Torturing Ourselves to Death

It's ironic that "Christian" moralizers like Cal Thomas justify torture, isn't it? We can all justify anything we want and wrap it in glitter. Thomas is a hypocrit.

I do not see how you can justify torture. I do not know if you are a Christian yourself; but if you calim to be, I do not know how you can justify torture. Physically and or mentally maiming another human for information is morally and ethically wrong. Not to mention that it puts Americans on the same level as radical Muslims that saw the heads off of our captured soldiers. The reason we adhere to rules about torture is separate ourselves from the barbarous radicals.

if torture saves lives, i can live with it....

it has worked in war for years...if it didn't provide reliable results it would have ceased to happen.

actions have dire consequences...there is a time and place where torture is merited and justified. for example, noyone blamed the iraqis for hanging saddam....their way of executing him was in no way "peaceful." they hung him from the gallows. however, i think we will all admit that he deserved it good and well. i don't think that anyone would fault the iraqis for giving saddam what he deserved, even though they tortured him.

exnzv hjdqasek kqetysmlb iuko siwbcah ykahcd ymlrs

isnt an excuse for torture "we need to get information ot of [insert name] we think [insert gender] has it"?
key word there think. i think its impossible to condone torture on someone if we dont know if they have imformation. and then, when we do know, i think its disgusting if we torture them without reason. just as punishment.
i am absolutly against torture in any form.
its just wrong.
why doesnt the torturer put themselef in the torturee's shoes for once. see how it feels?

isnt an excuse for torture "we need to get information ot of [insert name] we think [insert gender] has it"?
key word there think. i think its impossible to condone torture on someone if we dont know if they have imformation. and then, when we do know, i think its disgusting if we torture them without reason. just as punishment.
i am absolutly against torture in any form.
its just wrong.
why doesnt the torturer put themselef in the torturee's shoes for once. see how it feels?

I'm shocked that you would defend torture. The point of having standards and values is that we have them, that they are not negotiable, that we will hold to them regardless of what someone else does, that we will act on the basis of what we know to be right and not on the basis of emotion. You're advocating situational ethics and relativism.

Hey Cal, here's a question for you.

"Who would Jesus torture?"

You are a clear case of an ideological fool, cloaking himself in the sackcloth of AmeriKan Khristianity.

Your support of torture shows your true non-Christian colors, you filthy hypocrite.

I suggest that you might be in for a rude awakening should you ever come face-to-face with your deity.

Hey Cal, here's a question for you.

"Who would Jesus torture?"

You are a clear case of an ideological fool, cloaking himself in the sackcloth of AmeriKan Khristianity.

Your support of torture shows your true non-Christian colors, you filthy hypocrite.

I suggest that you might be in for a rude awakening should you ever come face-to-face with your deity.

Hey Cal, here's a question for you.

"Who would Jesus torture?"

You are a clear case of an ideological fool, cloaking himself in the sackcloth of AmeriKan Khristianity.

Your support of torture shows your true non-Christian colors, you filthy hypocrite.

I suggest that you might be in for a rude awakening should you ever come face-to-face with your deity.

Hey Cal, here's a question for you.

"Who would Jesus torture?"

You are a clear case of an ideological fool, cloaking himself in the sackcloth of AmeriKan Khristianity.

Your support of torture shows your true non-Christian colors, you filthy hypocrite.

I suggest that you might be in for a rude awakening should you ever come face-to-face with your deity.

PaganPlace,
You are right..I just did not want to get into the nuance with some folks...they don't do nuance very well.How to explain that it is a descent into self?

Innana hangs/dies for three days...this is an old story, older then the Descent of Ishtar or Kore/Persephone...or Jesus.

It's a wonderful story if you know the symbols. The whole thing is that our underworld is not Hell....it is a time of learning and understanding.

terra

Can Cal just take a moment to picture Jesus holding a blind folded man down,stuffing a rag down his throat ,,poring water over his mouth and nose to fill his lungs, while one of the apostles held the accused terrorist down with his knee and elbow?Doesn't seem right, does it? That's because it's not,Mr. Thomas? That's what seperates us from the bad guys and animals. Arn't Christians supposed to act "Christ like"?

B. Rollens:

Well said.

Are we not fighting against the very acts this Cal Thomas is advocating? Is it not the actions of terrorists and thier disregard for human life that puts those that do not do these things in a morally superior position in God's eyes? Once we condone acts of terrorism even against one human being (terorists are still humans as far as I can see)we are a terrorist ourselves.

So sad that some people beleive what they see on a television show represents reality.Shouldn't we be more curious to know what can cause another human(Terrorists are humans,Mr.Thomas)to percieve another to be so vile and reprehensible that they are willing to give thier life and kill at any cost to others and themselves? The very fact that we are willing to do as the terrorists do will only create an enviroment that breeds more terrorists.
In fact terrorist is too broad a term,now used by anyone to designate an enemy no matter what thier cause.Because of this generalization it becomes acceptable to act like morally bankrupt animals when dealing with anyone who gets in our way. We made these people into terrorists by violating thier culture, stealing thier resources,invading thier countries and treating them as inconsequential trash. We have killed or instigated the killing of more of thier people than they ever will kill of ours.Who are the Terrorists, Mr. Thomas? From what I can see,we are being taught a hard lesson in humility by the people we once regarded as impotent and powerless.

So sad that some people beleive what they see on a television show represents reality.Shouldn't we be more curious to know what can cause another human(Terrorists are humans,Mr.Thomas)to percieve another to be so vile and reprehensible that they are willing to give thier life and kill at any cost to others and themselves? The very fact that we are willing to do as the terrorists do will only create an enviroment that breeds more terrorists.
In fact terrorist is too broad a term,now used by anyone to designate an enemy no matter what thier cause.Because of this generalization it becomes acceptable to act like morally bankrupt animals when dealing with anyone who gets in our way. We made these people into terrorists by violating thier culture, stealing thier resources,invading thier countries and treating them as inconsequential trash. We have killed or instigated the killing of more of thier people than they ever will kill of ours.Who are the Terrorists, Mr. Thomas? From what I can see,we are being taught a hard lesson in humility by the people we once regarded as impotent and powerless.

It is not coincidental that the moral high-ground would be ceded by someone who considers himself an arbiter of christian morals. It's exactly what Jesus would do.

Well, one more "Christian" shows his true stripes. Another sick advocate of Nazi-style morality.

Why aren't his ilk drummed off the public stage and never taken seriously, again?

In addition to the utterly craven immorality of what he is advocating, his logic amounts to this: In order to defeat our immoral enemies, we have to adopt equally immoral tactics. So, to fight the brutal, blood-thirsty terrorists, we will do the same to them and the innocent women, children and men around them.

What is it exactly, then, that you are fighting?

Posters keep asking:

"WWJT?

Who would Jesus torture?"

Matthew 8:29

And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Well, Terra, Inanna did hang on meathooks for a time in the Underworld, until the androgynous being Ashushunamir pulled off a dazzling extraction.

This speaks greatly of the balance of life and death and rebirth, as well as light and darkness...

The story isn't just about 'death having limited dominion,' but also about why and how. No, the Sumerian Underworld wasn't about eternal torture, but it wasn't particularly cheery from all points of view... At least for the Queen of Heaven at the time.

Where the waters of life are kept, and all.

Concerned,

As far as "hell"...Pagan religions did not have anything like the Christian idea of hell. The Underworld is not fire and brimstone and screaming. It is not the place of demons and devils...and suffering.

There is much to say about the differences in the ideas of hell or the underworld. Unfortunatly On Faith limits space. So I will give the high points as far as say, the Sumeritans, whose Goddess was Innana.

In the Christian view of the underworld, being in Hell is the ultimate separation from God. Since, in the Christian mythos, God is light, a separation from God would make the environment one is in very dark indeed. "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

In the earlier Pagan Underworld presented in Inanna, the Underworld is literally under the world, and consequently is hidden from the sun - the major source of light at the time. Without sunlight, any place would be exceedingly dark. Both views of the Underworld are dark, but each for different reasons.

In Christianity the further one descends into Hell, the more one must give up. In the topmost layer of Hell, Limbo, one has only given up life - no personal comfort has yet been taken. The further down one goes into Hell, the more personal physical comfort is robbed

Sacrifice is a big part of the descent into the Underworld in Inanna as well, though it is more emotional and psychological comfort being sacrificed than it is physical. At each of the gates of the Underworld, Inanna must sacrifice some item or symbol of her strength and power, until she is finally left naked and powerless before her sister, the Queen of the Underworld. Each sacrifice of a symbol of power makes Inanna weaker and she knows this, thus stealing away a bit more of her personal psychological comfort.
You end up standing as you truly are without the shields and masks of society and vanity.

The Christian Hell is for those with no hope of salvation - those who will never know the light that is God and are thus condemned forever to darkness and suffering. Hell, is a place of absolute hopelessness.

In the pre-Christian Sumerian culture, good and evil were not separated to the Great Above and the Great Below, but coexisted in both. The Underworld was not a place of no hope, but a place of rest.

Pre-Christian Pagan views of the Underworld and the afterlife varied greatly from the later Christian visions of Hell, though some similarities remained. While the Christian view of Hell as a place of ultimate torment, suffering, and hopelessness is a stark contrast to the pre-Christian idea of a restful afterlife free from such torments.

terra

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,
Well I do not watch TV preachers too often, but seems to me that there was quite alot of preachers saying..." we have a prayer cloth that is blessed, and we will send you this cloth that will help you gain abundance."

