The Torture Debate

A government of "laws not men" under which all persons, including criminals and government employees, are offered the same legal protections and rights cannot legally condone torture. To do so leads to inconsistancies and hypocracy.

However, the law officer who holds a captive who knows where the ticking bomb is hidden may make a moral decision, outside of the law, to torture.

A court must find the law officer guilty of a crime but subsequent steps in the process, such as sentencing and executive pardoning, may take the moral component into account.

Tommy T.

On the probability of the refinement and spread of torture in the modern age.

We all know the old story. We all have heard of the foundation and promise of a truly wonderful age within Western civilization. We all have heard of the Greeks and Romans, the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. We all know that superstition and even religion has given way to methods by which we can potentially eradicate disease, master the environment by technical advancement and promise to everyone a life of liberty and love as if we no longer need to die or even be especially good to receive what in Western civilization religion--Christianity--is known as heaven.

But then the rude awakening. First it was the question of how harmful science is to religion. What meaning life without God will have. This development alone was enough to make us ask if for all the promises of science and technological advancement ahead of us we might be headed toward hell rather than heaven. Even with the continued progress of science and technology and the putting at bay the feeling we might be hubristic according to religion, we have at least had to endure a setting upon us of great responsibility, the realization that our lives are existential, that no God can help us and we are on our own. This was enough to make us wary--wary of everything and not just our fellow citizen.

Then things became more and more difficult. Among them, significantly, we have man trying to stay abreast of technological advancement, to not be left without a job, or even be rendered obsolete due to some invention or development. Then we have weaponry leaping ahead in power of destruction (the atomic bomb the undeniable realization of that) and the population explosion, big politics dealing with the increasing and evermore demanding masses. Then came fears that man will destroy the natural world around him (environmental problems) and fears that the increasing refinement and spread of technology of communications will lead to a society of total surveillance. No need to state that this is enough to describe where we are now. And disturbingly, all these developments ensure that the concept known as historical determinism--that we are swept by forces beyond our control--stays at the forefront of our consciousness no matter how we try to emphasize the opposite, free will.

Probably the greatest sign so far of man caught in a battle of free will versus determinism came in WW2 when all attempts of man to remain peaceful not only came to naught, WMD came on the scene to possibly forever put the concept of free will into question. And things have only gotten worse. Types of WMD have arisen (biological, nuclear, chemical), proliferation of such has been occurring, and the phenomenon of asymmetrical warfare has truly come into existence. Even without WMD and the proliferation of such and asymmetrical warfare, we would have man increasingly without God, environmental problems, and communications technology threatening the possibility of a life of total surveillance--and the latter is increasingly becoming augmented by the science of genetics, which is to say it seems all too soon enough we will be able to say to a great degree what a person is likely to be like and even what he is likely to become simply by running tests on the baby after--or even before--birth. Talk about a circumscription of life.

And the truly troubling thing about all these problems is that if one happens to be an American--and I am one--one cannot help but see these problems are being reduced to starkly political terms, as if one can overcome these problems by voting for this political party or that. Roughly speaking the Republican party in the U.S. is associated with religion; with the development and spread of weapons (and of course those of mass destruction); with the destruction of the environment; with police state behavior (society of total surveillance); and of course torture. The Democratic party is clearly idealistic, not seeing that all the problems before us (significant ones of which have been brought up in this small essay) cannot be reduced and overcome by associating them with a particular political party. The Democratic party is roughly against religion; for science (keeping alive the revolution of such and the Enlightenment); against WMD and the proliferation of such; against destruction of the environment; and of course against a society of total surveillance and torture.

But the Democratic party simply saying it is for all this and against that is meaningless, and even more disturbing is its attempt to locate these problems with the Republican party, as if these problems can be simply voted away. In fact the Democratic party attempts to thrust what essentially are problems that largely are in our future--will come to together and reinforce each other in the future--on the party which people call conservative, representative of the past. Why the Democratic party would do such is very strange when anyone can simply observe that science and technology are making us increasingly Godless; science and technology have led to WMD; science and technology have led to the destruction of the environment; science and technology have led to the possibility of a society of total surveillance; science and technology--do I really need to continue? All that remains to be said is that it seems the dystopian view is inevitable.

In short, for all Republican and Democratic party bickering in the U.S.--the mutual attempts at laying blame--it seems we are inevitably led to a world which is not the fault of any one of us but rather all of us. Our scientific advancement and wrenching of ourselves out of religion have led us to become existential--and perhaps more and more paranoid for the simple reason we no longer have recourse to God but only ourselves. It is we who have developed WMD and become mass movements and often disgruntled individuals seeking more and more powerful weapons and strategies for delivering them. It is we who are refining asymmetrical warfare. It is we who are destroying the environment. It is we who are moving toward a society of total surveillance in an attempt to gain control, to prevent ourselves from destroying ourselves.

And it is we it seems, who will keep torture alive and flourishing. Alive and flourishing because information from individuals simply must be had--whether we educate people to make use of their minds or torture them for information--in a world man seems more intent on destroying than bringing to life. We cannot get out of all these developments which are still largely ahead of us by leaping to an idealistic Democratic party view and thrusting all these developments on the Republican party and blaming them. Quite simply it seems we have before us the continued development and refinement of WMD, the destruction of the environment, the continued development of technology to allow a society of total surveillance and of course an increasing acceptance and refinement of torture because along with all the other problems we have we have an increasing power of the individual--power beyond such things liberty, and more like the individual becoming explosive. Beyond that it is difficult not to see that we will attempt to change man by a variety of methods--to create a man that can handle what he himself invents. Certainly we should hope we do not have to torture man too much to get him to become responsible. But then again, we are dealing with man--and when has man ever been really responsible? A working together by all of us to prevent the dystopian society....

From our continuing study on strange cults who believe in god:

e.g. Baha'ists follow a calendar of 19 months of 19 days (with four additional days). Adherents are expected to pray daily, fast 19 days a year, and keep to a strict ethical code to include the banning of alcoholic beverages. Homosexuality and gambling are prohibited.

Looks like a branch of the Mormon church???

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2 writes:

“2358. Sacred Scripture presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity.” Oh, God doesn’t matter does He?"

God? You have proof that a god exists? Please share it.

Torture is a crime against humanity.
War is also a crime against humanity because war is the ultimate terror.I know that some people try to justify torture or war. I tell them that many humanbeings can justify anything through false logic, interests,emotions,... etc. You have to look accurately at their justifications and you find always that they are wrong.

Once again:

it appears that the CIA and its torture providers missed a "few" methods/devices: The list definitely shows that the CIA et al used very few interrogation methods in comparison to what the KGB or Mossad used, use or would have used.

A list of torture methods and devices includes:

"Psychological torture methods

Blackmail

Shaming and public humiliation, being stripped or displayed naked, public condemnation

Shunning (Amish and the Baha'i cult are good at this)

Exploitation of phobias; e.g., mock execution, leaving arachnophobes in a room full of spiders

Being subjected to interrogation for long periods

Extended sleep deprivation

Extended solitary confinement

Partial or total sensory deprivation

Threat of permanent, severe disfigurement.

Pharmacological torture

Physical torture methods

Beatings and physical violence

Binding/contortion

Blinding with light

Boiling

Bone breaking

Branding

Burning

Castration

Choking/Strangling

Crucifixion

Crushing

Cutting

Denailing

Disfigurement

Drowning, see also dry drowning

Dunking

Electric shock torture

Flagellation

Flaying

Foot roasting

Foot whipping

Force-feeding

Garrotting

Genital mutilation/forced circumcision

Glasgow smile

Hamstringing

Hanging, drawing and quartering

Impaling

Kneecapping

Keelhauling

Limb/finger removal

Mancuerda

Oxygen deprivation

Picquet

Pitchcapping

Pressing
Pressure points

Rats

Riding the Rail

Sexual assault

Scalping

Scaphism

Sensory deprivation

Sleep deprivation
Sound (extremely high volumes, dynamic range, low frequency, noise intended to interfere with rest, high pitched, cognition and concentration).

Starvation (forced)

Strappado/squassation (also known as "reverse hanging"
and "Palestinian hanging")

Stress positions

Ta'liq (torture) hanging from a metal bar.

Tarring and feathering

Tickle torture

Tooth extraction

Whipping

Torture devices

Note that the line between "torture method" and "torture device" is often blurred, particularly when a specifically-named implement is but one component of a method. Also, many devices that can be used for torture have mainstream uses, completely unrelated to torture.

Boot

Brank

Brazen bull

Breaking wheel

Choke pear

Crocodile shears

Cattle prod

Electroshock weapon

Foot press

Heretic's fork

Instep borer

Iron Maiden

Jiá gùn

Judas Chair

Kia quen

Mancuerda

Parrilla (torture)

Pau de Arara

Picana

Pillory

Rack

Scavenger's daughter

Scold's bridle

Spanish boot

Stocks

Tablillas

Tasers

Tean zu

Thumbscrew (torture device)

Tucker telephone

Zánzhǐ "

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_torture_methods_and_devices"

This is going to shock some religious leaders but the use of torture should not come as a surprise to anyone especially christians. The treatment of Jesus was torturious on all accounts, yet it was use to illustrate the glory of God, even in adverse conditions. Without torture God can not rescue those persecuted by even religious leaders. Ofcourse all persecutors should be prosecuted but that does mean there should be shock upon hearing torture. The larger problem is defining legal punishment and the separation of torture. Acts of war is also something that someone will consider torture, but to a christian is a promise from our lord and savior Jesus, Christ.

WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH |
“WHOSE BUSINESS IS IT?”
MAY 9, 2009 12:44 PM

“IRT:
“How is gay marriage any kind of threat to you? or even, how is it any of your business?

