The morality of torture

[Guest LadyC]

buck, i'm against the use of torture.... but what YOU define as torture and what i define it as (which is how it is defined by the geneva convention standards) are very different things.

just as you find our morality suspect because we don't define torture the same way that you do (dare i ask if you think sleep deprivation is torture?), i find almost every thread you start to be suspect. you post like crazy with the intention of stirring up a hornet's nest rather than posting threads that edify the board or glorify the Lord. so please stop making moral judgements on the rest of us.... the one leg you have to stand on is weak in the knee.

LadyC, you obviously believe that torture is a good thing. Maybe you're a "frustrated FBI agent" or something. Maybe you enjoyed pretending to pull the wings off insects, as a child, and justified it by telling yourself "it can't really be defined as torture because I only scared them, I didn't actually permanently maim them, they were just uncomfortable for a while".

One thing though: How did you get out of my original post that I was "making moral judgements on the rest of you"? I must remind you also that those who advocate torture are very much in the minority on these boards.

Also if you don't like what I say, please don't deal with it by personally attacking me.

and you call man the master of personal attacks? and accuse me of attacking you also? let me tell ya something buck, i made it VERY CLEAR that i'm against the use of torture. i also made it very clear that your definition of torture and mine are not the same. mine is the legal definition.

i stand behind what i said. you make a habit of passing moral judgement on people who disagree with you. SCRIPTURE tells us to pull the plank out of our own eye before looking for the splinter in someone else's. and that is why i said the leg you stand on is weak in the knee.

once again, i do not advocate torture. so QUIT MAKING THAT ACCUSATION. it is a FALSE accusation. it is a lie, pure and simple.

[Guest LadyC]

thank you OC, just read what you posted.

[buckthesystem]

Some of you people are incredible!

Question: Do you feel that torture of any kind has any moral value at all?

Answer: Well they do it to us!

Brilliant way not to answer the question. You seem to be so steeped in hatred and a desire for revenge on the "enemy" that you will "justify" or simply deny any question of torture of the "enemy".

The entire point was that "an allegation of torture of somebody (whether or not they are guilty of something is largely irrelevant) has been made, so let's discuss it". But no, you want to absolutely ignore the question and just bring up how horrible "the enemy" has been to westerners or other Christians.

Aren't we supposed to have the attitude of "I want to do as Jesus would have done"? So read Hypathia's post: How did Jesus torture, no he was tortured himself!

The problem is that we already know your position, so your motives posting what you did is suspect. I have lost count of how many people post something "just for disucssion" when in a few pages their true agenda comes out.

Torture is something that everybody takes a stand on either way. So by that logic we should never have any discussion on the subject because "everybody who already has a view will have 'suspect' motives for wanting to discuss it". You know my position, I know your position, so...?

The problem is that you assume your position is the moral position to take. You are against ANY form of torture for ANY reason, and we understand that.

The problem is that you start off with your mind made up, and then question the moral fortitude of someone who sees it differently.

Where, exactly, did I say that I questioned the moral fortitude of anyone who advocated torture? I think you may be "reading things into words that are not there".

Torture for torture's sake IS immoral, and I don't think anyone here would advocate inflicting pain on anyone needlessly.

So the prisoners at Gitmo can comfort themselves by thinking "this might be 'NEEDED'"

I guess the problem is that these types of morall issues are aimed at Christians particularly Western (U.S.) Christians, and it is perceived as nothing but a back door approach to condemn the war in Iraq. It just doesn't appear that pure discussion is what you are really after.

"A backdoor approach to condemn the Iraq war", now that is novel, why, no how, do you attribute this to me? As for "...particularly Western (US) Christians....." I absolutely refute that. I have no anti-American agenda. I have never said anything anti-American, and I never would.

Some of us are of the opinion that perhaps you should approach the insurgents (terrorists) in Iraq and preach to them first. They torture people as an act of aggression. They use torture for propaganda points. They use torture as pre-cursor to exectution. Perhaps when you have vistited your moral perfection on them, you might have something to say to us on the issue. You cannot compare their tactics to the US' tactics. There is simply no similarity whatsoever.

When somebody says "some of us are of the opinion...", it is obvious that they are trying to hide behind others, and will not come out and say "'I' stand for this....." Please don't presume to speak for others unless you have held a committee meeting and come up with a unanimous consensus.

[LadyGunivere]

buck I think you've crossed the line... You can disagree to agree. You've bashed my opinion on a few occasions and now your bashing everyone else's. This is not something common in the US. shiloh is here so I'm sure he has an opinion and will tell you straight off this isn't of Godly person ways....