All that is good...except when they say that the "cloth" will not work until a donation is made.
Umm spells for sell?

Also, do not mistake those folks calling themselves Witches while shilling magick spells.

Are those pastors that minister to their congregation the same as those shilling Christianity on Tv?

I was taught that I was never to sell magick...nothing that was created in a sacred space...Putting a price on the blessings of our Gods is shameful.

You should know that calling ones self something is different then being that thing. We as Witches help every bit as much as any Christian pastor.

I was just called to help a person that has been unable to sleep. The person is going through a bad time and being unable to get a good nights sleep makes everything worse. This I can help with. Free of charge.

So Conserned, be more conserned with your own religion...we will take care of ours.

terra

A Hermit

I can't tell what you are arguing on the figures anymore. You agree that the UN and AP figures "are estimates" and that the "kind of precision your talking about can't be found in any war zone," but insist that the difference between 314 and 279 or 213 and 180 aren't garbage statistics but rather "show the same trend." They show the same trend only if you assume the precision that you admit is impossible.

On phony moral equivalences, I think you need to read some of the personal experiences of soldiers in Afghanistan. The kind of precision war you demand, given the way the Taliban fights, is not humanly possible unless you are willing to accept huge casualties.

The Taliban banks on that moral difference and uses civilians as shields. To insist that what we do and what the Taliban does is morally equivalent in all that matters ("a moral difference between first and second degree murder") is dangerous territory for someone who wants to be moral. If there is no significant moral difference, then why should Allied soldiers take any personal risks to avoid civilian casualties?

I'm sorry, maybe I'm late to the discussion. Doesn't Cal Thomas fancy himself a sort of Christian writer? And wasn't Jesus Christ tortured prior to his crucifixion?

Help me out here. Is Cal Thomas the Christian writer saying that torture is good? A positive act that Jesus himself would have embraced? Perhaps while he himself was being tortured?

Just asking. Maybe I've been confused my whole life about what the Romans were really doing to Our Lord. I thought they were doing something evil, but I guess Cal Thomas, the Christian writer, has other ideas. Ideas culled, in part, from a fictional TV show.

A Hewitt responds:

..."You assume that the UN and AP civilian casualty figures in Afghanistan are both correct to the person..."

I assume no such thing; in fact since they come up with different numbers it's clear that these are estimates, not exact counts, using different methodolgies. The kind of precision your talking about can't be found in any war zone; that doesn't mean we can't have a good idea of what is happening generally, or that the statistics are "garbage."

In fact, when we have different methodologies that both show the same trend; ie more civilians dying as a result of Coalition actions, this tends to confirm that allegation. I don't see you offering any actual data to the contrary...

..."Finally, I think Afghans can distinguish between those that aim at them and those who aim at the soldier using him as a shield. They are not stupid. You are missing Alexander Downer's point on phony moral equivalence. If one does not make such moral distinctions, then you encourage a race to the moral bottom. If we are as immoral as the Taliban when we try to avoid civilian casualties, then, heck, let fly."...

That's the problem, though, we are NOT trying to limit civilian casualties when we use aerial bombardment of civilan populations with rockets, 20mm cannons and cluster bombs...those are indiscriminate, area effct weapons which we KNOW will kill large numbers of civilians. And if you don't think the people being affected by those weapons aren't angry about it you're living in a fantasy world...

Is there a moral difference? Perhaps, in the way that there is a moral diffenence between first and second degree murder, but murder is still murder.

..."We are not as evil as the Taliban who glory in their deliberate and systematic crimes against humanity. But if we torture, we become like them."...

I don't think "not quite as bad as the Taliban" is a high enough moral standard for us to aspire to. I agree with you about the torture, but I think we can do better in some of our other tactical choices as well. Like I said, just as a matter of practical concern killing large numbers of civilians doesn't help our cause, even if we try to justify it as "accidental' or "collateral."

Regards

A Hermit

A Hermit:

You assume that the UN and AP civilian casualty figures in Afghanistan are both correct to the person and include Taliban assassination of civilians. You then cement this impossible assumption in place by terming it "facts on the ground." No, it's a garbage statistic: a precise statement of something that no one can know that becomes accepted wisdom because of its precision.

For example, a dozen high-quality independent sources telling you the same exact number of trees in Russia is no basis for believing that number. The term "garbage statistic" comes from a Time magazine writer assigned the job of coming up with the number of trees in Russia. He took an educated guess, then watched to his horror as his precise number became the established wisdom among many sources.

Finally, I think Afghans can distinguish between those that aim at them and those who aim at the soldier using him as a shield. They are not stupid. You are missing Alexander Downer's point on phony moral equivalence. If one does not make such moral distinctions, then you encourage a race to the moral bottom. If we are as immoral as the Taliban when we try to avoid civilian casualties, then, heck, let fly.

We are not as evil as the Taliban who glory in their deliberate and systematic crimes against humanity. But if we torture, we become like them.

>>NO TORTURE EVER:

>>TORTURE IS MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE IN EVERY CASE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PERPETRATOR OR THE OBJECT OF THE TORTURE.

>>But, you gentle souls have led me to reconsider my position.

>>Perhaps the gauge of immorality can be lowered just enough to torture bush and cheney, (add cal - for good measure), BUT not to extract information. The torture would be JUST FOR FUN!!! (I am already smiling).

Here we have the epitome of a jack a**, 2 faced liberal. Who even knows you from the man in the moon here...perhaps you are more deserving of the same you claim should be done to "bush, cheney and cal"

Buffoon.

For those in need of a witch and some spells, see, http://www.malewitch.com/

"I can work with you by weaving a spell on your behalf, but even if I HELP you by utilizing the gifts that I have developed over the years, you must still put forth the effort into manifesting the desired change within your own life."

Or for some free spells see http://www.spellsthatwork.com/

e.g. Winning the Lottery Spell,

Fill out a lottery ticket at home.

Light one green candle for each of the numbers in order to fill the ticket during the spell.

Sit in front of the candles and watch each one, trying to see a number in its flame.

Fill out the lottery ticket according to the number you saw in each candle.

Snuff out the candles and leave them as they are for three days.

On the fourth day play your ticket.

If this fails, play the ticket on the third day next time. Repeat this procedure, going back and forth if need be.

Simple minds have come to believe that television respresents reality. Unfortuately, it does.

I think Concerned is just having some trolling fun - he doesn't believe in witchcraft. But he does provide the opportunity to (maybe) enlighten a few others.

CCNL:

Obviously you prefer to believe the myths about us rather than to actually ask someone what witches are actually all about. And that's a shame.
We don't mess with free will, nor do we manipulate other people. It doesn't work like that.

Hell comes in many forms. As with everything else its concepts evolve but the Pagans started the thought process. Dante and the Catholic Church simply embellished it to some of its current forms like torture and terror in the form of fire and brimstone with countless "devils of the demented" exacting the proper terror and torture.

And since we still have Pagans around, there still must be practicing witches putting spells on wayward husbands et al. Hopefully our Pagan and the subset Wiccan commentators will give us the proper web addresses so we can exact some revenge on these low life characters i.e. cheating husbands. Medicine/Voodoo men (and women) addresses would suffice.

CCNL -

The Greek mythology I've read doesn't describe Hades as a place of burning torment for evildoers, but a place where the dead - all the dead, good, bad, or indifferent - go. There, each person receives the natural consequences of his behavior while s/he was alive. Dante may have gotten the idea to write a poetic cycle about hell from the Greeks, but his hell is a perversion of that found in Greek mythology.

As for your Wikipedia entry, you are still posting entries that describe what non-witches believed witches to be. Witches don't believe in devils, so how exactly does one make a pact with someone whose existence one disbelieves? Perhaps lovers broke up because one of them was no longer in love. Perhaps people failed to conceive because the man had a low sperm count, or the woman had fibroid tumors. Perhaps children died because there was poor sanitation and penicillin hadn't been discovered yet. And perhaps people, scared and not knowing any better, needed someone to whom they could attach blame because it was the only way they could live with the reality that sometimes bad things happen, and there's nothing you can do to prevent or stop them.

Hmmm,

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Philosophy-1361/Dante-Inferno-1.htm-

"About Dante’s Inferno, almost no one understands that it was primarily pagan poets who authored today’s widely believed concept about an underground, ever-burning hell"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft#Spellcasting

"Witches disrupted the societal institutions, and more specifically, marriage. It was believed that a witch often joined a pact with the devil to gain powers to deal with infertility, immense fear for her children's well-being, or revenge against a lover."

Shame on you, you commenting witches!!!!!

Hewitt objects:

..."Anyone purporting to have an accurate account of civilian deaths in Afghanistan is not someone whose figure are to be trusted. The Taliban assassinate civilians that oppose them. Do you think those casualties show up in anyone's figures?"...

Well, yes they do. I gave you two independant accounts; the government of Afghanistan obviously takes them seriously. You can pretend it's otherwise, but wishing it were different won't change the facts on the round.

...""It is very, very foolish for anybody, except of course for those that support the Taliban ... to try to create some sort of moral equivalent between" NATO and the militants."...

You know, I used to make that kind of argument myself; but as things go on I can see little difference anymore. And even if we grant some leeway for intent, it makes no difference to the victims' families if their loved ones were killed deliberately by the Taliban or carelessly by an American bomb. This is a practical matter, not just a moral one; causing large numbers of civilian deaths tends to turn the population against us.