ANS:
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/youth/tremblay/history.html

“Allen Young (1972, 1977) noted: "Most of us in gay liberation don't hear about a suicide without automatically assuming there's a good chance the person is homosexual."(19:23)

“Gens Hellquist (Gay and Lesbian Health Services, Saskatoon) reported, "AIDS is not the only thing that is killing our friends… I know more people in our community have taken their own lives than who have died from AIDS."(20)2 Homosexual is a path to self-humiliation and suicide. Homosexuality causes a depressive morbid mentality. Suicide is currently the third leading cause of death among 15-to-24-year olds. March 24, 2006.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_in_Africa#East-central_Africa

“AIDS is the epilogue of Homosexuality and is eradicating the African people. Gay Rights are not progress being advanced; it’s devastation.

http://www.chefdansculinaryadventures.com/~lgthscac/homosexualityingod'seyes.htm

“Nature has rejected Homosexuality -based on the abject unhealthiness (as of 1995) of those in bondage to this "unnatural" vice, for according to the British Journal of Sexual Medicine and The HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

HOMOSEXUALS carry one-half of the country's syphilis, although they are only 1- 1/2 to 2- 1/2% of the population, and are fourteen times more likely to have had the disease than heterosexuals are.
Two-thirds of all the AIDS cases in the U.S. are the direct result of homosexual conduct.

HOMOSEXUAL young people are twenty-three times more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than their heterosexual counterparts are.
In San Francisco, the sexually transmitted disease rate is twenty -two times higher than the national average.” So what, who cares if they die, it there business isn’t it?”

You might have, at the time, had asked that question of that beautiful young girl who testified before Congress only weeks before she died how she became AIDS infected.

It was from her dentists. There was no sex, just his stupidity. Was it her business? The facts are gay-sex victimizes not only the gay, but also anyone unknowingly and innocently that comes in contact with them. Moreover, they are a health burden on the State.

Gay sex is a form of suicide. Moreover, HIV/AID victims may work in restaurants and hospitals never being required to reveal they have AIDS.

Further, if you didn’t already know it, man is a social being; he lives and depends on society. Immorality destroys society and when the government promotes such degeneracy, it commits its own social suicide. Unfortunately, man lives in society and what affects society affects humanity. Hence, that makes immoral acts everybody’s business.

Only the heartless coldblooded and the ruthless, the self-centered and arrogantly callous would promote gay-sex and call it an inviolable right and an act of compassion. Both Abortion and Gay-Sex are Russian roulette, a deviant lifestyle that is suicidal.

Who cares if one risk his life by performing gay sex? For that matter, who cares if a woman has her unborn murdered?

The University of Virginia’s Chairman of Ethics, Joseph Fletcher claimed and taught that is was perfectly justified to murder a child up to the point he didn’t reach the age of reason, probably seven or even later. Moreover, he taught a repulsive person in stature or looks was equally disposable.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH |
MAY 9, 2009 12:44 PM

IRT:
“Are you afraid that if "gays" are allowed to marry, "straight" people around the country will become gay?

ANS:
Does the Culture of Death not bother you? Today, because of our perverse culture, nearly fifty percent of hospitals are occupied by mental patients. Don’t care? It’s none of our business is it, not to mention our taxes are paying a high price for these anomalies, notwithstanding Medicare and Medicaid are on the brink of bankruptcy. I guess their unimportant too.

“2358. Sacred Scripture presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity.” Oh, God doesn’t matter does He?

“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. #2358 The Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

Divorces are around fifty percent; so what, that only affects the family. Families aren’t in demand today. In a pole of the Los Angeles area, some time ago, only 25 percent of couples living together were married. Solution, redefine family, and redefine marriage. Families aren’t important, irrespective of the Natural Law (NL).

“Researchers estimate at least half of all U.S. couples live together before getting married,” a presage for the destruction of the family. Irrespective of one’s belief, breaking the Moral Law has dire consequences.

“Researcher Smock puts live-ins closer to 70 percent, noting most first and second marriages begin with couples sharing a home before getting hitched.

‘We hear people say, marriage kills love. Unfortunately, for them, the statistical opposite is true.'” Do facts matter?

Should governments support iniquity and immorality? If the NML is no one's business, than can we make murder legal? Unfortunately, we have. Hence, to speak of torture is a farce if approving murder of unborn children is copasetic.

What is more torturous than sucking a little living child in the womb apart, limb by limb, with a vacuum? Is cutting the little defenseless unborn child into pieces, limb by limb, not torture? Ask them.

Moreover, there’s saline solutions that scalds the little child. Sometimes they survive and the murderer strangles them, or drowns them. Of course, it's none of our business is it?

One murder stuffed a little child that survived the abortion, into a plastic bag and than left it in the garbage to die. Tragically, the bag did not muffle its cries. Starving and dehydrating unwanted invalid new born, is another practice we’ve inherited.

We advanced that method of torture from children to adults, a.k.a. Terri Schiavo. It only took a mere fourteen days of agonizing painful suffering to execute her.

No need to care about the dignity and sanctity of life, we just did Terri a favor by putting her out of her misery.

Who decided? It was her husband shacked up with his concubine who bore him several children and his counselors the Hemlock Society. So we can make marriage what we want regardless of a cabalistic arcane Natural Moral Law

Torture is manifestly justifiable under some circumstances. More importantly, torture is an issue of justice, not human dignity. Second, the justification of torture can be reached through the same process (and many of the same criteria) as war is justified using Just War Theory.

Readers might want to read my latest blog post in which I take issue with Russell E. Saltzman's view that torture is always and everywhere wrong.

http://themoralchristian.blogspot.com/2009/05/defining-dignity-down_04.html

For an extended conversation on this issue feel free to contact me at:

mtp1032 @ comcast dot net

Cheers,

Michael

In case you missed the original installment:

"Torture" by the Baha'i cult:

"The top ten reasons why you should not become a (Haifan) Baha'i.

10. No nooky!! No way, no how!

9: No booze! No, you might be having fun and you wouldn't
want that.

8: No politics. No, you wouldn't want to involve yourself
in a good, healthy way that might actually improve the lives
of the people in your community.

7: Suffering. Yes, suffering. No Baha'i gathering is complete without the friends recounting how they have suffered for their faith.

6: Silly Christians go to church. There, through outmoded
'rituals' usually led by a 'clergymen' which Baha'is don't
have, they often find themselves enriched and revitalized.
Some even think they have communed with their God. If only
they knew that if they were Baha'is they could go to a 19 day
Feasts, a dreary, boring business meeting usually punctuated
by some personal arguments. Some go on all night.

5: Ridvan meetings: YES THEY DO GO ON ALL NIGHT. WE WILL
GET SOMEONE TO BECOME THE TREASURER WHETHER THEY LIKE OR NOT, DAMNIT!

4: You get to do all sorts of things you don't want to do,
like be the treasurer and spend the next year haranging the
friends for money.

3: LSA Meetings. They are held at least once a week, they
last for several hours.

2: You get hit up for money, you get hit up for money. The
new world order needs money, your money, it's an honor to
bankrupt yourself for the Faith.

1: You'll never have to bother your silly little brain by
thinking again! All that hard brainwork had been done for you by the great "Babs".

http://www.geocities.com/baahith/Topten.html

If you believe in torture as an appropriate tool in times of war (or war-like situations, such as we have with terrorists), ask yourself this: would I condemn the enemy for using this technique on an American solider?

If you can honestly say "it's part of war and Americans are just as subject to torture as anyone else," then OK. But if you call the enemy a "monster" for doing it to our own, you're being a hypocrit.

Would you approve of torture to be used on US citizens by US citizens? What if it was your child?

I was censored off the board about Witch Hunts in Africa. In response to the article about the Catholic Church efforts to combat "ancient superstitions", I wrote:
--------------------------------------
To combat irrationality in Africa, we're relying on THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?!?!?!?

"Remember, there are no such things as witches.
Now let's all eat our 2,000 year old Jew."
--------------------------------------
And they took it down.

Some forms of superstition are protected from cricitism here.

original innocence vs original sin.

in christianity,
mankind is guilty until proved salvationed by the lord who nailed to the cross for the sin of mankind?

in natural law ,
mankind is unguilty until proved guilty .

in the renaissance,
the last king was strangled by the entrails of the last preist .

is tortur ever justified?!

( forgot the sound theme, here it is :) - http://vbox7.com/play:c6295ace )

Testing new login

Christianity can't really be brought into this discussion without going through it's political aspects.
The political aspects of Christianity are best understood by taking Pilate's view.
First, Pilate's manifesto is 'the white man's burden'. He genuinely cares about bringing people into the fold of the empire, and civilizing them in the sense of making them belong to something greater than themselves, otherwise he would have stayed in Rome and pursued a career there, not gone to some backward province.
In Jesus, Pilate sees an ally to his cause, because Jesus is a universalist. The temple priest were also universalist in words ("one god" etc.), but not in action. In action, they were tribal as they were rooted in rituals and cannon that were exclusively jewish and that was an obstacle to full integration into the empire. Jesus's kind of jewish spirituality, on the other hand, could have made Pilate's cause much easier.
Pilate, therefore, defended Jesus from all allegations until he realized Jesus's darker side. Jesus refused to defend himself, took a very fatalistic stand on things and sabotaged Pilate's best efforts. Jesus's attitude towards imperial authority revealed itself to be very subversive, in the sense that he would actually undermine imperial power by giving the empire anything it wants by acting like a mindless drone. He did, in other words, play dead in relation to imperial power. No imperial power wants to rule over mindless drones, because this means the end of all economical and social activity; imperial prosperity depends on people who are free-willed, of high spirit and who are entrepreneurial in all aspects of life, otherwise the empire would fail.
So, Pilate understood that even if Jesus's attitude does not bring the end of the empire, it would definitely be the ruin of Judea, if it spread. And since Pilate did probably genuinely care about the jews, he decided to beat Jesus in his own game, and undermine him by revealing exactly what he advocates, i.e. to help him play dead. In other words, Pilate thought he would expose Jesus's stand as absurd by going along with this stand and crucifying him.
And it didn't work that well for Pilate, nor Judea, nor the empire. The jews did end up universal, at least in action and outwardly, but that's a different matter.