[Guest shiloh357]

Torture is something that everybody takes a stand on either way. So by that logic we should never have any discussion on the subject because "everybody who already has a view will have 'suspect' motives for wanting to discuss it". You know my position, I know your position, so...?

I am saying, based upon the past, that it is natural to question the purity of your motives for starting yet another thread on torture.

Where, exactly, did I say that I questioned the moral fortitude of anyone who advocated torture? I think you may be "reading things into words that are not there".

It comes out in your posts. Torture in your book, for any reason is wrong, and in your eyes your's is a higher moral position, so naturally your posts come off as questioning the moral position of those who don't share your absolutist position.

Torture for torture's sake IS immoral, and I don't think anyone here would advocate inflicting pain on anyone needlessly.

So the prisoners at Gitmo can comfort themselves by thinking "this might be 'NEEDED'"

No, but the American people can take comfort that information is being retrieved that is can save the lives of not only of our people over here, but can save the lives military and nonmilitary personnel over in Iraq and Afghanistan. I bet there a lot of pepole who want their sons and daughters to come home alive, and if making someone uncomfortable means the difference between life and death for our people, we are willing to go that route. The problem is that you have a misplaced moral code. You place the life of the terrorist ahead of the lives the victims of terrorism. The victims of these terrorists can have their heads cut off, and their bodies burned with acid, but what you do you care, right??? Those victims can sit and suffer, but according to you, we have no right to forcibly acquire information that would save these victims. I don't know if you are an American, but I hope you're not.

When somebody says "some of us are of the opinion...", it is obvious that they are trying to hide behind others, and will not come out and say "'I' stand for this....." Please don't presume to speak for others unless you have held a committee meeting and come up with a unanimous consensus

I know that there are plenty of people on and off the board who share my sentitment. When you stop the genuine barbaric torture of our people by our enemies, then you might have some credibility with the nonsense you are posting here. When you have preached it to our enemies, come back and preach it to us.

As long our people's lives are in danger, we are within our moral rights to seek every avenue keep them safe.

[Candi770]

Torture is something that everybody takes a stand on either way. So by that logic we should never have any discussion on the subject because "everybody who already has a view will have 'suspect' motives for wanting to discuss it". You know my position, I know your position, so...?

I am saying, based upon the past, that it is natural to question the purity of your motives for starting yet another thread on torture.

Where, exactly, did I say that I questioned the moral fortitude of anyone who advocated torture? I think you may be "reading things into words that are not there".

It comes out in your posts. Torture in your book, for any reason is wrong, and in your eyes is a higher moral position, so naturally your posts come off as questioning the moral position of those who don't share your absolutist position.

Torture for torture's sake IS immoral, and I don't think anyone here would advocate inflicting pain on anyone needlessly.

So the prisoners at Gitmo can comfort themselves by thinking "this might be 'NEEDED'"

No, but the American people can take comfort that information is being retrieved that is can save the lives of not only of our people over here, but can save the lives military and nonmilitary personnel over in Iraq and Afghanistan. I bet there a lot of pepole who want their sons and daughters to come home alive, and if making someone uncomfortable means the difference between life and death for our people, we are willing to go that route. The problem is that you have a misplaced moral code. You place the life of the terrorist ahead of the lives the victims of terrorism. The victims of these terrorists can have their heads cut off, and their bodies burned with acid, but what you do you care, right??? Those victims can sit and suffer, but according to you, we have no right to forcibly acquire information that would save these victims. I don't know if you are an American, but I hope you're not.

When somebody says "some of us are of the opinion...", it is obvious that they are trying to hide behind others, and will not come out and say "'I' stand for this....." Please don't presume to speak for others unless you have held a committee meeting and come up with a unanimous consensus

I know that there are plenty of people on and off the board who share my sentitment. When you stop the genuine barbaric torture of our people by our enemies, then you might have some credibility with the nonsense you are posting here. When you have preached it to our enemies, come back and preach it to us.

As long our people's lives are in danger, we are within our moral rights to seek every avenue keep them safe.

THank you. :thumbsup

[CallMeBernard]

Hi

I'm against any interrogation legally- defined as torture (let's face; there are those who will claim anything is torture so I will stick to the established international definitions), at any or all costs.

I personally believe it to go against my own personal code of ethics and against what I believe. I also believe that it does not help in the long run: it merely gives the 'enemy' a stick to point at you and say- "Look, they're the bad guys. They torture innocent people."