As does torture...

Regards

A Hermit

Ross Taylor wrote: "Mr. Thomas's comments are deeply disturbing, for two separate reasons: they contradict Christian thinking, and they ignore reality."

But Christian thinking itself ignores reality. From the age of the earth to invisible angels to creationism. Since ignorance of reality is what Christianity is about, Mr. Thomas' ignorance of torture is right on target for a Christian.

If Thomas wants torture to be allowable he will find it allowable in his bible or christian interpretation of it. Little evil has ever been stopped by adhering to the bible, which is used to justify many evil acts in christianity. And scientific evidence against the value of torture will not change Cal's mind just as it will not change his mind about the age of the earth, invisible angels or creationism. In Cal and many christians you have people with minds that not only are simple, they justify their simple thoughts with powerful religion( mojo). And so, if torture works for Jack Bauer on TV, don't explain to him that in real life it does not. And don't explain to him that torture is unGodlike or something Jesus would not approve of. A simple mind cannot handle such thinking but is very capable of finding justification in a book of proverbs and metaphors.

CCNL:

Your links really aren't helping your case.

Your Hell page had nothing but a title and a notice from the owner that the page was still being worked on - no actual information.

Your answers.com link consisted primarily of descriptions and definitions of witches from the perspective of non-witches, and brought out the fact that most of the folks who were tried and executed as witches were in fact, targets of folks who had other agendae and simply needed them out of the way. And where in that article was your basis for the "disgusting" remark? I didn't follow the mpteen embedded links, so if it was one of them, please elucidate - there are too many for me to go through them all looking for your point.

And where in your little copy-and-paste does it say anything about Vodoun? I don't know that much about Vodoun, but I was not under the impression that its adherents had an objection to witchcraft.

Hmmm, "Christianity has Hell -- Paganism had it first" www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/pagan_origins_hell.html

OK, drop "dabble", many Pagan sects seriously practice witchcraft, which can be very disgusting, http://www.answers.com/topic/witchcraft?method=26&initiator=CANS

And the torturers were practicing African, pagan "voodoo".

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

"Even Pagans enter Hell on occasion to dabbel in witchcraft and torture:..."

Strike 1 - Pagans don't believe in Hell.

Strike 2 - Pagans do not dabble in witchcraft. Witchcraft is a practice of a specific Pagan path, and its practitioners take it quite seriously.

Strike 3 - The people accused of witchcraft in your articles were the VICTIMS of torture, not the perpetrators. Neither article mentions Pagans torturing anyone.

Even Pagans enter Hell on occasion to dabbel in witchcraft and torture:

""Witchcraft torture three jailed"

("BBC News," July 8, 2005)

London, England - Three people have been jailed for between four and 10 years over the torture of an eight-year-old girl they accused of being a witch.

The Old Bailey trial heard the girl was beaten, cut with a knife and had chilli peppers rubbed in her eyes at a flat in Hackney, east London, in 2003.

Her aunt, who cannot be named, was jailed for 10 years for child cruelty.

Sita Kisanga and Sebastian Pinto, found guilty of helping her, were sentenced to 10 and four years respectively.

The judge, Christopher Moss, said they had mounted a "campaign of cruelty that amounted to a campaign of torture".

Laundry bag

"It is the very pinnacle of cruelty to a child that demands the maximum sentence," he added.

The court heard the orphan was beaten until she was made to admit she had been practising witchcraft and is still traumatised by the experience.

The girl told how Kisanga cornered her in the kitchen and told her "today you die".

She was put in a laundry bag and told she would be thrown into a river to drown.

"In my mind, I will never forget what happened," she said.

When she was found by police officers she told them she had been surviving on tea and bread.

The girl's 40-year-old aunt who had brought her to England from Africa in 2002 was convicted of four charges of cruelty.

Her cousin, Sita Kisanga, 35, of Hackney, east London, was found guilty of three charges of aiding and abetting child cruelty.

Both were cleared of conspiring to murder the girl.

Kisanga's brother Sebastian Pinto, 33, of Stoke Newington, north London, was found guilty of one charge of aiding and abetting.

Bishop Dr Joe Aldred, Chair of the Council of Black-led Churches in Birmingham, said: "The African faith community has been horrified by this case of child abuse.

"Any religious practice or belief that harms children cannot be justified or excused."

TORTURE IS MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE IN EVERY CASE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PERPETRATOR OR THE OBJECT OF THE TORTURE.

But, you gentle souls have led me to reconsider my position.

Perhaps the gauge of immorality can be lowered just enough to torture bush and cheney, (add cal - for good measure), BUT not to extract information. The torture would be JUST FOR FUN!!! (I am already smiling).

It's a TV show. In real life, Jack Bauer is a drunk driver.

It's a TV show. In real life, Jack Bauer is a drunk driver.

It's a TV show. In real life, Jack Bauer is a drunk driver.

It's a TV show. In real life, Jack Bauer is a drunk driver.

Talk about tortured logic, Mr: Thomas, your own words here:

"There is a double standard when it comes to this subject. We in the West are supposed to adhere to certain rules so we "won't be like them." But if the other side adheres to no rules and sees our standards as a form of weakness, such things are counter-productive to our objectives."

I thought our objective was to be a better society than 'the terrorists?'

"Double standard?" "The other side is doing it?"

This is the 'Christian moral superiority' you right-wingers talk about when you try and get the right to use torture with impunity, not even *accountability?*

Hate to break it to you, Mr. Thomas: this isn't a matter of so you "won't be like them" as you so-dismissively say.

You already *are* like them, dude.

Not in my name, though. And not in America's.

Frankly, I have a hard time taking anyone who claims there is any religious or humanistic justification for torture seriously.

We all seem to say the same thing. But we should be grateful to Mr Cal Thomas. After all - now we know that water-boarding is torture and why the current administration really supports it. Because of 24...

GeorgiaSon makes a very good point that stick out:

The Washington Post or Newsweek would not publish a commentary urging any of the following:

--An occasional pogrom against the Jews, to show Christian fidelity to Jesus Christ.
--Lynching a black person now and then to solve the crime rate in the black community.
--Re-establishing segregation as best for both blacks and whites.
--Bringing back slavery, since it is sanctioned by God, Jesus, and St. Paul, and may be the only way to bring heathens to Christ as their Lord and Savior.
--Repealing the 19th Amendment.
--Murdering physicians who perform abortions.
--Kidnapping the children of newspaper editors who publish pro-life editorials.

Read the rest of his post in case you have missed it! It is strange that we are discussing torture at all in the year 2007?

"(and how do we define torture?)" says Cal.

However's convenient, Cal.

The problems with that kind of attitude are endless, but here are a couple of the more enormous issues.

1. The way you've phrased the argument makes it sound like there are only two groups: America and The Terrorists. If the US government decides to make torture into a standard intel-gathering policy 'to save the lives of the troops', then any organization, from other governments down to armed gangs, that ends up engaged with the US from now on could fairly consider captured American soldiers and government personnel fair game for torture, in order to save the lives of their people. In such a situation, could the US really complain if its POWs sometimes come home missing fingers, or perhaps repeatedly sodomized?

2. Although Jack Bauer seems to gather nothing but the most reliable intel from his torture sessions, that's just good TV. Victims will typically tell their interrogator what they think he wants to hear in order to get the torture to stop, whether it's truth or lies or a mixture of both. This is especially problematic when the detainee you're torturing doesn't actually know anything. Maybe they simply weren't privy to the information the torturer wants, or maybe they're actually innocent (see Maher Arar). Of course, you can't know that until you've caused enough injury to permanently damage the detainee, because hey? who knows, maybe he'll 'break' after we nearly drown him one more time...

Saddam's bravado (Defiant or swaggering behavior)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html

In summary, the IAEA report says that following the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq launched a "crash program" to develop a nuclear weapon quickly by extracting weapons grade material from safe-guarded research reactor fuel. This project, if it had continued uninterrupted by the war, might have succeeded in producing a deliverable weapon by the end of 1992.[1]

According the UN inspectors, the material and program was destroyed and shut down as per Iraqi officials and inspection results.

-an industrial scale complex for Electromagnetic Isotope Separation (EMIS), a process for producing enriched uranium. The complex was designed for the installation of 90 separators; before the Gulf War, eight were functional. If all separators had been installed, the plant could have produced 15 kg of highly enriched uranium per year, possibly enough for one nuclear weapon.

a large scale manufacturing and testing facility--the Al Furat Project--designed for the production of centrifuges, used in another method of uranium enrichment.

facilities and equipment for the production of weapons components.

computer simulations of nuclear weapons detonations

storage of large quantities of HMX high explosive used in nuclear weapons.

According to former U.N. inspector David Kay, Iraq spent over $10 billion during the 1980s in an attempt to enrich uranium and build a nuclear weapon. However, the Agency concludes that as of December, 1998, "There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons," or "that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." However, the IAEA did find that "Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of [highly enriched uranium] ... and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon." Despite the fact that the facilities and nuclear material had been destroyed or removed, as early as 1996 the IAEA concluded that "the know-how and expertise acquired by Iraqi scientists and engineers could provide an adequate base for reconstituting a nuclear-weapons-oriented program."

Between 1991 and 1998, UN inspectors conducted more than 70 inspections into Iraq's biological warfare activities. In its 1999 final report to the U.N. Security Council, UNSCOM noted that Iraq's biological warfare program was "among the most secretive of its programs of weapons of mass destruction." It said that Iraq "took active steps" to conceal the program, including "inadequate disclosures, unilateral destruction, and concealment activities." Therefore, the Commission concluded, "it has not been possible to verify" Iraq's statements about the extent and nature of its biological weapons program.