Jesus did not invent passive resistance, it is a very obvious choice of action for anyone. Communism did not fail because people were working, and it did not fail because people were not working; it failed because enough people sabotaged it by going along with it and playing dead, that is, refusing to act differently than a worker at a conveyor belt, even if they were capable of doing much more.

The problem with playing dead, is that people have to stop playing dead at a certain point, like when you have ******* won. This attitude may work in a tyrannical system, but it will not work in a democracy. If you (continue to) play dead in a democracy, it is the trash of society that will rise to the top, and power would still be authoritarian in action, if not in words. This would, in turn, seem to justify playing dead to get rid of it, meaning that the very same trash will rise to the surface again, when the next elections round comes.

Playing dead is absolutely no good in a democracy. And that does not mean that you shouldn't be dealing with the trash that has surfaced in the past, after you stop playing dead, if you have been playing dead.

This is an interesting question on a page devoted to religious discussion given the fact that torture has been practiced on a grand scale by representatives Roman Catholicism and Islam two of the world’s major religions. But I feel that torture is never justified and its use by the US government will invariably lead to atrocities committed against Americans in the future.

If you ask someone question 'Are you lying?'. The most probable answer you can expect is 'No'.
Now if you possess muscle and go a step further and twist the same persons arm and may be bend couple of fingers, and repeat your question 'Are you lying?'. The most probable answer you can get now is 'Yes'.

Now that you have forcefully proved that the person in question is a liar, the fundamental question you have to ask yourselves is 'Have you discovered the truth?'

Torturing a defenseless person (criminal, terrorists and what not) can provide the answers you need, but may not provide you the 'Truth'.

To solve a case (criminal, terrorism, subversion and so on) the important goal must be to uncover 'Truth' and extreme caution is need to ensure a defenseless human is not subjugated into false admissions of crime.

"preacher012003 wrote:
Sad to see that 90% of the human race don't even know whats in store for them. Obviously most don't know how to read. Its a shame that everyone is offered a life to live with their creator for all eternity and they choose to try to save a world that is doomed because of people with the same attitude that they have."

A couple of weeks ago, some guys named Mahood, Golam and Said told me the same thing, but they were using a different book.

Sad to see that 90% of the human race don't even know whats in store for them. Obviously most don't know how to read. Its a shame that everyone is offered a life to live with their creator for all eternity and they choose to try to save a world that is doomed because of people with the same attitude that they have.That is " I have control over my life and no one can tell me any different" LOL amazing. Silver and Gold i may not have but if you truly want a change in your life what i do have i will give to you freely. And that is the knowledge of Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God , the only one that can save. And offer you eternal life.
If you have any cruel words for me I rebuke you in Jesus name Amen.

For a some not-so-successful books about the torture of various religious groups especially the Baha'i Faith cult, see the following:

"Life After Death: A Study of the Afterlife in World Religions) by Farnaz Masumian-

Apparently a rewrite by
Farnaz Sheikhzadeh-Zavareh, 'Afterlife in World Religions: an Overview of Major Concepts and a Baha'i Perspective', M.A. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1985, v, 108

and

"Divine Educators" by Farnaz and Bijan Masumian (Part time teachers of religion and computer/internet science at the Univesity of Texas, Austin)- out of print

TORTURE:

First. is "just punishment" torture? Is life imprisonment not torture? Is capital punishment not only a physical torture but also a mental torture?

Second, is there a right to self-defense? Can self-defense and torture, at times, be synonymous?

Third, do those who protect us have an obligation to make every "reasonable effort" to protect innocent human life within reason, and is torture permissible if it is within reason?

Namely, are there degrees of torture, a humane torture, or a difference between humane torture and inhumane torture, and are there differences between torture, cruelty, and savagery, or are they all the same?

Can torture be reasonably justified to protect others if its use is in proportion to the terrible impending consequence it is trying to prevent?

Fourth, can there be reasonable torture?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/reports-statements-and-issue-briefs/torture-and-the-law/page.do?id=1107981

GENEVA CONVENTION:
“In times of international armed conflict, ill treatment (described as "inhuman treatment'' and ''willfully causing GREAT suffering, or serious injury to body or health' in the Geneva Conventions are prohibited and criminalized as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. These grave breaches are also incorporated in the jurisdiction of the Yugoslavia Tribunal and of the International Criminal Court."

Is "water boarding" the cause of grave injury to “body and health,” a cause of great suffering?

"Are there exceptions to the prohibition against torture? No. Article 2(2) of the Convention states that, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."—(Ibid)

Third, are all men endowed with certain inalienable rights to be secure in their person (Fourth Amendment)? If man has these rights, can he forfeit them by violating them?

Hence, if man intentionally takes an innocent life, can he forfeit his own life, or at least put it in jeopardy? If man violates the Natural Moral Law, is he punishable for his acts either by God or man or by both?

What rights does a terrorist have? Do they forego punishment for crimes they have committed and intend to commit such as attempted murder?

Moreover, are the rights of the innocent victims of terrorists just as equal or superior to terrorists’ rights? Wouldn’t the innocent’s rights be superior because the victim is innocent and the terrorists forego their rights by virtue of their intention to do evil? Why wouldn’t a measured torture for terrorists be viable as a retribution for their crimes?

Can a terrorist forfeit any of his inalienable rights because of the evil he does? What is the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment, and who determines what is unusual or cruel? Must the punishment, if there be a punishment, be in proportion to the crime? Is there a difference between savagery and torture?

If torture is not permanently debilitating, or humiliating, can it be used as a mechanism of self-defense.

Can anyone who supports abortion, then claim that torture is not permissible under any circumstances?

Abortion is a great torture that does serious injury to body and health. Abortion sucks little live children apart limb by limb with a vacuum, or cuts the child into pieces with a curette while the child is alive in the womb, or when an abortionist scalds the child to death with saline solution.

Moreover, those who survive botched abortions can be drowned or have their necks broken. One child that survived was put into a plastic bag and thrown in the garbage with its mother’s blood to die.

Does not the Geneva Convention proscribe abortion? If not, why not?

Readers,

Please disregard any comments on this thread from someone posting (and posing) as SUSAN_JACOBY. It is NOT her. She does not post comments on this thread. The imposter's comments have been deleted. Anyone caught posting as someone else will be banned from the site.

Thanks,

David Waters
editor, On Faith

Under the theory of Pandeism, torture should never be permitted. Here is why:

For those who have not undertaken advanced studies in religious philosophy, Pandeism (pronounced as Pan-DEY-ism) is a strain of theological thought that combines the most profound elements of Pantheism and Deism, concluding on the basis of logic and reason that the Universe was designed by a Creator (called the Deus, to distinguish it from preconceptions of "God") who in turn became the Universe itself, in order to experience existence through the lives of the inhabitants that would arise therein.

The interesting consequence is this: if the purpose of the Universe is for the Deus to experience the existence of the Universe, then whatever behaviors human beings engage in becomes part of that experience. What good we do for others, we do for the Deus in the same moment; what harm we inflict on others, we inflict upon the Deus. If any sort of afterlife exists, it likely involves existing as a distinct consciousness within the continuing experience of the Deus, sharing in the whole body of the experiences generated by all life. Violent conduct towards others merely contributes negative experiences to the spirits sustained in the continuing experience of the Deus. He person who inflicts misery on others in life would experience, in a very direct sense, the very misery of his own victims.

If the afterlife described by Pandeism exists, where our actions rebound upon us in this way, it would make sense to proceed with our lives as though every misery we exact upon another is a misery that will someday be our own misery!

And even if we have not individual afterlives, every misery that one man inflicts upon another is surely inflicted upon the Creator!

Torture is a fact of life, whether or not is justified. Everybody experiences in life some form of torture. A painful ailment, a terrible disease or injury. For millions life itself brought them nothing but torture. Even parents use the threat of a whipping with the belt which for a child is a torturous experience. To induce and motivate an improvement in behavior.

In the military for example which is related to the subject matter. The drill instructors use the threat of torture to get the recruits to perform above and beyond their current level. One phrase I remember of was: "I'll PT you people till you die". So there are different levels of torture and what is considered torture. For some of the people in the UN Conventions, what is considered torture by us, is not for them. That is probably why their position now is hypocritical imo.

No, torture the way is being defined is not justified. But it happens, it has happened, and will continue to happen. So what is to be done about it?

None of us, can put ourselves in the shoes of those who have to make decisions like this. It is soo easy from a comfortable desk in front of a computer, to make judgement. On the other extreme of the spectrum of this subject. Is the fact that there are criminals so hardened, so callous. That the threat of torture or punishment does not face them. But the same happens with those who self-justify, by pointing fingers at all others but themselves. BTW the moral and spiritual equivalent is that all siners (myself included of course). Are warned of an impending eternal torturous place called Hell. In spite of that MOST choose to continue their evil ways. By the same token we are also, well advice of reward an inmense reward call Heaven if we change our evil ways.

Athena4 wrote:

>>> it is a fact that our willingness to torture has been a great recruitment tool for our enemies.<<<

We hear that all the time, but is that really a fact? What concrete evidence tells us, it is a "fact"?

Has anyone ever suggested that Osama bin Laden had a shortage of willing martyrs to stage the bombings of our African embassies, the Khobar towers, the USS Cole, 9/11? All that happened years before news of our torturing prisoners become known. Was al Qaeda short of recruits before Abu Graib? Was there a lack of insurgent volunteers in Iraq before news of water boarding at Guantanamo? I don't think so.