And any innocent person tortured by the goverment becomes a recruitment image for the terrorists, irrespective of whether or not the innocent person wishes to be. And no, the same sets of standards do not apply to the terrorists. It isn't fair, but that's life.

An example would be the IRA. They bombed two pubs in England (in Birmingham & Guildford) and killed many inncocent people. The goverment ended up arresting- and convicting- the wrong people, who were wrongly jailed for many years. After their release, who ended up looking the bad guys? The British government- not the IRA who'd bombed the pubs in the first place & killed innocents, but the British governemnt who'd jailed the wrong ones.

Would you rather your loved ones were killed, or jailed for a decade or so and then released?

Yet still it was the governemnt who apologised, and not a murmur from the IRA (as far as I am aware).

On Bloody Sunday, the British Army killed 27 (I think)[/size=3] innocent people. Over the years the IRA, INLA, UVF, UDF etc etc killed many, many more. Yet not a single public inquiry has been held by the terrorist organisations, but the Army has been forced into holding one.

Terrorist organisations and governments will always be judged differently. I wished it were not so, but that's the way it seems to be. Goverments should, IMO, have a higher standard of behaviour than the scum we are supposed to be fighting. Governemnts are supposed to protect their people from the risk of torture, not add to it.

Saying that though, the hypothetical question of 'what if you need to get the information out of someone to protect your child' is not an easy one for me to answer. Which is why I'm glad it is only hypothetical.

[Openly Curious]

buck, i'm against the use of torture.... but what YOU define as torture and what i define it as (which is how it is defined by the geneva convention standards) are very different things.

just as you find our morality suspect because we don't define torture the same way that you do (dare i ask if you think sleep deprivation is torture?), i find almost every thread you start to be suspect. you post like crazy with the intention of stirring up a hornet's nest rather than posting threads that edify the board or glorify the Lord. so please stop making moral judgements on the rest of us.... the one leg you have to stand on is weak in the knee.

LadyC, you obviously believe that torture is a good thing. Maybe you're a "frustrated FBI agent" or something. Maybe you enjoyed pretending to pull the wings off insects, as a child, and justified it by telling yourself "it can't really be defined as torture because I only scared them, I didn't actually permanently maim them, they were just uncomfortable for a while".

One thing though: How did you get out of my original post that I was "making moral judgements on the rest of you"? I must remind you also that those who advocate torture are very much in the minority on these boards.

Also if you don't like what I say, please don't deal with it by personally attacking me.

I know LadyC and O.C. have already addressed this, but you owe LadyC an apology for those absurd remarks about her harming insects as a child for fun, and saying she thinks torture is a good thing. All she said was your definition of torture was differen't from hers, and I would add that since you consider water boarding torture, it is differen't from mine as well.

You also claim that "those who advocate torture are very much in the minority on these boards." How do you know that? Did you take a poll? If you did, I didn't have the opportunity to participate. In addition, I see far more dissagreeing with your position than aggreeing with it, so I am not so sure that you are correct in that assumption. I personally believe that a majority of Americans would be in favor of torturing of prisoners if such torture would prevent another attack similar to 9-11. That is just my opinion, but it is as valid as yours.

By the way, just for the record, I don't go around harming animals for fun. I also don't beat up my wife. I have a couple of cats for pets, and they are spoiled rotten. I agree with what Shiloh said that torture for the enjoyment of it is immoral, but torture of terrorists for the sake of saving the lives of those they desire to kill is very moral to me.

I have watched many crime movies over the years, dealing with police interrigations of prisoners. You would have a story where someone had kidnapped a child and had been raping and abusing them, and had now left them for dead. The cop would desire to torture the prisoner to find out where the child was before they died. In my opinion, though prohibited by law and our Constitution, I would consider it very moral to do whatever was necessary to save that child from the pedophile murderer. Is it legal to do so? No. Citizens of this nation are protected by law. Is it moral, which is the question you put forth? In my opinion, yes.

A Big Amen from the Amen corner Butero

OC

[Guest LadyC]

thanks butero and oc... yes buck owes me an apology, but i won't hold my breath. buck has publically stated lies against me. but ya know, i'm not the only one who's been a victim of buck's venom. so even if she isn't willing to make ammends, i have a responsibility as a Christian to forgive anyway. it's not always easy, but it's the way Christ would want me to behave.

so for now, i do. i just hope that as she spreads more untruthful garbage, i'll be able to continue to abide in the spirit without letting my own personal anger get in the way.