Saddam's bravado (Defiant or swaggering behavior)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html

In summary, the IAEA report says that following the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq launched a "crash program" to develop a nuclear weapon quickly by extracting weapons grade material from safe-guarded research reactor fuel. This project, if it had continued uninterrupted by the war, might have succeeded in producing a deliverable weapon by the end of 1992.[1]

According the UN inspectors, the material and program was destroyed and shut down as per Iraqi officials and inspection results.

-an industrial scale complex for Electromagnetic Isotope Separation (EMIS), a process for producing enriched uranium. The complex was designed for the installation of 90 separators; before the Gulf War, eight were functional. If all separators had been installed, the plant could have produced 15 kg of highly enriched uranium per year, possibly enough for one nuclear weapon.

a large scale manufacturing and testing facility--the Al Furat Project--designed for the production of centrifuges, used in another method of uranium enrichment.

facilities and equipment for the production of weapons components.

computer simulations of nuclear weapons detonations

storage of large quantities of HMX high explosive used in nuclear weapons.

According to former U.N. inspector David Kay, Iraq spent over $10 billion during the 1980s in an attempt to enrich uranium and build a nuclear weapon. However, the Agency concludes that as of December, 1998, "There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons," or "that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." However, the IAEA did find that "Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of [highly enriched uranium] ... and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon." Despite the fact that the facilities and nuclear material had been destroyed or removed, as early as 1996 the IAEA concluded that "the know-how and expertise acquired by Iraqi scientists and engineers could provide an adequate base for reconstituting a nuclear-weapons-oriented program."

Between 1991 and 1998, UN inspectors conducted more than 70 inspections into Iraq's biological warfare activities. In its 1999 final report to the U.N. Security Council, UNSCOM noted that Iraq's biological warfare program was "among the most secretive of its programs of weapons of mass destruction." It said that Iraq "took active steps" to conceal the program, including "inadequate disclosures, unilateral destruction, and concealment activities." Therefore, the Commission concluded, "it has not been possible to verify" Iraq's statements about the extent and nature of its biological weapons program.

A. Hermit:

Anyone purporting to have an accurate account of civilian deaths in Afghanistan is not someone whose figure are to be trusted. The Taliban assassinate civilians that oppose them. Do you think those casualties show up in anyone's figures?

Rather than answer the point that who troops aim for matters for both law and victim, you just repeat your conclusion. The article you cited includes a nice refutation from Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer:

"The Taliban ... make every effort to cause civilian casualties and to create situations where we might not be able to avoid civilians casualties," Downer said.

"It is very, very foolish for anybody, except of course for those that support the Taliban ... to try to create some sort of moral equivalent between" NATO and the militants."

Hewitt insists; "Coalition forces did NOT kill more civilians in Afghanistan this year than the Taliban have."

But the facts are, sadly, otherwise:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/30/asia/AS-GEN-Afghan-Violence.php

"Civilians deaths caused by U.S. and NATO-led troops have infuriated Afghans and prompted President Hamid Karzai to publicly condemn the forces for carelessness and viewing Afghan lives as "cheap." He has urged restraint and better coordination of military operations with the government, while also accusing the Taliban of using civilians as shields.

A United Nations tally shows that of 673 civilian deaths this year, 314 were caused by international or Afghan security forces, and 279 by insurgents. A similar Associated Press count, though lower, shows the same trend: 213 killed by the U.S. or NATO, and 180 by the Taliban."

The survivors and the families of the victims won't care if their loved ones were kiled deliberately by the Taliban or carelessly by Amercan gunships.

The use of aerial bombardment is indiscriminate; it cannot fail to kill large numbers of civilians and is therefore just as brutal as any suicide bombing. And counterproductive, to say the least.

Regards

A Hermit

Mr. Thomas's comments are deeply disturbing, for two separate reasons: they contradict Christian thinking, and they ignore reality.

I have often heard and read Mr. Thomas proclaim his fervent Christianity. But on the evidence of this comment, he is not a follower of the Jesus Christ portrayed in the Bible.

If Mr. Thomas merely consulted a very good test for action, "What would Jesus do," he could not reach the conclusions he states here.

In fact, he is arguing a philosophical position directly contrary to what Christian thought has established over some 20 centuries. The ends do not justify the means. He is essentially proposing that we should do anything and everything that our enemies do, if we think it might render some perceived advantage.

Mr. Thomas's second error is that his statements bear no relationship to reality -- there is no evidence that torture actually works. The "ticking time bomb" scenario is a delusional fantasy. First, how do we ever know that such a situation actually exists? Second, the alleged terrorist is not going to suddenly tell the truth under torture -- he can just as readily lie, sending any would-be rescuers on a wild goose chase.

The Bush administration has yet to provide any examined evidence that torture has produced any information that could not have been obtained by normal interrogation methods. It has made certain claims that way -- but it has never allowed those claims to be examined. It hasn't even provided the evidence allegedly obtained, telling us instead that it is secret.

The military and the FBI have long experience in interrogation. They have, to the extent possible without retaliation by the Administration, stated that torture does not work. The former heads of the JAGs for the four armed services have all condemned the use of torture. Colin Powell has also stated his opposition.

Further, Mr. Thomas would, instead of helping our troops, actually harm them. If the U.S. uses these techniques, then any enemy capturing our servicemen and women will feel quite free to use them as well.

Next, the suggestion that only "civil libertarians" would be concerned is demagoguery, not reasoned argument. As noted above, those opposing torture include the very agencies most familiar with interrogation.

Finally, Mr. Thomas's comment is unfortunately as unfortunately based as could possibly be imagined. The evidence for his position? A fictional character on a television show. He should do actual his research before advocating conduct that shames and stains our Nation.

Ross Taylor
Tacoma, Washington

CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED writes (yet again - same laundry list post over many, many months) :
"An update on our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes."

Tuesday, 4 February, 2003, 23:26 GMT
Saddam denies links to terrorists

Saddam rebuffed accusations from the US and Britain
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has denied allegations by the US and UK that Iraq has links with Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.
"If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda, and we believed in that relationship, we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it," the Iraqi leader said in a rare interview, conducted by the former British MP Tony Benn and broadcast on Channel Four television.

These weapons [of mass destruction] do not come in small pills that you can hide in your pocket."

There has been considerable scepticism worldwide about alleged links between Saddam Hussein - a secular dictator - and Osama Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist.

The transmission of the interview comes a day before US Secretary of State Colin Powell is to present to the UN what he says is evidence that Iraq is developing banned weapons of mass destruction - another allegation denied by Saddam Hussein.

In a first response from the US administration, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the Iraqi leader told lies most of the time.

"This is a case of the local liar coming up again and people repeating what he said and forgetting to say that he never, almost never, rarely tells the truth," the defence secretary said.

In other developments:

Kuwait says it will establish a closed military zone in its northern area bordering Iraq from 15 February
UN arms inspectors in Iraq say they have found another empty chemical warhead
In the interview, Saddam Hussein said it would be impossible to hide away the chemical, biological or nuclear weapons that the US insists he possesses, and which the UN inspectors have so far failed to find.

Saddam said finding banned weapons should be easy
"These weapons do not come in small pills that you can hide in your pocket," he said.

"These are weapons of mass destruction, and it is easy to work out if Iraq has them or not."

The US and Britain claim Iraq is hiding prohibited weapons or related documents from United Nations arms inspectors, who returned to Iraq last November

On Tuesday, the chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix urged Baghdad to improve its co-operation, warning that it was "five minutes to midnight".

America has warned it will forcibly disarm Iraq if Saddam Hussein does not give up the weapons it says he owns.

The Iraqi leader said he did not want a confrontation, and accused America of looking for a pretext to launch an attack.

"Iraq has no interest in war," he said.

"No Iraqi official or ordinary citizens has expressed a wish to go to war."

Bush 'unwise'

Saddam Hussein said the US was seeking to control Iraq's oil fields and was being influenced by Israel.

raqis have been fulfilling their obligations

Saddam Hussein

"The consecutive American administrations were led to a path of hostility against the people of this region, including our own nation," he said.

"The most important factor in controlling oil is to destroy Iraq."

Alluding to US President George W Bush, Saddam Hussein said anyone who thought they could act without regard for the rest of the world was "lacking in wisdom" .

He said "Iraqis have been fulfilling their obligations" under the UN resolution on disarmament, contrary to US and British claims.

"The President reiterated that Iraqis had no weapons of mass destruction"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2726347.stm

No, there's NOT any double standard involved here. Thomas apparently doesn't know what the term means. If people were saying "Torture is morally acceptable for them but not for us," THAT would be a double standard. For more on Thomas's mistake, go here:

davidmazel.blogspot.com/2007/11/for-perfect-example-of-moral-relativism.html

"Those who are acting outside the Geneva Convention are doing so intentionally and probably with the knowledge that we will willingly TIE OUR OWN HANDS in our response in order to satisfy some mythic "we are better than our enemies" fairytale. We are only "better" if we have prevented deaths without __causing__ deaths. And, as far as I understand, waterboarding dies not __cause__ death."

Burt, and Dick Cheney, and Cal Thomas, seem to think that we make ourselves weaker by following the Rule of Law and Golden Rule morality. The contrary argument is that morality and legal integrity may lose a few battles, but their advocates always win in the end because they offer the only path to a life free of fear and hypocrisy.