We have people repeating what they want to be true, and claiming that it is, simply because it has been repeated so often.

In short Athena4, I think you have swallowed and are regurgitating, baloney.

CHRISTIANITY AND TORTURE:

What else could you possibly expect from a religion whose central focus is all about torture and death?

Saturate minds with any theme and those minds will project that theme back into the outer world.

The Religion of the Tormented Jew has not been good for the world.

APOSTLE wrote:

"and we know for sure he knows it and we've tried everything else..."

You cannot KNOW anything. You can only THINK you know. It is faulty logic, such as yours, that has led juries to convict innocent men.

NT exegetes have concluded after thoroughly studying all the scriptures and related documents from the first to third century CE that the "render unto Caesar" passage was said by the historic and very Jewish Jesus.

(1) Thom 100
(2) GEger 3a [50-57a]
(3) Mark 12:13-17 = Matt 22:15-22 = Luke 20:20-26

See a summary of their conclusions at http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb055.html

Torture is an abomination, and so is terrorism. So, torture should be outlawed. But, there is a time, that rare, desperation time, when a terrorist refuses to disclose the place of a WMD, and we know for sure he knows it and we've tried everything else and we know we have one hour to act or 100,000 people will perish, and we ask what do we do? The law may have to be broken, the terrorist tortured, and the law breaker will have to face the judgment of his peers in a court of law. When the trial ends, he may be a hero or a criminal. If the lawbreaker is the President, he may have to undergo impeachment procedures by the House, judgment by the Senate, and serve whatever punishment is decreed; or, be hailed as a person who cares and a hero.

Yes, I believe in torture -- and don't see it as a religious question because it's not about an individual's following God. It's about a government's response to a situation in which a part of humanity wants to destroy (read that "kill") another part of humanity -- and will torture people, too, in their ultimate goal. I don't believe God expects the sane side of that equation to miss opportunities to correct this problem. I do believe that sometimes civil societies have to use less than ideal measures in a short-term basis to correct the insanity that other parts of society inflicts upon others. If one episode of torture deters an attack killing hundreds in San Francisco or Houston or Boise, then by all means, do it! Finally, sometimes you have to use the devil's pitchfork to fight evil!

Can you restore the Washington Post's Religion section? This new portal features an impressive list of scholars with varied opinions, but readers should be able to reach actual news stories by Washington Post reporters and wire reports through Washington. On Faith should act to complement - not replace or filter - the Post's coverage on matters of religion.

I think the act of "Intense Interrogation" was explained quite well in a piece by a local theologian. At least it made me, a confirmed believer (previously) in ANY technique to combat terrorists, take pause:

http://everybrokenthing.net/Waterboard_Jesus.html

And if I could save a Nazi life by torturing someone in Auschwitz, would it be justified?

TORTURE:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/reports-statements-and-issue-briefs/torture-and-the-law/page.do?id=1107981

Torture is defined by the Geneva Convention and Amnesty International as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person; for such purposes as. PUNISHING HIM/HER FOR AN ACT SHE/HE OR A THIRD PERSON HAS COMMITTED OR IS SUSPECTED OF HAVING COMMITTED INTIMIDATING OR COERCING HIM/HER OR A THIRD PERSON OR FOR ANY REASON BASED ON DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND.

Amnesty International believes that acts of violence by private individuals constitute torture when they are of the nature and severity envisaged by the concept of torture in international standards and when the state has failed to fulfill its obligation to provide effective protection against such acts of violence.”

“Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions PROHIBITS "VIOLENCE TO LIFE AND PERSON," in particular "mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture" and also prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." These terms include "other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment."--a.k.a. starvation and dehydration.

Beverly McMillan an Abortionist:
“On why she stopped doing abortions: 'It got to where I couldn't stand to see the little bodies anymore.'"

Planned Parenthood president Mary Calderone:

"Abortion is the taking of a life.

Late-term fetuses are being dissected and their parts sold for huge profits. Only 2 percent of late-term fetuses have any abnormalities. They range in age from four to seven months. Sometimes the babies are born alive, and the doctor must break their neck or beat them to death or put them to drown in the garbage with her mother's blood."

Is that not a violation of the Geneva Convention? If the Convention protects murderers from being tortured, why did the Court deny Terri Schiavo and the unborn such protection? They are innocent human being and Americans under the Constitutional protection of the Bill of Rights.

Teri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death because her husband found her to be an inconvenience. She suffered for 14 excruciating days before she died. We don’t even treat dogs that way. We put them to sleep.

Human Rights are about the dignity of the human person. The unborn are persons. Schiavo was not a dog she was a human person, despite the Hemlock Society's claim she was a vegetable.

Since Article #3 of the Geneva Convention prohibits "violence to life and person," in particular "mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture" and also prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating, and degrading treatment," how could the Court apply the Convention to terrorists, who were not Americans, and not to Schiavo or the unborn, viz. American citizens?

The Geneva Convention terms include "other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment." If Schiavo’s personal dignity wasn’t assaulted, her treatment wasn’t degrading, cruel, and not torture, then torture is legal.

“As a party to the Convention, the United States is required to submit periodic reports describing its compliance with the Convention to the Committee against Torture.

Following are excerpts from the Initial Report the United States submitted to the Committee against Torture in 1999 (CAT/C/28/Add.5) that pertain to questions such as "Is torture a crime in the US?" and "What remedies are available?"

Excerpts from the Report:

6. Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority.

Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offence under the law of the United States." How can the inhumanity of Abortion not apply?

“No official of the Government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture IN ANY FORM." Does this not include the Court?

“No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. The United States is committed to the full and effective implementation of its obligations under the Convention throughout its territory. [p. 5]

11. "...Although there is no federal law criminalizing torture per se, any act falling within the Convention's definition of torture is clearly illegal and prosecutable everywhere in the country. For example, as an assault or battery, murder or manslaughter, kidnapping or abduction, false arrest or imprisonment, sexual abuse, or violation of civil rights. [p. 6]" (Ibid)

If the terrorists are protected by the Convention, then Schiavo was and so are the unborn. More so, why wasn’t Terri Schiavo protected? If starving and dehydrating Terri, and killing unborn are legal, then torture is legal. You can't define torture and not include the unborn and Schiavo.

The good news is I see we have only 50 lonely people. Yes, for a year now, visiting this website, Huffpo, Kaus, Townhall, many others, there are the same 50 posters, pretty much. At least you all read the same. Such togetherness. It's a wonder any of you are so lonely.

And I am included, everytime it rains, canceling Golf.

TORTURE? WHAT IS TORTURE?

I wonder what good is It to ask one’s opinion on torture and make the discussion of the Geneva Convention and Amnesty International off limits if it’s not portrayed from the view of the left.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/reports-statements-and-issue-briefs/torture-and-the-law/page.do?id=1107981

*Amnesty International believes that acts of violence by private individuals constitute torture when they are of the nature and severity envisaged by the concept of torture in international standards and when the state has failed to fulfill its obligation to provide effective protection against such acts of violence.”

“Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions PROHIBITS ''VIOLENCE TO LIFE AND PERSON,'' in particular ''mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture'' and also prohibits ''outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.’’ These terms include ''other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment."

What is torture?
Torture cannot be defined by a list of prohibited practices. Human rights treaties define it in a number of different ways, reflecting the different contexts in which they were drafted and the purposes of each particular treaty.

It defines torture as any act by which:
Severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person; for such purposes as:

1. Obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession.

2. PUNISHING HIM/HER FOR AN ACT S/HE OR A THIRD PERSON HAS COMMITTED OR IS SUSPECTED OF HAVING COMMITTED
INTIMIDATING OR COERCING HIM/HER OR A THIRD PERSON
OR FOR ANY REASON BASED ON DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND.

3. When such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.*

Is not the unborn mutilated by abortion, sucking off the limbs of a little unborn child, first its legs, then its arms and finally its head by vacuum? And what about scalding the little child in the womb with saline solution, and the child survives and we allow the executioner to break its neck or drown it, or choke it to death.

Of course, there is the curette method of slicing this little living child up piece by piece until it is cut out of the womb. Wouldn’t that qualify as torture? At least, it should be cruel and unusual punishment, plus a host of other Constitutional violations it violates. Moreover, under the Geneva Convention’s Article #3, it certainly is an ''outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.''

We finally, ended partial birth abortion, where a butcher takes a little child’s head and plunges a surgical scissors into the back of the child’s head while it is struggling for life. He then inserts a vacuum into the wound and sucks out the child’s brains. Four justices voted that was legal; the same justices who voted that terrorist should get trials by jury and that the Geneva Convention applied to even terrorists.

It seems quite hypocritical for the Supreme Court ruled that “terrorist” come under the auspices of the Geneva Convention but the defenseless unborn do not..

If abortion isn’t torture, if the taking of the life of Terri Schiavo meets the official approval of our government, and it does, how can one justly claim torture is illegal? Obama, an extreme abortionist who is funding abortion world wide, who voted to supported the killing of the victims of botched abortions three times, has abolished all torture of terrorists. What profound priggery and facetiousness.

"What does your faith tradition have to say about torture? "

I'm puzzled and perhaps a little worried that none of Muslim panelists have contributed so far. Since the most visible cases of torture recently have been either by or of Muslims.

I'm sure that CCNL's suggestion that the KGB uses torture tactics we don't even consider in America is a correct suggestion.

Had the crispy critter exhibition at the Koresh Compound in Waco, tx had occured in Russia I'm sure the CCNLs of America would have described it with a little more.. humm.. What's the word I'm looking for?

Hmmm, well the list of torture methods/devices actually took up less space than the Paganplace, Arminius, Gaby1 off-topic discussion. I am sure many readers did not appreciate all the vitriol. The list was entered to make this point.

