sometimes, and even Christ knew this, it meant you reap what you sow.

by: NMRod

03-12-2010 @ 2:28am

Curious.

Jesus wouldn't have to torture, but we have to.
Jesus doesn't counsel evil, but we must.

Whatever Jesus is about, it's "not for us."

Jesus Himself was tortured by lovers of Empire and domination, and they had their good reasons. It was also "expedient for the nation" that "this man Jesus" be tortured and executed.

The useful lesson for us in all this, is that Americans are as much sinners as human beings everywhere. We have among us, inside government and out, people who counsel and commit evil acts, just as human beings in other nations do. How could it be otherwise? We are essentially "at war" with the whole world, seeking to dominate it through force with our "rods of God" able to be rained down anywhere on the entire globe - yet almost all of us are descendants of immigrants from other countries. If they are evil, then, blood of their blood, so are we, after all.

We think that people in other nations are too mentally unstable to be trusted with destructive weaponry - unlike us. Yet some of our own political leaders are just as unstable. We have whole swathes of our population swooning and genuflecting as mentally disturbed simpletons demagogue on national TV, gesticulating and crying as they scapegoat. We think of how militarists gained control of other nations in the past and now. Yet our own nation is now in the firm grip of militarists of similar paranoid mental outlook.

by: NMRod

03-12-2010 @ 2:28am

Curious.

Jesus wouldn't have to torture, but we have to.
Jesus doesn't counsel evil, but we must.

Whatever Jesus is about, it's "not for us."

Jesus Himself was tortured by lovers of Empire and domination, and they had their good reasons. It was also "expedient for the nation" that "this man Jesus" be tortured and executed.

The useful lesson for us in all this, is that Americans are as much sinners as human beings everywhere. We have among us, inside government and out, people who counsel and commit evil acts, just as human beings in other nations do. How could it be otherwise? We are essentially "at war" with the whole world, seeking to dominate it through force with our "rods of God" able to be rained down anywhere on the entire globe - yet almost all of us are descendants of immigrants from other countries. If they are evil, then, blood of their blood, so are we, after all.

We think that people in other nations are too mentally unstable to be trusted with destructive weaponry - unlike us. Yet some of our own political leaders are just as unstable. We have whole swathes of our population swooning and genuflecting as mentally disturbed simpletons demagogue on national TV, gesticulating and crying as they scapegoat. We think of how militarists gained control of other nations in the past and now. Yet our own nation is now in the firm grip of militarists of similar paranoid mental outlook.

by: meurig

03-12-2010 @ 5:22am

The poor quality of the information obtained under torture was recognised as long ago as the early 1600s, when James VI of Scotland and I of England banned it for that very reason.

The advocates of torture wish to return to Tudor standards of evidence.

by: meurig

03-12-2010 @ 5:22am

The poor quality of the information obtained under torture was recognised as long ago as the early 1600s, when James VI of Scotland and I of England banned it for that very reason.

The advocates of torture wish to return to Tudor standards of evidence.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-12-2010 @ 11:12am

I was in the Army during Viet Nam. They warned us that we might be tortured if we were captured, but they sighted the Geneva Convention and siad all we were to give were our name, rank, and cereal number. You sullied the names of those girls over a little crank; I'm glad you were'nt in my company in Nam.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-12-2010 @ 11:12am

I was in the Army during Viet Nam. They warned us that we might be tortured if we were captured, but they sighted the Geneva Convention and siad all we were to give were our name, rank, and cereal number. You sullied the names of those girls over a little crank; I'm glad you were'nt in my company in Nam.

by: ckgmail

03-12-2010 @ 4:20pm

Please note the first paragraph of the code of conduct: "I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect . . ."

I saw one of those "girls" whose name I sullied at some kind of gathering a few years ago. I related this incident to her, and she thought it was tremendously funny.

But I'm signing off from you now. I will not respond to any more of your comments, even as I flag this one.

by: ckgmail

03-12-2010 @ 4:20pm

Please note the first paragraph of the code of conduct: "I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect . . ."

I saw one of those "girls" whose name I sullied at some kind of gathering a few years ago. I related this incident to her, and she thought it was tremendously funny.

But I'm signing off from you now. I will not respond to any more of your comments, even as I flag this one.

by: mark731

03-13-2010 @ 1:34pm

So calling someone a brood of vipers is off limits. How about white washed tombs full of dead mans bones. If that is the truth then it is not loving to avoid it. Or how about Elijah mocking the prophets of baal saying, "maybe your god is on vacation or taking a nap." Very curious that Jesus the Apostles and Prophets would all be condemned, flagged and kicked off this forum for saying what the truth is.

by: mark731

03-13-2010 @ 1:34pm

So calling someone a brood of vipers is off limits. How about white washed tombs full of dead mans bones. If that is the truth then it is not loving to avoid it. Or how about Elijah mocking the prophets of baal saying, "maybe your god is on vacation or taking a nap." Very curious that Jesus the Apostles and Prophets would all be condemned, flagged and kicked off this forum for saying what the truth is.

by: squeaky

03-13-2010 @ 3:04pm

Are you defending Nathan Bedford? I can only assume you are because he's the only one being rude here. Nathan Bedford is neither a prophet nor Jesus. If we are to justify making such statements, we better have the mind of God behind us. He is justifying torture, so I don't think he has the mind of God on his side. Do you?

by: squeaky

03-13-2010 @ 3:04pm

Are you defending Nathan Bedford? I can only assume you are because he's the only one being rude here. Nathan Bedford is neither a prophet nor Jesus. If we are to justify making such statements, we better have the mind of God behind us. He is justifying torture, so I don't think he has the mind of God on his side. Do you?

by: SamHamilton

03-13-2010 @ 3:22pm

Thiessen is Roman Catholic, according to what John wrote. He didn't "leave the faith".

by: SamHamilton

03-13-2010 @ 3:22pm

Thiessen is Roman Catholic, according to what John wrote. He didn't "leave the faith".

by: mark731

03-13-2010 @ 3:34pm

So calling someone a brood of vipers is off limits. How about white washed tombs full of dead mans bones. If that is the truth then it is not loving to avoid it. Or how about Elijah mocking the prophets of baal saying, "maybe your god is on vacation or taking a nap." Very curious that Jesus the Apostles and Prophets would all be condemned, flagged and kicked off this forum for saying what the truth is.

by: mark731

03-13-2010 @ 3:34pm

So calling someone a brood of vipers is off limits. How about white washed tombs full of dead mans bones. If that is the truth then it is not loving to avoid it. Or how about Elijah mocking the prophets of baal saying, "maybe your god is on vacation or taking a nap." Very curious that Jesus the Apostles and Prophets would all be condemned, flagged and kicked off this forum for saying what the truth is.

by: squeaky

03-13-2010 @ 5:04pm

Are you defending Nathan Bedford? I can only assume you are because he's the only one being rude here. Nathan Bedford is neither a prophet nor Jesus. If we are to justify making such statements, we better have the mind of God behind us. He is justifying torture, so I don't think he has the mind of God on his side. Do you?

by: squeaky

03-13-2010 @ 5:04pm

Are you defending Nathan Bedford? I can only assume you are because he's the only one being rude here. Nathan Bedford is neither a prophet nor Jesus. If we are to justify making such statements, we better have the mind of God behind us. He is justifying torture, so I don't think he has the mind of God on his side. Do you?