Let us debate this point: Does adherence to the Rule of Law and the Golden Rule make us weaker or stronger? I believe this debate will separate the authoritarian apologists and proto-fascists from the real friends of Liberty.

A Hermit:

Coalition forces did NOT kill more civilians in Afghanistan this year than the Taliban have. Just because the Taliban claim yet another wedding celebration was being held at exactly the time and place of an Allied air strike does not mean it is true.

Also, it DOES matter whether one side is aiming at civilians or trying to avoid hitting civilians while shooting at soldiers. It is the difference in international law between crimes against humanity and war. It matters to the victims as well. Even a dog can tell the difference between being tripped over or kicked.

I am not calling for greater brutality by us by observing that the opposition is systematically far more brutal than us. If you are against crimes against humanity, then you oppose them where you find them.

An update on our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (besides fighting the civil war in Bahgdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Recently OBL threatened Libya for being friens with the USA.

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. The US Navy recently helped recover a number of North Korean citizens and ships from Islamic pirates operating off the coast of Somalia.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, The Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or were punished.

12. Islamic Darfur and Islamic Somalia are still terror hot spots.

There are those who claim that we are woithin our rights to torture based on the principal of eye for eye.

My understanding was that an eye for an eye was the ceiling, not the requirement. In other words, if someone put out your left eye, the MOST you could do in return was to put out his left eye. You cold not blind him, break his legs, rape his wife, sell his children into slavery, poison his dog,and burn down his house because he put out your left eye.

It was also my understanding that those who call themselves Christians had abandoned that mindset whenthey accepted Jesus. And I would say that MOST Christians do in fact fit that description. Cal doesn't - he wants his NT mercy for himself but also wants his pre-OT bloodthirst slaked. Can't have it both ways, Cal. iF YOU'RE GOING TO TALK THE JESUS TALK, THEN WALK THE JESUS WALK.

"The Washington Post and Newsweek do not condone torture. Pro-torture advocacy normally would not be allowed on our web site, any more than pro-slavery, pro-pedophile, pro-pogroms, or overt anti-Semitism advocacy would be allowed. We ordinarily would not allow twisted, perverted, depraved species of sub-human scum like Cal Thomas to post such a viewpoint on our web pages. However, since the Bush Administration and some other extremist Americans are currently advocating its practice, we have suspended our usual standards to allow this extremist viewpoint to be expressed, in oder to expose George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, Cal Thomas, and Chuck Colson for the extremists that they are."

I love it!

I had the pleasure of having to listen to right wing radio the other day and was SHOCKED to hear that America, a Christian nation, was at war with Islam. Just like that, no nuance, nothing. Is stirring up Xenophobia protected by free speech? I guess it is. Even if that were changed who’s going to enforce it? The public airwaves are one thing, but who’s going to stand guard in the churches to keep the preachers in check?

Who among you “I don’t fit the stereotype” types is going to stand up in the congregation and bear witness? Who is willing to be run out of the temple? Be Excommunicated?. Pronounced Anathema? It’s easy enough to shout them down in cyber space.

Someone told me to check out a Preacher named Pat Hagee as well, far from obscure this guy is out there mixing it up with AIPAC senators in an effort to bring on the end times, praise God! Furthermore Beelzebub himself a.k.a. Pat Robertson, has come out in favor of Rudy 'Bloody Shirt' Giuliani, War with out end, Amen.

It's like a perfect storm of insanity. I mean, it's getting WIERD out there!

I say let them put this evil out there to be shouted down. It’s time to strip these wolves of their sheep’s clothing. No more confusion and no more carousing. Strange lines are being drawn in strange places in these strange times. Do “they” get to draw all the lines? I’ve read the Bible. These people couldn’t be farther from the message of Jesus. I don’t believe in taking the Book of Revelations seriously, but honestly, if I were the Anti-Christ, I would rise up right smack dab in the middle of the Church. Endless unjust wars, surrendering humanity to justify torture, defending the suspension of the Constitution without a second thought, not a penny to spare for the sick children, ect., ect. And all in the name of Jesus?

What else could an Anti-Christ want?

Seriously, what else?

REPLY TO E FAVORITE (Posted 11/8 at 10:08 PM)

I understand where you're coming from. There is something to be said for letting extremists publicly express their views, in order to expose them for what they are. Cal Thomas (and now Chuck Colson) has certainly accomplished that.

But I hold to my original point: There are some issues that are off the table in a civilized society. At a minimum, when POST/NEWSWEEK publish something like this, it should include the disclaimer:

"The Washington Post and Newsweek do not condone torture. Pro-torture advocacy normally would not be allowed on our web site, any more than pro-slavery, pro-pedophile, pro-pogroms, or overt anti-Semitism advocacy would be allowed. We ordinarily would not allow twisted, perverted, depraved species of sub-human scum like Cal Thomas to post such a viewpoint on our web pages. However, since the Bush Administration and some other extremist Americans are currently advocating its practice, we have suspended our usual standards to allow this extremist viewpoint to be expressed, in oder to expose George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, Cal Thomas, and Chuck Colson for the extremists that they are."

"You Mr Thomas are not a Christian - you are a politician who has never had sex."

This is getting overly personal and also silly. I believe Mr. Thomas is married and has four kids. I'm going to guess they weren't all adopted.

Would the last sane Christians please torch the churches on the way out?

Torture and terror come in different degrees. Micro torture/terror would be waterboarding as supposedly practiced by our military and intelligence agengies or beheadings of Iraqi Shiites by Sunni intelligence groups and vice versa.

Macro terror/torture would be dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. Some might consider the result quite effective.

Outside of the stupefying immorality of his essay, Cal shows his true colors from his first sentence: "By that I assume it is meant torture by the West, since terrorists are famous for using all sorts of torture, including physical, mental and religious torture, such as forced conversion."

Cal is implying that Christians in the west never used religious torture or practiced forced conversion. Obviously, anyone with a passing knowledge of Jewish history in Western Europe -- or who has seen the pictures of Abu Graib -- knows that is not the case. But in Cal's world, only evil brown-skinned terrorists are guilty of these things, and that is why it is ok for us to torture and kill them.

Among his many other flaws nicely enumerated on this comment thread, Cal is also a racist.

OK, say your torture doesn't get your terrorist suspect to tell you what you want to hear. Let's bring in his wife, kids, or parents and torture them while your detainee is forced to watch. Is that ok in your world view Cal? What is justified if it "saves lives"?

Clearly we have reached the point where it is appropriate for the Washington Post to use the words "Radical Cleric" to describe the likes of Cal Thomas, Chuck Colson, Albert Moeller and Pat Robertson.

Georgiason - Good points. Unfortunately, our society has not progressed on the subject of torture as it has on on the other moral issues you mentioned. We're still in the process - and if Meacham and Quinn didn't give supposed religious leaders like Cal Thomas a voice, we'd never know how perverted he is. And we really need to know. And he really needs to see our responses to him.

These preachers of Christianity who teach children that torture is a good thing are surely doing the work of Satan if anyone is.

Torture is a great weapon in the war on terror -- whereby the USA has shot itself in the foot and made itself hated and distrusted by all its allies.

Wow, I thought you were a Christian.
Have you heard of "turn the other cheek"?
Hypocrite!

Cal Thomas invokes Jack Bauer, a fictional character on a TV show? And bad guys do it so we should too? Oh and torture, so difficult to define. Tsk Tsk.

With this comment he has placed himself beyond the pale, indeed he is nothing more than a barbarian in a suit. If this very disturbing world view is the product of his "faith" then it is an evil faith.

Who Would Jesus Torture?

What would Jack Bauer do? I see,

Christians have lost their way.

The idea isn't to win the game and make Jesus come back by pushing the big red button. The idea is to live by the code of humanity prescribed through his teachings, and the peaceful teachings of other religions.

Christianity has turned into a bloodsport, and whackjobs like you that can justify torture are the coaches.

Idiot.

The Washington Post or Newsweek would not publish a commentary urging any of the following:

--An occasional pogrom against the Jews, to show Christian fidelity to Jesus Christ.
--Lynching a black person now and then to solve the crime rate in the black community.
--Re-establishing segregation as best for both blacks and whites.
--Bringing back slavery, since it is sanctioned by God, Jesus, and St. Paul, and may be the only way to bring heathens to Christ as their Lord and Savior.
--Repealing the 19th Amendment.
--Murdering physicians who perform abortions.
--Kidnapping the children of newspaper editors who publish pro-life editorials.

The Washington Post and Newsweek would not allow any of the above in the name of freedom of debate. There is no such thing as total freedom to say anything, anytime, for any purpose. There are built-in and recognized limits, even to freedom of speech.

Why in God's name would Post/Newsweek publishers and editors publish this piece of drivel by the likes of Cal Thomas? Why would they not know that explicitly endorsing torture is in the same category as any of my examples cited above?

The fact that they obviously do not know that has revealed more about themselves than they realize. No doubt Jon Mitchell and Sally Quinn and the rest of the Post hierarchy have at some time said to themselves: How in God's name did ordinary people ever condone slavery? Or condone sending 6 million human beings to their deaths? Or rationalize putting people on the rack? Or burning witches at the stake? Or murder civil rights workers? Or proclaim that a system of legal segregation was fully in accord with American ideals?