Also, I didn't think the list that long would be even be allowed but it was. It did save those interested from clicking on the reference and reading it there.

The list definitely showed that the CIA et al used very few interrogation methods in comparison to what the KGB or Mossad would have used.

Hmmm, it appears that the CIA and its torture providers missed a "few" methods/devices:

A list of torture methods and devices includes:

Psychological torture methods

Blackmail

Shaming and public humiliation, being stripped or displayed naked, public condemnation

Shunning (Amish and the Baha'i cult are good at this)

Exploitation of phobias; e.g., mock execution, leaving arachnophobes in a room full of spiders

Being subjected to interrogation for long periods

Extended sleep deprivation

Extended solitary confinement

Partial or total sensory deprivation

Threat of permanent, severe disfigurement.

Pharmacological torture

Physical torture methods

Beatings and physical violence

Binding/contortion

Blinding with light

Boiling

Bone breaking

Branding

Burning

Castration

Choking/Strangling

Crucifixion

Crushing

Cutting

Denailing

Disfigurement

Drowning, see also dry drowning

Dunking

Electric shock torture

Flagellation

Flaying

Foot roasting

Foot whipping

Force-feeding

Garrotting

Genital mutilation/forced circumcision

Glasgow smile

Hamstringing

Hanging, drawing and quartering

Impaling

Kneecapping

Keelhauling

Limb/finger removal

Mancuerda

Oxygen deprivation

Picquet

Pitchcapping

Pressing
Pressure points

Rats

Riding the Rail

Sexual assault

Scalping

Scaphism

Sensory deprivation

Sleep deprivation
Sound (extremely high volumes, dynamic range, low frequency, noise intended to interfere with rest, high pitched, cognition and concentration).

Starvation (forced)

Strappado/squassation (also known as "reverse hanging"
and "Palestinian hanging")

Stress positions

Ta'liq (torture) hanging from a metal bar.

Tarring and feathering

Tickle torture

Tooth extraction

Whipping

Torture devices

Note that the line between "torture method" and "torture device" is often blurred, particularly when a specifically-named implement is but one component of a method. Also, many devices that can be used for torture have mainstream uses, completely unrelated to torture.

Boot

Brank

Brazen bull

Breaking wheel

Choke pear

Crocodile shears

Cattle prod

Electroshock weapon

Foot press

Heretic's fork

Instep borer

Iron Maiden

Jiá gùn

Judas Chair

Kia quen

Mancuerda

Parrilla (torture)

Pau de Arara

Picana

Pillory

Rack

Scavenger's daughter

Scold's bridle

Spanish boot

Stocks

Tablillas

Tasers

Tean zu

Thumbscrew (torture device)

Tucker telephone

Zánzhǐ

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_torture_methods_and_devices"

Part of this question about justification or condemnation of torture asks about my God's heritage concerning the matter. That's what I will answer, and even there will ignore what someone else says that I may or may not have answered according to their paradign of B.S. (Jer 31:33-34; 1John 2:24,27).

In Matthew 12:50 Jesus says that whosoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother....

In Matthew 25:40-46 Jesus tells us, as the doers og God's will, to torture the damned good people who refuse to provide opportunity to the riff-raff they come upon.

Since the damned good people turn to law for the purpose of exalting the liars who represent them (Ps 62:9; Pro 22:2,16; Matt 6:1-2), and openly curse God (James 2:4-5,9), then tortue properly applied is not a legal matter but one of isolating the damned good person in a place where he/she/it has no possibility of hope (Matt 25:46).

Posted by kert1

"My only reasoning for using torture is the case of saving lives. I still bet if your family were kidnapped and death was immenant if they weren't captured, you would look at all options. If you had someone is custody that could give you information that could save them, I believe you'd do what it takes.

Keep in mind that, in a way, the torture has a humane purpose. While torturing some is not humane for itself, it is humane when you are saving lives.... Besides the fact that people that choose to be inhumane with others, are forfeiting their right to be treated humanely.

I also understand what you are saying about "bad information" from torture. First, there is no proof there was actual torture. Quite frankly, a lot of information that is given is bad. You don't need torture for that. Spies die getting bad information. That's why intelligence is supposed to sort through all that. Don't assume bad intel came from torture. People are just lumping everything together and that rarely works."

kert1

Thanks for the response. I always appreciate it when someone takes the time to answer. However, I don't think you quite understand.

When you ask about my own family, I would want the BEST means used to gather information, and virtually all experts argue torture is not even close to the best way to gain infomation.

I also think our ability to stand by our beliefs when they are tested is part of what makes us truly ethical people, so since I believe torture is wrong, I wouldn't create an "except when I think I need it" exception to that rule. Torture savages the society that practices it as much as the victims of it, and the price is frankly too high. I feel about this the way some strongly pro-life people feel about abortion even in the face of health risks. If you understand their consistancy, you must understand mine.

You also seem to miss my point about midieval witch hunts. People in the middle ages were terrified. Their world was crashing around them. They really belived the plague, the little ice age and other frightening things occuring around them were caused by witches. They obtained hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of confessions, confessions they used to support their beliefs. But they were wrong. We now know that for a fact.

In fact, their beliefs made things much worse. For example, since they belived cats were demonic, they killed cats by the millions. Cats were one of the primary predators on rats, the real cause of the plague. But they 'knew' cats were witch's familiars. They had all those confessions. If they killed cats, they must weaken the devil, right? And the more cats they killed, the worse the plague got. You see, bad data can kill.

As to other methods providing bad information, most people in the know about iterrogation say that one of the reasons torture is among the worst ways to gather intellengece is that people being tourtured are very good at intuiting what their torturers want to hear. They'll say anything to make the torture stop, and they can figure out what you want.

Torture corrupts the society that pracitces it, and that society is rewarded with bad information. That bad information causes them to make mistakes that make whatever problems that frightened them into resorting to torture much worse. I believe other posters were talking about "whatever goes around comes around." Resorting to torture seems to be a perfect example of that. At least that's what has happened in the past, and I see no reason to believe people have changed over the last 700 years or so. Do you?

Have to agree with Arminus, PP. Some Christians want to rule like God the Tyrant, but I'll wager most, like Arminius and my sister, empathize with the sufferings of Jesus the Servant.

PP:

"'...Someone who better catch the conscience of the King toot sweet.' "

Speak truth to power, eh? For some reason that's in vogue again. Go figure. ;-)

Whenever the subject of torture comes up I inevitably begin thinking of an essay I wrote long ago.

I began wondering what would occur if for all our technology and progress toward humanity rather than barbarity our grasp of technology were to falter, if technology would continue to become more "sophisticated" and be able to not only kill greater numbers of people than in the past, but to become more and more available (proliferation).

It struck me that in all probability that precisely because developments toward getting people to become more altruistic, humane, would lag behind such horrifying technological advancements that society would become more and more a process of constraining individuals, the business cubicle philosophy strengthened, and that eventually experiments in breaking people would more and more take place, and we would scientifically determine the efficacy of torture and that we would continue pursuing the project with the aid of technology (in an ironic countermovement against technology which potentially kills many people) until torture were to become truly efficacious, and then we would have truly horrifyingly technology on one side increasing such things as WMD and on the other side technology becoming more efficacious in driving people toward altruism even if it means breaking them down psychologically...

Need I say more? A true dystopia.

Torture is never acceptable and I think it's simple to tell what's torture and what's not. If someone does it to your kid and it's torture, then it's torture if it's done to someone else.

Ethical questions are easily answered by the application of the "Golden Rule."

"I guess if your God is good with torture, who are you to object?"

I dunno, but my initial impressions run to saying you're '...Someone who better catch the conscience of the King toot sweet.' :)

This may actually even motivate much of the discussion here. :)

Merry Meet, PaganPlace, Gaby, and Arminius!

I've been trying to understand how a "Christian" like Chuck Colson could say the right question is "what constitutes torture in a time of war", and I think I've got it. Do you remember the unlamented Canyon Shearer? He worshipped, nay, cowered before an image of the Divine that would cheerfully condemn some to eternal torture because they didn't follow the proper procedure! I guess if your God is good with torture, who are you to object?

To CCNL from Daniel. I know exactly what you mean about going two days without sleep or food putting a person in position of being psychologically broken.

When I was younger I could do the two days pretty much ok, but now at the age of 45 no such thing. I know this because precisely this happened a few weeks ago.

I awoke on a Wednesday afternoon at 4:00 p.m. (I work the night shift and sleep in the day), worked all night into thursday morning, then had to go to the funeral of a friend all day thursday, did not get any sleep before having to work all thursday night into friday, and on friday morning at 6:00 a.m. I collapsed on the floor at work.

I was feeling terrible sitting in my chair and just...had to lie down on the floor. People wanted to call an ambulance and my blood pressure was taken (it was very high) but I said no, just let me lie here on the floor. I got up after about an hour and got off work at 7:00 a.m. but had to lie in my car for about two hours before being able to drive home.

I guess being sleep deprived and hungry and distraught because of the funeral did me in. Then when I got home I still could not sleep. I eventually drifted off around 11:00 or 12:00 and when I woke up after about seven hours sleep I was still screwed up. I stayed awake awhile then went back to sleep. I did not feel right until sometime saturday night.

So...I understand what you mean.

"Gaby1
Paganplace:

"I wish I could be as hopeful as you are."

Well, it kinda hurts sometimes, Hope. Maybe that's why people try to dress it up in painful conditions. Some say hope is only this thing to be passively-received, if only one believes this or that... I say nay, there. Sometimes, *hope* comes out as pure defiance when the world someone would put you in could hold only despair.

"I see my world through Wiccan eyes in many respects, but the unfortunate truth is that there is still way to much ill will, greed, envy, etc."

Well, a lot of things are unfortunate. Truth, though? ...truth probably is all those things come from illusion. Truth probably is, these things can fall away like chains if you just let go of them.

Good exercise, meanwhile, I guess. I guess that's what separates the Pagans from the Buddhists. :)

"I have noticed that many pagans do no longer post. I suspect it's because the blogs have become such a battleground anymore."

Battleground?

Eh, look below. Battleground? This is no battleground. This is bedlam.

I'm not really looking to examine that too closely, this May Eve, (Blessed be, btw, everyone, it's why I looked back in) ...but it seems what we have is you and Arminius contending with a couple of 'righteous' Abrahamics at such loggerheads that they're accusing each other, of... secretly being each other.

Yes, a modern Wiccan point of view actually finds this pretty amusing.

The Wheel turns, yaknow?

"I miss Lepi, Lady Meir, and a lot of the others whose names elude me right now.
But those were voices of reason and respect in a world that needs it.
All the best to you, and don't you disappear as well. I like your feistiness even though we may not always agree."

Well, Lady Keir's got her own tribe, and, whatever's up, doesn't need to spend her times contending with this stuff, I imagine. The rest are still around, here and there. I'd just think that with all this spam and drama, there's fewer people of other faiths about that we can be talking *to.*

'Feisty?' Well, I do seem to gravitate toward that. But there's a *whole* lot more to life than what *these* maniacs think, yaknow?

Maybe that's why they call everything 'battles.'

Battles are battles. Metaphor or not, they always end up smelling something like this. It's as well to have it out in this form, I guess. Just don't be confused. Not reality. Tough as that reality can be.

Just an addition to salero21 excellent points about torture:

Muslim women are tortured 24/7 for most of their lives by their husbands and imams.

To wit:

From Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography, "Infidel".

"Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circumcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hirsi Ali escaped -- and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women."
ref: Washington Post book review.

four excerpts:

p. 47 paperback issue:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

p.68:

"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race."

p.309

"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exaggerating."

p. 347

"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hyprocricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".

Kert1

Define torture?

The United Nations Convention Against Torture, defines torture as: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

It is not rocket science. People are trying to make it more complicated than it is, to excuse the new American practice of torture on technicalities.

If and until the UN Convention condemn also the torture perpetrated on their victims by all types of criminals. Their posture is very hypocritical. Is not only some US Military that did it. All over the world criminals, kidnapers, pirates, guerillas, mobsters, narcos are torturing people. Is the UN condemning too? Certainly one does not excuse the other.

If so then, point the finger at everything and everyone to be just and fair.

Because is not just some US soldiers and politicians. Even women and children are being tortured by their husbands and parents in this country and all others. Or is this not part of what the UN considers in their "pseudo-Political" agendas?

Begs the question; Why is it they only point out what some US soldiers did? Or why these pseudo-politicians of the UN, want to make us all in the USA responsible for what a few rednecks did? Why they only go after the lowly privates and corporals, and not equally after the brass in the highers echelons of the DOD? How about after those in their own and similar countries? How about going after the big wigs in Wash. DC? We all know who they were and are. That instead of trying to make every citizen in the USA feel guilty. Like if for the mere fact that we have no choice but to pay taxes, that automatically make us accomplices of Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and Rumsfeld.

Quit the charade.

Is driving a 3-ton SUV ever justified to save you from a crash with a 1-ton car? To save you from that crazed 1-ton car driver that stalks you on the highway, the zombie driver that can appear anywhere at anytime, hellbent on wrecking you. The psycho that has been all over the news in the last seven years, that you think of every time you see a car, the no.1 cause of deaths in the USA.
Is it better than airbags and seat belts?
Yes. 3-ton SUVs do save the lives of those in the SUV.
Should you crash into crazed zombie drivers preemptively, to prevent them from killing people? Absolutely. Should you, even, put spikes on the bumper and optimize for maximum damage to the other car? Yes.
Oh, how beautiful the future would be, if every american followed the government's example in their own lives. The peaceful, safe, zombie-free highways, glittering with heavy sharp things traveling at 70 mph.

But I forget. The government does some things precisely so that people don't have to do them themselves, for their own safety. People are not policemen and judges. People should be driving 1-ton cars with airbags and seat belts. It is the government's car that should be heavy and spiked and crash into 1-ton car zombie drivers. The crazed psycho that stalks you on the highway.

http://vbox7.com/play:c7cbec61

ONE OTHER THING: "WE MUST LOVE ONE ANOTHER OR DIE" Martin Luther King, Jr.
_________________________
Inhuman Behavior

by Kermit D. Johnson

Kermit D. Johnson is a chaplain and major general in the U.S. Army (retired). This article appeared in The Christian Century, April 18,2006 pp. 26-27 Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation; used by permission. Current articles and subscriptions information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The historian Arnold Toynbee called war "an act of religious worship." Appropriately, when most people enter the cathedral of violence, their voices become hushed. This silence, this reluctance to speak, is based in part on not wishing to trivialize or jeopardize the lives of those who have been put in harm’s way. We want to support the men and women in our armed forces, whether we are crusaders, just warriors or pacifists.

Furthermore, those who interrupt this service of worship become a source of public embarrassment, if not shame. The undercurrent seems to be that dissent or critique in the midst of war is inherently unpatriotic because it violates a sacred wartime precept: support our troops.

From the standpoint of Christian faith, how do we respond? I would say that if war causes us to suppress our deepest religious, ethical and moral convictions, then we have indeed caved in to a "higher religion" called war.

Since this obeisance to war is packaged in the guise of patriotism, it is well to admit to the beauty of patriotism, the beauty of unselfishness and love of country, land, community, family, friends and, yes, our system of government. But this fabulous beauty makes us appreciate all the more what Reinhold Niebuhr called the "ethical paradox in patriotism." The paradox is that patriotism can transmute individual unselfishness into national egoism. When this happens, when the critical attitude of the individual is squelched, this permits the nation, as Niebuhr observed, to use "power without moral constraint."

I believe this has been the case, particularly since 9/11, in the treatment of prisoners under U.S. custody.

We must react when our nation breaks the moral constraints and historic values contained in treaties, laws and our Constitution, as well as violating the consciences of individuals who engage in so-called "authorized" inhuman treatment. Out of an unsentimental patriotism we must say no to torture and all inhuman forms of interrogation and incarceration. It is precisely by speaking out that we can support our troops and at the same time affirm the universal values which emanate from religious faith.

A clear-cut repudiation of torture or abuse is also essential to the safety of the troops. If the life and rule of Jesus and his incarnation is to be normative in the church, then we must stand for real people, not abstractions: for soldiers, their families, congregations to which they belong, and the chaplains and pastors who minister to their needs from near and far. By "real people" we also mean that tiny percentage of the armed forces who are guards and interrogators and the commanders responsible for what individuals and units do or fail to do in treating prisoners.

Too often the topic of torture is reduced to a Hollywood drama, a theoretical scenario about a ticking time bomb and the supposed need to torture someone so the bomb can be discovered and defused in the nick of time. Real torture is what takes place in the daily interchange between guards, interrogators and prisoners, and in the everyday, unglamorous, intricate job of collecting intelligence.

U.S. troops in Iraq are fighting an insurgency. It is a battle for the "hearts and minds" of the people. Mao Zedong referred to guerrillas or insurgents as the fish and the supporting population as the water. This is an asymmetrical battle. As a weaker force, the insurgents cannot operate without the support of the people. So the classic formula for combating an insurgency is to drain the swamp -- cut the insurgents off from their life support. Both sides are trying to win the "hearts and the minds" of the people.

Imagine, then, the consequences when people learn that U.S. forces have tortured and abused captives. A strengthened and sustained insurgency means danger and death for U.S. forces. Never mind that the other side routinely tortures. It is we who lay claim to a higher morality.

Nor should we take comfort that we do not chop off heads or field suicide bombers. What we must face squarely is this: when ever we torture or mistreat prisoners, we are capitulating morally to the enemy -- in fact, adopting the terrorist ethic that the end justifies the means. And let us not deceive ourselves: torture is a form of terrorism. Never mind the never-ending debate about the distinctions between "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" and "torture." The object of all such physical and mental torment is singularly clear: to terrify prisoners so they will yield information. Whenever this happens to prisoners in U.S. control, we are handing terrorists and insurgents a priceless ideological gift, known in wartime as aid and comfort to the enemy.

As for individual guards or interrogators, whenever they are encouraged or ordered to use torture, two war crimes are committed: one against the torturer and the other against the prisoner. The torturer and the tortured are both victims, unless the torturer is a sadist or a loose cannon who needs to be court-martialed. This violation of conscience is sure to breed self-hatred, shame and mental torment for a lifetime to come.

Finally, the most obvious reason for repudiating torture and inhuman treatment is that our nation needs to claim the full protection of the Geneva Conventions on behalf of our troops when they are captured, in this or any war.

The congressional votes for and the presidential capitulation to the amendment offered by Senator John McCain prohibiting torture and inhuman treatment have to be seen as positive (despite the president’s statement in signing it, in which he claimed an exception to the rule when acting as commander in chief). But reasons for concern remain.

• The most passionate defenders of the Geneva Conventions, the judge advocate generals, the military lawyers, were completely cut off from providing input on the torture issue.

• The government has denigrated international treaties that the U.S. has signed and that constitute U.S. law regarding torture and inhuman treatment.

• The definition of torture has been reinterpreted by the Justice Department as follows: "Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

• There is no indication that the outsourcing or "rendition" of brutal treatment will cease. Is it not odd that some of the countries the US. State Department faults for torture are the very countries we utilize in outsourcing interrogations? What credence can we put in their assurances that they will not torture?

• The Justice Department has said that "there is no legal prohibition under the Convention Against Torture on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with respect to aliens overseas."