Well, Jon Mitchell, Sally Quinn, and every other name on the Post/Newsweek mastheads now have their answer. It's because the capacity of the human brain for monumental feats of self-rationalization is infinite. Like Christians rationalizing their right to own slaves. Like Germans rationalizing their justification for murdering Jews. Like Jon Mitchell and Sally Quinn rationalizing the publication of a treatise condoning torture in the name of freedom of speech.

Evil is done in this world, not because evil people take delight in committing evil deeds, but because supposedly good people are able to justify and rationalize the commission of evil deeds. The Washington Post and Newsweek have just given us a prime example of that terrible fact.

The editors of Post/Newsweek have reached a new low in publishing one more piece of chip-on-the-shoulder, pseudo-macho posturing by the likes of Cal Thomas, George Bush, and Dick Cheney. The overwhelming majority of ordinary, decent Americans--of whatever political persuasion--know these hollow men for what they are. For Post/Newsweek to give them continued license to publicize their inherently warped, twisted, perverted, depraved visions is inexcusable.

For purely pragmatic reasons, torture should be opposed by all Americans--right, left or center: a person who is tortured can be made to say whatever his torturer wants him to say, making torture useless in obtaining useful information.

American military leaders are nearly unanimous in their opposition to torture for two pragmatic reasons: The fact that information from tortured prisoners is highly suspect and the fact that our use of torture puts all American service members at risk of torture.

For purely pragmatic reasons, torture should be opposed by all Americans--right, left or center: a person who is tortured can be made to say whatever his torturer wants him to say, making torture useless in obtaining useful information.

American military leaders are nearly unanimous in their opposition to torture for two pragmatic reasons: The fact that information from tortured prisoners is highly suspect and the fact that our use of torture puts all American service members at risk of torture.

It's astonishing to me that a self-described Christian leader is so blithe about torturing a person we are "reasonably certain" has life-saving information. Given all that we have learned about this administration, the conduct of the war, and its detentions, how low a bar is "reasonably certain"

While a teevee show is apparently the primary, if insufficient moral guide ("and how do we define torture?") for Mr Thomas regarding torture, let us inject the Baurs of our world with some real Cal-manliness. Why stop at waterboarding (i.e., controlled drowning) if defining torture is so muddled and icky a task? Let's render the entire family of a terror suspect to a black site (it's been done), threaten the wife with rape, perhaps the children with a little teletubby torture lite. Then do it. Needs to be done. Might save Terre Haute from a dirty bomb! And there's no permanent disfigurement or organ damage, remember, per legal whiz kids Addington and Yoo, so it's not torture. Since our bombs kill indiscriminately, whose not to love a little indiscriminate torture?. Who cares if it doesn't work (except to gain not intelligence but politically useful confessions--it's real purpose). I'm still shocked and ashamed we're even having this discussion in America, rather than trying and jailing torturers and their superiors who ordered or tolerated it. What of the Japanese soldiers we convicted for waterboarding American POWs in WWII? It's OK to waterboard our guys 'cause Yoo says it's not torture and Cal can't say at all? Say OK to waterboarding GIs, Cal. Say you don't know that it's torture. And say it a US combat soldier's face.

Wow. Just Wow.

Cal Thomas officially proclaims himself to be akin to one of the corrupt Jewish officials who said it is better to kill Jesus than to allow the Romans to destroy a whole nation.

So Cal, please stop pretending to be a Christian.

Not only do you hate America and its constitution, you show yourself to be an anti-Christ(ian).

How does torture produce any good result? How do you know if you have a real culprit with potential life-saving infomation to be extracted? Or should we just torture alot of people and hope that some of them are the true culprits? Who makes the decisions on who should be tortured, and who decides on the instruments and methodolgies of torture? Someone who is very wise, I hope. How are these wise people chosen? And how does the practice of torture extract information? Might some people resist all torture--out of true courage and fearlessness--or out of desperation that they are doomed no matter what they say? Or, might some people say anything, invent any kind of deception, to end the torture? Is this not an arrogant, even obnoxious, point of view--that a person in a position of physical superiority, may subject other human beings to animal brutality, and then assert righteous and indignant defiance when questioned, as though the torturer is the one being wronged?

Some time ago, I was listening to Christian radio--not for the discourse, which I usually find lacking and disappointing--but for the music, which I often like. While listening, I heard a man say something that struck me as unusually lucid, and I have remembered it and repeated it back to myself often. He said, “every person who is born and lives upon the earth, no matter who they are, no matter how cold-blooded and hard-hearted, should have the following saying tattooed on their forehead: fragile, handle with care.”

Some of us feel great empathy for others. Some of us feel nothing. Most are somewhere in between. Weather a person thinks torture is a good idea or a bad idea really depends more on this inner feeling of empathy, than it does on any kind of rational logic. The logic is merely invented to support the feeling that torture is ok, or that is not ok.

Despite the arguments of some previous commenters, it is hard for me to acknowledge what good could ever come of institutionalized torture under the American system. By that, I mean torture in which a hired, paid torturer is waiting with the instruments of torture in a torture chamber, for the next prisoner to be brought up before him, from a cell where he may have been detained for a long, indefinite period of time, for a criminal charge that was never formally made, and that may even have been forgotten.

I would like to say that my feelings on torture are based on my Christian upbringing, or my university educational exposure to the European Enlightenment. But, it is really more, just my inner feeling that I cannot tolerate even the thought of such treatment of one human being by another.

Why advocates of torture are completely unable to comprehend the following thought experiment completely escapes me:

You're sitting in your home, and armed men break in, bind your limbs, put a bag over your head, and haul you off.

You find yourself in a room with a man who asks you "Where's the bomb?", and no matter what you answer, he starts torturing you.

After multiple hours or days or weeks of pain and suffering, and after confessing all sorts of things to make the pain stop, you give him some kind of answer that may or may not satisfy him. He may just continue torturing you. Or not.

Trouble is, you don't have any idea what he's asking for. It was the guy next door they wanted.

Does the interrorgator think you're a tough guy? A liar? Or someone with no clue? Torture won't help him figure out if you're telling the truth or not.

CTCNL...despite your immunity to lwfts, you seem completly suseptible to this administrations lies. Are you really a closet believer?

Now, by admission of even the administration, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and has never attacked the US in any way nor caused it direct harm.
So, in the case of Iraqis, these are human beings that never attacked our nation in any way, defending their homeland against illegal foreign invaders.

Even the so called Al Queada in Iraq, is not the same people or group lead by bin Laden in Afghanistan.

So you are willing to compound an illegal war of aggression which GWB should face war crimes trial for, with our soldiers complicity carrying out a POLICY of TORTURE against the victims.

BushCo must have you completely brain washed, or you are evil in your own right. This behavior reeks of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Not only is torture immoral, it is still illegal under international law, and everyone in the administration that has helped create this policy should be tried for crimes against humanity.

GWBs assistant Secretary to the Attorney General was fired because after having himself water boarded, wrote an opinion that it was torture. This was not a 'left wing flake' but part of GWBs own camp.

George should hang from the same scaffold as Saddam.

I have no problem with the death penalty in the caes of George, Cheney and Rummy, the axis of evil.

To Concerned:

I'm sorry for interrupting your endless repetition of "War is Hell", but I have a question.

You stated, "And I see a lot of conjecture about torture and terror not being useful in gathering intelligence or stopping acts of terror but no references to back up said conjecture."

Virtually every expert on interrogation has said that torture doesn't yield useful information. The commentators cite these studies in their answers to the question.

Could you perhaps give us some solid sources on what acts of terror have been revealed and stopped through torture? (I mean, other than those on television shows...)

I thought Thomas was a Christian???

"That seems to me to be the proper balance if it is reasonably certain the person being tortured has information that will save innocent lives."

Here's a key unquestioned assumption of his article. HOW DO WE KNOW that this person has this information?? How would we EVER know they have this information?

The Realm of Reality: War is Hell!!! We enter Hell to include its torture and terror to win said wars!!! That is and has always been the nature of war.

Comparisons: waterboarding vs. suicide bombing massacres? waterboarding vs. loss of arms, legs and/or sight? waterboarding vs. five hundred pound bombs? waterboarding vs. fire bombing? waterboarding vs. cluster bombing? waterboarding vs. hydrogen bomb holocausts?

And of these items which ones are acts of torture and which ones are acts of terror?

And I see a lot of conjecture about torture and terror not being useful in gathering intelligence or stopping acts of terror but no references to back up said conjecture.

PPark wrote: "But that doesn't make it real. Seriously, who's running this country? Script writers?"

Well, if they are, that means the store isn't being minded because of the strike... :)

Wonder if Cal is just as proud of extraordinary rendition?

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/video/video_index.html

So, based on Mr. Thomas's logic that torture is to be defended if it "is needed to save lives", would it be okay to stomp on the testicles of a terrorist's 8-year-old son if doing so would save lives?

Based on the rationale of the torture advocates, what's to stop us from using torture on average murder suspects if the goal is to save lives? In fact, what's to stop other nations like Iran (should we go to war with them) from torturing one of our downed airmen if their rationale, like ours, is also to save the lives of their countrymen?

And so what if the enemy sees our values as a "form of weakness"? The Japanese thought that US troops who surrendered were cowards and tortured and beheaded them as a result, yet we didn't use this as an excuse to torture Japanese prisoners. Not because we wanted them simply to like us more or for them to see how right we were, but because we were supposed to be better than them, period.

So, based on Mr. Thomas's logic that torture is to be defended if it "is needed to save lives", would it be okay to stomp on the testicles of a terrorist's 8-year-old son if doing so would save lives?