• A Defense Department memorandum has said that "no law banning torture or regulating interrogation can bind the president when he is operating in his role as commander in chief."

• The whole debate on torture has been soaked in euphemisms and word games. Torture and cruelty are renamed as "enhanced measures" and "creative" and "aggressive techniques" and "unique and innovative ways."

• Though there have been investigations of torture, there has never been an independent, bipartisan commission to examine U.S. practice equivalent to the 9/11 commission.

• Until the resounding congressional votes in favor of the McCain amendment, the president threatened to veto the measure.

• In Senate testimony, Senator Jack Reed (D., RI.) asked the military this question: "If you were shown a video of a United States Marine or an American citizen [under the] control of a foreign power, in a cell block, naked with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would you describe that as a good interrogation technique or a violation of the Geneva Convention?" The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace, answered: "I would describe it as a violation." The next question might be: Why have these and other violations of the Geneva Conventions been certified as legal when employed by the U.S.?

• The public has been dragged through a labyrinth of denials, retractions, redefinitions and tortured arguments, all designed to justify and rationalize lowered moral standards in the treatment of prisoners, not to strengthen and defend high ethical standards.

In a letter to Senator McCain, Captain Ian Fishback, a West Point graduate in the 82nd Airborne Division, said, "Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as al-Qaeda’s we should not be concerned. When did al-Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for." Torture is not one of those ideals.

An important footnote to the debate on torture concerns the work of military chaplains. By regulation chaplains have a dual role as religious leaders and staff officers. They have direct access to the commander as advisers on matters of religion, morals and morale. This activity, according to Army Regulation 165-1, includes "the spiritual, ethical and moral health of the command" as well as "plans and programs related to the moral and ethical quality of leadership."

Given this definition, questions come to mind. If torture or abuse takes place, what should be the chaplain’s role? Should it be pastoral or prophetic or both? Should there be an ethical framework for interrogation and should chaplains have a part in maintaining it? We need to consult with the ministers, priests, rabbis and imams in the armed forces and respectfully learn from them how they see their role. But unless torture and inhuman treatment cease, chaplains will be placed in a lonely and untenable position -- unless they are willing to hear no evil and see no evil.

Paganplace:

I wish I could be as hopeful as you are.

I see my world through Wiccan eyes in many respects, but the unfortunate truth is that there is still way to much ill will, greed, envy, etc.

I have noticed that many pagans do no longer post. I suspect it's because the blogs have become such a battleground anymore.

I miss Lepi, Lady Meir, and a lot of the others whose names elude me right now.

But those were voices of reason and respect in a world that needs it.

All the best to you, and don't you disappear as well. I like your feistiness even though we may not always agree.

Paganplace and everyone:

Re: My previous post

"Another point that has been made before, perhaps most notably. by Major General Kermit D. Johnson, "Inhuman Behavior," concerns the psychological, spiritual, and moral harm done to those enlisted and trained to do the work of torture. Gen. Johnson also speaks, in this piece to the devaluing, even cyncisim toward human life that develops in the society that permits or endorses it."

Johnson's oft-cited article, "Inhuman Behavior," can be found at the link below.
Prior to becoming a chaplain, he served in combat. I particularly recommend this piece to those Christians who condone the use of torture. Johnson offers another, quite Christian, perspective. (Hope that's okay Paganplace :])

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3399

Gaby1 wrote:

"You are a poor excuse for a human being, you disgust me!"

My my, the Kastrating Kraut got caught with her bigotry fully exposed. Too bad.

Looks like I've missed something I don't regret having missed. Whoo.

Anyway, Gaby:

"Paganplace:

"The day will come when the earth will be a global community where there is respect for everyone."

That kind of thing comes in moments, I think. The rest is maybe just the groundwork.

"Sadly, it won't be in my lifetime. But I have hope that my children and granchildren will see improvement of the current systems."

Well, things have really already changed, just in my lifetime. Hard to believe, especially talking here, but, things have changed and are changing.

"Cause if they don't, humnaity is doomed!"

We've been more 'doomed' than *this* recently, too. :)

Arminius wrote:

"If brains were gasoline, you couldn't drive a pissant motorcycle around a ball bearing."

Oh my...a colorful quip straight out of the hills of East Tennessee. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You know, Arminius, another thing comes to mind.

When you are so evil to wish death to another human whom you don't even know, then you you must be insane in one way or another.

Maybe Stadtbear is just Al Bundy reincarnate. He sure sounds like him! The swine!

Thank you, Arminius.

Obviously you know whereof you speak.

Another point that has been made before, perhaps most notably. by Major General Kermit D. Johnson, "Inhuman Behavior," concerns the psychological, spiritual, and moral harm done to those enlisted and trained to do the work of torture. Gen. Johnson also speaks, in this piece to the devaluing, even cyncisim toward human life that develops in the society that permits or endorses it.

postamerican :

"In 2002 a 21 year old taxi driver named Dilawar was tortured and crucified to death by U.S. Occupation Troops in Afghanistan. He was also INNOCENT!"

This is what happens when torture becomes insitutionalized.

One innocent person tortured, one person dying as a result of torture is one too many...

As with the Death Penalty. We should be striving as a nation for more justice, more accountability in all domains. Too much is allowed to pass without consequences to the guilty, for example imprisoning innocent people for decades.

The Torture Years have a lot to teach us.

SCHAEFFZ

I would like to make a comment on something that you wrote, "The eye-for-an-eye philosophy ends up as a bunch of "laws" resulting in torturous practices."

In the bible, the "eye for an eye" "philosophy" as you refer to it, does not mean what most people seem to think it means.

What it means is that the punishment for some wrong done should not exceed the wrong done.

Of course, in the Old Testament, there are many things spoken of, some of which are: mercy, forgiveness, justice (as opposed to revenge) but God created us as thinking, feeling, rational, imperfect, decision-making human beings rather than non-free will beings incapable of doing wrong.

You also wrote, " Which God do I follow?"

You seem to imply with this question that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are different whereas They are One and the Same, it is just that in God's Plan, the revelation of God has advanced to God becoming One of Us in the Incarnation.

God's Plan has also advanced to where God has invited us to become active participants in His Plan of Salvation of the entire human race, past, present and to come.

As you probably know Christ is a title, not Jesus's last name and we are called to be Christ (Anointed), not Jesus, but Jesus did say that He would accompany us on our journey and also supply us with the Holy Spirit to do whatever "job" (cross) that God presents us with.

Some seem to think of "Christianity" as a passive acceptance of Jesus, "doing it all", whereas we are invited by Jesus to "Come follow Me" in response to His statement that "there is work to be done".

God's Plan is for ALL and for All of Creation, the new heavens and the new earth and God's Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Daniel12 writes:
"As for the scenario of a nuclear weapon being placed in an American city and the location of which is concealed in the mind of a terrorist before you, I doubt there are any laws which would be enforced toward not torturing the terrorist. In other words, for all laws, I believe they would be tossed out by precisely the people existing to enforce them. Or to put it even clearer, no matter how one wants to enforce the law against torture in this regard I suspect when push comes to shove there will be a lot of shoving and kicking and beating the terrorist rather than merely pushing."
_____________________________________
I think this is true, has always been true, will always be true. Torture has always been used, hopefully, as the means of last resort when stakes are very high, and will continue to be.

There needs to be a distinction made between this very real scenario, Guantanamo and rendition, since it is that scenario that the G and R advocates use as justification.

The US Army required that I take an escape and evasion course as part of my officers' training education. "Stop" was not in the vocabulary of the NCOs in charge. One night of sleep deprivation and most troops were in an hallucinogenic state. A little added hunger after only a night in the woods of Alabama with no food or water broke most of the particapants.

Try it some time!!! No sleep or food for two days and then get back to me.

By the way, a threat of water immersion/waterboarding was added as an incentive to not get caught during the escape phase. I did not get caught. Some did but I don't believe the threat was carried out.

In 2002 a 21 year old taxi driver named Dilawar was tortured and crucified to death by U.S. Occupation Troops in Afghanistan. He was also INNOCENT! The appeasers of Bush's Torture and Tyranny are suffering terribly from Cognitive Dissonance, brought on by Matt Drudge, Boss Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity. It is a tragedy really. regards

Gimpi,
I am right there with you about the Middle Ages. A lot of stuff has been done over the ages that really didn't make sense. I wasn't really looking for Middle Ages model for torture though. Certainly torture is not effective or fair in prosecuting people and doesn't belong.

My only reasoning for using torture is the case of saving lives. I still bet if your family were kidnapped and death was immenant if they weren't captured, you would look at all options. If you had someone is custody that could give you information that could save them, I believe you'd do what it takes. Granted an unlike scenerio, but these are the things people on the edge are dealing with. They might give you bad information but they also might not. In the end, we do all we can to save lives.

Keep in mind that, in a way, the torture has a humane purpose. While torturing some is not humane for itself, it is humane when you are saving lives. It's not a fun situation but people are worth it. Besides the fact that people that choose to be inhumane with others, are forfeiting their right to be treated humanely.

I also understand what you are saying about "bad information" from torture. First, there is no proof there was actual torture. Quite frankly, a lot of information that is given is bad. You don't need torture for that. Spies die getting bad information. That's why intelligence is supposed to sort through all that. Don't assume bad intel came from torture. People are just lumping everything together and that rarely works. I am waiting for real evidence that the US really engaged in widespread torture.

Torture is a

Question: " From your perspective, what is wrong with torture?"

For this question to be even contemplated is quite an indictment of humanity.

Then: "Should perpetrators be prosecuted?"

If it is the "policy" of a country or government, then is the "perpetrator" the individual or individuals also known as "scapegoat or scapegoats" or the entire country or government?

Then: "What does your faith tradition have to say about torture?"

It is wrong in any way, shape or form, dressing up "torture" in fancy terms or ambigious language does not change the reality of it one bit.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Torture, be it physical or mental, is an abomination and there is no excuse for it.

It serves no purpose other than giving pleasure to depraved individuals who get their jollies off that way.

I can not imagine why anyone would be so depraved as to completely dominate another human being (or any other creature, for that matter) to completely break their spirit for the sake of some questionable information.

Anyone who tortures or who orders torture belongs in an insane asylum.

And just think, these killers could have given great intel by putting a simple pagan/Wiccan spell on them. Darn!!!

Daniel:

"Torture does not work? There is no evidence torture works? I am not so sure torture does not work. Even a bit of psychological pain forces people to toe the line, to say, become patriotic and turn in potential traitors or to hew to a particular religion and turn in, say, the atheists. In other words, if the threat of pain has such a "positive" effect, how much more so the pain itself?"

Torture works *fine* ...for breaking people. 'Yielding reliable intel that saves lives,' ....not so much.

You're actually talking to a 'Witch' here.

A difficult problem this question of whether or not to torture a person for the sake of one's country during war.

Torture does not work? There is no evidence torture works? I am not so sure torture does not work. Even a bit of psychological pain forces people to toe the line, to say, become patriotic and turn in potential traitors or to hew to a particular religion and turn in, say, the atheists. In other words, if the threat of pain has such a "positive" effect, how much more so the pain itself?

And about not torturing the enemy in war keeping the enemy from torturing one's own soldiers, I find that reasoning does not make sense. I suspect the country that can afford the luxury of not torturing people is identical to the country which is more sophisticated, powerful--more likely to win the war to begin with. And if the country fits this description, obviously the losing country will do everything it can to overcome the more powerful nation. In other words, the more powerful nation might not use torture, but this by no means guarantees its own soldiers will not be tortured.

As for the scenario of a nuclear weapon being placed in an American city and the location of which is concealed in the mind of a terrorist before you, I doubt there are any laws which would be enforced toward not torturing the terrorist. In other words, for all laws, I believe they would be tossed out by precisely the people existing to enforce them. Or to put it even clearer, no matter how one wants to enforce the law against torture in this regard I suspect when push comes to shove there will be a lot of shoving and kicking and beating the terrorist rather than merely pushing.

As to whether anyone should be pleased about "positive" aspects of torture, I seriously doubt that one is right with existence to feel such a thing is "positive".

Torture... is not a defense against 'terror.' It's a *capitulation* to terror.

It's a loss of faith in our own beliefs as Americans that one can live, and if necessary *die* for the belief that no one, no government, no priest, no religion, no nothing, has the right to do that to another person. For any reason.

The Bible sets forth from Old Testament history of repeated torture among the Canaanite nations as well as among the descendants of Abraham. God’s view of such atrocities can be seen from His punishment & destruction of those who practiced torture.

Thus, we see why God’s wrath has been poured out as stated in Roman 1:18-32.

Sin has consequences, even in this life.
Jesus taught that such behavior begins in the heart –
Matt. 15:10-20: And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
The bible teaches that man ought to do unto others as he would have them do unto you.
If people would realize that men can live in peace if the principles taught by Jesus are followed, torture would cease.
Torture is the fruitful behavior of people who are filled w/hatred and prejudice.
God desires that all men come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9)

"I believe that my current thought is torture may be necessary if it saves lives... Keep in mind that the victims of torture in these cases are aiding mass murder. They have no respect for life so ultimately we may not be able to respect theirs. It's harsh but this a war time situation that saves lives."
Posted by Kert1

Kert1,
The difficulty here is that torture gives you information, not good information. You can torture people into saying anything.

During the Middle Ages, people were tortured into admitting they caused plagues, created storms, and turned into rabbits. We know they didn't do these things, and we know that because these things are impossible. Yet, the people in the Middle Ages firmly believed these things could happen, and took the torture-induced confessions as evidence they were right.

From what I have read, the post 911 incidents of torture we performed yeilded lots of information, virtually all of it bad information. People confessed to all kinds of plots, virtually all of which turned out to not exist. (Turning into rabbits, anyone?) Lots of resources were wasted following up on bad data obtained by torture.

In addition, I was very bothered by the statement by some officials that the previous administration was very anxious to get information that Iraq was somehow involved with 911 to justify the war, before it's inception. Of course they weren't, but that doesn't mean you can't torture someone into saying they were. And there lies the true danger of allowing torture. You can torture someone into saying you're right, and use that bogus confession to prove you're right, but that doesn't make you right.

Tis odd how many commentaries by Stadtbear are "approved" by Farnaz/Farnaz1Mansouri1 i.e aka Farnaz2 aka Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1 aka ivri5678 aka Billy8 aka nadinebatra aka stadtbear aka Spark1 aka Masumian MA? aka Ma'sumian? aka Sheikhazdeh-Zavareh? aka Shark2 aka Spidermean3.

Or is it odd??

And to all those "nutty" Baha'i cultists out there, Happy Ninth Day of Ridvan!!!

Never.

Well it is good we are actually asking the question. This is something that desparately needs to be talked about. Torture is a complicated subject and no sane person is going to be "pro-torture".

First I would say that we first need to define torture. Kind of simple but no one has done this and it shows. For instance, I don't particularly think having dogs around people who are scared of dogs is torture. We can also define the differences between torture and intidation. They we can actually make a good judgement on what is wrong and right.

Although I am still trying to understand the who topic, I believe that my current thought is torture may be necessary if it saves lives. I don't know of a sane person who wouldn't do whatever it takes to save someone's life even if it involves torture. Keep in mind that the victims of torture in these cases are aiding mass murder. They have no respect for life so ultimately we may not be able to respect theirs. It's harsh but this a war time situation that saves lives.

I would also point out that torture should never be used as punishment. We obviously can obviously punish offenders without undue pain and suffering. I don't think this ever the job of mankind.

So let's keep up the debate. It will help us define what is moral and keep us away from practices that could be seen as inhumane.

However justified one may think that torture is after 9/11, it is a fact that our willingness to torture has been a great recruitment tool for our enemies. America needs to stand for the rule of law, no matter how much it may harm our citizens. And yes, I say that as someone who lost colleagues on 9/11.

"What does your faith tradition have to say about torture?"

"Harm None"

'Nuff said.

From a religious perspective...let's see, the Old Testament included lots of terror and torture, as ordered by God himself. The eye-for-an-eye philosophy ends up as a bunch of "laws" resulting in torturous practices. So, looks like the OT God was definitley "FOR" torture. But Jesus (God Incarnate) told us to "turn the other cheek", and He indeed followed by example in the Crucifixion. Which God do I follow? Somehow, when I reach Heaven I would like to be able to say that I never hurt another human being.

Stadtbear2 writes:

"Notwithstanding whether torture is ever an "ethical" enterprise, I maintain that it is always wrong for the same reasons that the death penalty is always wrong, not the least of which is the substantial possibility that we got the wrong guy!"

Whether or not you are ccnl, your point is well taken, I think. Frankly, I found myself drawing the death penalty analogy myself.

Part of the problem with this discussion is that thus far it's failed to define terms, e.g., moral absolutism, consequentialism....

"Torture" by the Baha'i cult:

"The top ten reasons why you should not become a (Haifan) Baha'i.

10. No nooky!! No way, no how!

9: No booze! No, you might be having fun and you wouldn't
want that.

8: No politics. No, you wouldn't want to involve yourself
in a good, healthy way that might actually improve the lives
of the people in your community.

7: Suffering. Yes, suffering. No Baha'i gathering is complete without the friends recounting how they have suffered for their faith.

6: Silly Christians go to church. There, through outmoded
'rituals' usually led by a 'clergymen' which Baha'is don't
have, they often find themselves enriched and revitalized.
Some even think they have communed with their God. If only
they knew that if they were Baha'is they could go to a 19 day
Feasts, a dreary, boring business meeting usually punctuated
by some personal arguments. Some go on all night.

5: Ridvan meetings: YES THEY DO GO ON ALL NIGHT. WE WILL
GET SOMEONE TO BECOME THE TREASURER WHETHER THEY LIKE OR NOT, DAMNIT!

4: You get to do all sorts of things you don't want to do,
like be the treasurer and spend the next year haranging the
friends for money.

3: LSA Meetings. They are held at least once a week, they
last for several hours.

2: You get hit up for money, you get hit up for money. The
new world order needs money, your money, it's an honor to
bankrupt yourself for the Faith.

1: You'll never have to bother your silly little brain by
thinking again! All that hard brainwork had been done for you by the great "Babs".

http://www.geocities.com/baahith/Topten.html

Notwithstanding whether torture is ever an "ethical" enterprise, I maintain that it is always wrong for the same reasons that the death penalty is always wrong, not the least of which is the substantial possibility that we got the wrong guy!

Many US troops are put through escape and evasion courses that include forms of torture for those captured e.g. sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. If we can do this to our own troops, we can sure do it to Muslims hell-bent on killing US citizens!!!

And Happy Ninth Day of Ridvan to all those strange Baha'ists out there!!!

Many US troops are put through escape and evasion courses that include forms of torture for those captured e.g. sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. If we can to this to our own troops, we can sure do to Muslims hell-bent on killing US citizens!!!

September 11 was a real paradigm-buster for a lot of us, including the US intelligence community. While congress was voting almost unanimously (the exception being someone who was later exposed as a nut, but for different reasons) to invade Iraq, many of us worried that Al Quaida was already sleeping in cells throughout the West.

That the CIA, which was organized to gather information on governments, didn't know quite what to do except use any method at hand to get what they could out of who they could, is understandable in light of the zeitgeist of the time.

To expose but not prosecute the decision-makers, seems an appropriate response. The fact that there hasn't been a repeat does NOT imply that their methods weren't necessary.