Based on the rationale of the torture advocates, what's to stop us from using torture on average murder suspects if the goal is to save lives? In fact, what's to stop other nations like Iran (should we go to war with them) from torturing one of our downed airmen if their rationale, like ours, is also to save the lives of their countrymen?

And so what if the enemy sees our values as a "form of weakness"? The Japanese thought that US troops who surrendered were cowards and tortured and beheaded them as a result, yet we didn't use this as an excuse to torture Japanese prisoners. Not because we wanted them simply to like us more or for them to see how right we were, but because we were supposed to be better than them, period.

Mr. Thomas realizes that Jack Bauer is a fictional charachter?

Remember when during the gulf war when Iraqis would just surrender because they knew US troops would treat them humanly....yeah, dont plan on seeing that ever again.

Thanks to Bush and the GOP, now our enemies are more likely to fight to the death to avoid capture and TORTURE by Americans.

PS: The US prosecuted Japanese soldiers after WWII for waterboarding- something we used to call torture.

I'll see your Jack Bauer and raise you John Wayne.

I get it now. To be a good Christian (like Cal Thomas), one must emulate the Gestapo.
Thanks for explaining that!

Can we just say that "24" is a TV show and if torture works on the show it is because the writers make it work. But all the reality based evidence seems to show that torture doesn't succeed in getting reliable information - at least that's what interrogation experts tell us. But Cal Thomas won't quote them. If it works on TV it must be good. I could write a TV show where the tortured terrorist gives false information, Jack Bauer goes running off after it and Grand Central Station is blown sky high. But that doesn't make it real. Seriously, who's running this country? Script writers?

Ironic that this is posted in the "On Faith" section.

Who would Jesus torture, Cal?

Oh, I forgot, you're asking WWJBD these days.

"It is not coincidental that the trailer for the new season of the TV series "24" features Jack Bauer testifying before a congressional committee on the subject of torture. Bauer is asked if he defends torture and responds that if it is needed to save lives, he will use it."

That's your analysis? Based on a TV commercial? How about some empirical data, Cal?

Such simpletons running rampant on the far right these days. Unfortunately, they're running the country.

To quote a not particularly deep character in an action thriller TV show as an authority on torture is so unfortunate in a column about faith in the face of a materialist society.

A double standard? Yes it's called the difference between good and evil. You'll find the same "double standard" in all moral questions.

Re: Torturing Ourselves to Death:
Surely, those apologists, like Cal Thomas, who excuse the Bush administration's illegal and immoral use of torture, shall have their own special place reserved in hell.

Sincerely,

Ed Wilson

How do we define torture? We define it as Americans, Europeans, and the rest of the world did after living through the hell of WWII. "The Greatest Generation" told us what the rules about torture should be, and it's utterly disgraceful that a bunch of neocon desk-jockeys should question their wisdom.

So if a fictional character on TV does it, its ok?

That is sound logic there. I can't fail to see any holes or weaknesses in that argument at all.

It's good to see you've thought about this. I think you're "Jack Bauer does it" defense of torture just might seal the deal and convince those of us who still have a shred of humanity left in us to lose it and embrace torture.

And since no one who is for torture seems to own a dictionary, lemme tell you how we define "torture".

Torture: the act of deliberately inflicting extreme pain as punishment or retribution. To inflict agony.

"There is a double standard when it comes to this subject. We in the West are supposed to adhere to certain rules so we "won't be like them." But if the other side adheres to no rules and sees our standards as a form of weakness, such things are counter-productive to our objectives."

Such cowards and fools you are. You get no choice about offending God's laws (in the West or no) if you are following Christ's path (remember Him?), that means "Forgive not 7 times, but 70 times 7", Love those that Hate you", "Love your neighbor as yourself", "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", "Turn the other cheek, offer your cloak, etc." And of course the whole thing about eschewing pride and prideful behavior...I'm thinking that Christ won't appreciate you waffling on his basic tenets, but hey, that's just me...

I miss those seeking to be Christ-like because the rest of you are just too violent.

"There is a double standard when it comes to this subject. We in the West are supposed to adhere to certain rules so we "won't be like them." But if the other side adheres to no rules and sees our standards as a form of weakness, such things are counter-productive to our objectives."

Such cowards and fools you are. You get no choice about offending God's laws if you are following Christ's path (remember Him?), and that means "Forgive not 7 times, but 70 times 7", Love those that Hate you", "Love your neighbor as yourself", "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", "Turn the other cheek, offer your cloak, etc." And of course the whole thing about eschewing pride and prideful behavior...I'm thinking that Christ won't appreciate you waffling on his basic tenets, but hey, that's just me...

I miss those seeking to be Christ-like because the rest of you are just too violent.

Mr. Thomas' analysis is frighteningly crude & uninformed. There are very clear definitions of what constitutes torture contained in the US Legal Code. There is also the Geneva Conventions & how that document was interpreted in the context of war crimes trials after WWII. By most reliable reports our government has breached many of these rules in the so-called War on Terror. In doing so they are every bit as much guilty of war crimes as were those who used the methods against us & were punished for it. Additionally, the post-facto method for determining when it's acceptable to torture, as provided by the noted ethicist Jack Bauer (!), is completely insupportable. Torture when you know the prisoner has information that would save lives? Exactly how do you know that before the fact, & what do you do when you discover they didn't know what you thought they did? Say "oops"?
It's shocking to me that a professed Christian would employ such shoddy, uninformed reasoning on such a vital topic. Mr. Thomas would do well to focus more closely on scripture & to vet his analyses for the taint of worldly, political bias.

The argument against torture goes beyond the moral aspect, although the moral aspect should certainly not be dismissed as easily as Mr. Bauer and Mr. Thomas do. (Imagine - citing Jack Bauer as a credible foreign policy authority!)

Torture does not yield reliable information, since there is a strong motivation for the person being tortured to give any information that comes to mind (whether it's true or false) in order to make the pain stop. Combined with the moral argument - practicing torture makes us more like the terrorists than we should be - torture has no place in American crime fighting, whether at home or abroad.

This nation is scared of ghosts. Thomas Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." You might be tempted to focus on the tyrants part in reference to terrorists, and I readily concede you that anger. However, think about the patriots - are our only patriots our soldiers, or are we willing to shed the blood of our civilians (like the ~3000 who died on 9/11) in defense of freedom. Mr. Thomas is stuck in the knee-jerk mode of bloodlust for "the people who did that to us." The truth is that the terrorists could kill many times the people that they did on 9/11 without conquering the spirit that is America!

Also, if we want a full picture of how we came to be hated by so many around the world, we need to focus on moving beyond chasing crackpots (and our atrocious "collateral damage" that has occurred in the process) and look at ourselves. What have we done to incite such anger? Most people have no idea about the way that the U.S. government, by means of the CIA, military, and diplomatic missions, projects U.S. hegemony throughout the world. They have no idea that other peoples in the world have intelligent criticisms of our country - most Americans see foreigners as being envious of the U.S., and expressing their envy by trying to move here, or just actively hating us. Here's a clue: the world and its people are a little more sophisticated than that, although it's inconvenient for us to think of them that way.

First, torture, even in the "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario does NOT work...even if it does on TV. Ask ANY professional intelligence officer and he will tell you that information gathered from such activities is dangerous.

ALL intelligence requires vetting to ensure that it does not result in wild goose chases and exposure of assets and methods (see Iraq). Under torture conditions humans will say ANYTHING to get it to stop. Unless you have information readily available to vet what is said, there is NO way to know if it is the truth. IF you DO have information available, then you do not need to torture.

Suppose you send LIMITED resources to act on unvetted information and then a REAL threat comes up? What then? Again, see Iraq. This is the TACTICAL problem of torture. The operational and strategic problems are even more numerous with even LONGER term affects. We will spend a generation trying to restore our credibility as a beacon of justice and freedom and it is due in large part to the very rationalizations you spew here.

Your position as a supposed Christian is disgusting. What is torture? It has been defined by everyone but those in Bush administration so please, no quibbling.

I ask you Cal, if Jesus were to walk into a room where someone was being water-boarded, what would he say?

The Realm of Reality: War is Hell!!! We enter Hell to include its torture and terror to win said wars!!! That is and has always been the nature of war.

Comparisons: waterboarding vs. suicide bombing massacres? waterboarding vs. loss of arms, legs and/or sight? waterboarding vs. five hundred pound bombs? waterboarding vs. fire bombing? waterboarding vs. cluster bombing? waterboarding vs. hydrogen/atomic bomb holocausts?

Jesus never said He'd torture, but that is a fundamental threat of Christianity.

Cal, Cal, Cal, torture doesn't work. People who are being tortured tell you what you want to hear. The evidence is unreliable. 24 is a television show, it has nothing to do with reality. Please, stop confusing yourself.

Jim wrote, "If so, who would Jesus torture?"

According to the Christian Bible, he'll torture, in some cases for all eternity, sinners and non-believers.

Cal's just following the Old Testament's multiple examples of the Christian God's wrath and willingness to inflict harm and suffering. He's being perfectly Christian.

test

First of all, let's not mortgage our country's reputation and intelligence-gathering effectiveness based on a TV show. On television, the bad guy is tortured until he reveals where the ticking time bomb is, and the hero diffuses it just in time for the commercial break.

In real life, the person who is tortured says anything - real or imagined - to get the torture to stop, which is why (besides the obvious vileness of the practice that anyone who fancies himself a Christian should regognize, Cal) torture is an ineffective way to obtain useful information. The morality of this issue is clear, but the practicality is also clear. Torture is wrong because it is immoral and inhumane, and it is wrong because any intelligence produced by torture is suspect.

The point of torture is torture. You torture if you are interested in giving terrorists what they deserve, or getting back at them, or returning a favor they would gladly pay us. That's the sentiment behind this "debate." Let's not try to pass it off as some high-minded discussion about its usefulness as an interrogation tool.

I used to think highly of Thomas.

I do not...he is a coward like all the rest who cannot "live by the rules". That is why we call the West...CIVILIZED! He has joined the ranks of the UN-civilized.

I used to think highly of Thomas.

I do not...he is a coward like all the rest who cannot "live by the rules"

Since when, in the history of this country, has personal safety come before human rights and freedom? That is the fundamental problem. Despite the fact that there is NO evidence that torture assists in gaining useful intelligence, let’s assume for a moment that it does and that it could save lives. Is it OK then? No. First of all, we have no assurance that those we are torturing are, indeed, the people we should be torturing. That alone is enough to invalidate the practice. If there was a reasonable system of proving guilt PRIOR to torturing someone your argument would carry much more weight. However, even if that was the case saving the lives of 100 or even 100,000 citizens is not a sufficient warrant to trample on the rights of even one individual, no matter how despicable he or she may be, and it is certainly not a sufficient warrant to trash the ideals we have always prided ourselves on.

Let me ask you something… We ask our military men and women to die for our principles and ideals everyday. We ask them to sacrifice THEIR safety so that our principles, ideals, and by association, our very nation do not perish. So, if torturing someone DOES make us much safer, why are you not willing to put your own safety on the line in the name of American values? Why is it acceptable to only ask our military men and women to do so and not you and I? I am a citizen of the United States of America and it is my responsibility as a citizen of this nation to stand up for our ideals and human rights in the face of ANY danger. Would I be less safe if we close Guantanamo and let all of these alleged bad guys go free? You could make that argument. And if it is true, I say: So be it. I will NOT sacrifice the ideals of this nation, nor will I sacrifice my responsibility to this nation on the shaky premise that doing so _might_ make me a little safer. As Patrick Henry so eloquently stated in a nation that is now almost unrecognizable: ‘Give me liberty or give me death!’

I have seldom agreed with Cal Thomas, but this blows my mind more than usual, because he sometimes has taken a stance counter to the right wing. Here he is concerned we will appear "weak" to our enemies if we don't torture. But isn't that what Jesus urged us to do, if we were doing right? Turn the other cheek and all that? He that is first shall be last? Die for your beliefs rather than do wrong? Treat others as you would be treated, whether you like or approve of them or not?

I don't think the Christian community as a whole realizes how much damage these right-wing "Christians" have done to the whole idea of Christianity, let alone American values. When I was growing up, Christianity was all about how I was behaving and if I was attempting to reach the standards of my religion. Now it too often seems to be all about judging whether OTHER people are meeting the standards.

At the same time that they are JUDGING others, they do not seem to be holding themselves to Christian standards. What would Jesus say? I imagine him weeping.

Is the right honorable gentleman suggesting that we have to wait for others to respect our rights before we respect theirs'? An eye for an eye? Can anybody envision Jesus torturing his enemy? Was his life truly wasted as Cal Thomas here claims and his teaching only good for serving civil libertarians? Are there no Christians left on the planet? Is Cal Thomas the Anti-Christ? Seems so - he sure looks it.. He sure sounds it! See you in hell Mr Thomas.

BTW - I will forward your writings to the Pope and the Vatican. I am curious what they think of you! A Christian suggesting an eye for an eye and corrupting the message of Jesus.
A Christian who suggests we should break the Geneva convention of human rights is an interesting case study and proof yet again that religion has nothing to do with Jesus, ethics and real progress. It is slowing humans down and torturing them!

You Mr Thomas are not a Christian - you are a politician who has never had sex. This is even worse and more dangerous than the Anti-Christ aspects of your nature.

PS: Torturing suicide bombers is like a sadist torturing a masochist. It does not yield good intelligence. Also - we do not protect ourselves by making ourselves weaker, dropping core ethics. As Reagan has said in the past: "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have." But my guess is that Mr Thomas is not a Ronald Reagan and freedom fan.

We know how the church treated humans when it had power - due to Mr Thomas we know why.

We cannot allow fear-spouting savages like Dick Cheney, pseudo-Christians like Cal Thomas, or ambitious Caesar wannabes like Rudy Giuliani to turn us into beasts like them.

http://forum.kearman.com/blog/index.php/?p=326

"Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs. In general, this violent testimony (quaestio) was to be deferred as long as possible, and recourse to it was permitted in only when all other expedients were exhausted. Conscientious and sensible judges quite properly attached no great importance to confessions extracted by torture."

1910 Catholic Encyclopedia on the Inquisition. I have a good deal of respect for Cal Thomas, but it's a little odd to think he could be backward from the standard of 1910 or the Middle Ages.

In any event I think other methods are more effective than torture in most cases. A Christian named Paul Linebargher wrote about Psychological warfare and trickery. I think things like that are generally more effective. One thing torture may do better than such methods is satisfy a desire for physical revenge. Hence torture can get applauded in many TV shows as many of them are based in action or revenge drama. Anyway I'm not sure how vengeance works well in Christian thinking as a justification.

I'm truly appalled by Thomas' reasoning. Since when did the actions of terrorists become the guide for our own actions? The Bible is clear about the dignity and worth of all people, even our enemies. Torture would seem to be a clear violation of Jesus' command to show love to our enemies - note that in the New Testament love is always demonstrated in our ACTIONS towards others.

Regarding the definition of torture, our own laws and the Geneva Conventions are both clear - torture involves the infliction of severe mental or physical pain and suffering. I'm disappointed that we're still arguing definitions in order to justify our own reprehensible actions.

Would Jesus torture someone, Mr. Thomas, or stand idly by while he knew it was occurring? Would he torture someone "to save innocent lives?" We know that Saul repented of persecuting Christians. That was a sin. Seriously, what would Jesus do? Do you care?

By the way you can find the definition of "torture" that all civilized nations have agreed to in the Torture Treaty and related cases. You either know this or are not educated enough on this subject to offer an opinion of any value. It is dishonest to suggest we have some trouble defining torture.

If Jack Bauer’s word is final on the legal and moral problem of using torture, then let’s take House’s opinions on drug abuse and patient rights as the last word on those subjects. Let’s use legal precedents that have been set by judges appearing in “Boston Legal.” Let’s give our police officers the kind of latitude (and short shorts) they need to do their jobs, like the understanding citizens of Reno, in “RENO 911.” Oh, and Shark is a good model for prosecuting attorneys everywhere. If D.A. Mike Nifong had followed Shark’s example, those innocent Duke students would be doing hard time right now, and the world would be a better place for it.

And by the way, Jesus would totally torture any number of people to save lives, because Jesus obviously valued life on earth far above avoidance of sin in order to earn a life after death. His whole message was to live as long as possible and get as much money and possessions as you can.

The Care Bears are really nice and everyone gets along great. Why not be like that show?

I am ashamed of you - who call yourself Christian. In the first place, torture doesn't work - the victim will say anything to escape the pain. I have read that John McCain said that when his captors wanted the names of his military colleagues - under torture - he gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers team. The captors didn't know the difference and stopped. Secondly, Where are your Christian principles of moral accountability? What will you do when the first GI that is now captured is waterboarded - or worse - because, if the US can do it - so can the enemy. We become no better than the enemy. It is amazing to me that the folks most supporting torture and hard line tactics are the right wing Republicans who are also pro life when it comes to abortion. Doesn't add up. Sorry, Mr Thomas, you may be my brother in Christ, but you have lost my respect as a journalist.

I am ashamed of you - who call yourself Christian. In the first place, torture doesn't work - the victim will say anything to escape the pain. I have read that John McCain said that when his captors wanted the names of his military colleagues - under torture - he gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers team. The captors didn't know the difference and stopped. Secondly, Where are your Christian principles of moral accountability? What will you do when the first GI that is now captured is waterboarded - or worse - because, if the US can do it - so can the enemy. We become no better than the enemy. It is amazing to me that the folks most supporting torture and hard line tactics are the right wing Republicans who are also pro life when it comes to abortion. Doesn't add up. Sorry, Mr Thomas, you may be my brother in Christ, but you have lost my respect as a journalist.

I am ashamed of you - who call yourself Christian. In the first place, torture doesn't work - the victim will say anything to escape the pain. I have read that John McCain said that when his captors wanted the names of his military colleagues - under torture - he gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers team. The captors didn't know the difference and stopped. Secondly, Where are your Christian principles of moral accountability? What will you do when the first GI that is now captured is waterboarded - or worse - because, if the US can do it - so can the enemy. We become no better than the enemy. It is amazing to me that the folks most supporting torture and hard line tactics are the right wing Republicans who are also pro life when it comes to abortion. Doesn't add up. Sorry, Mr Thomas, you may be my brother in Christ, but you have lost my respect as a journalist.

One of the sad tragedies of 9/11 is how quickly many Christian spokespersons have renounced the teachings of Christ. Not in a formal way, but in the way that Cal Thomas does by rationalizing unchristian behavior like torture.

Mr. Thomas writes: "We in the West are supposed to adhere to certain rules so we "won't be like them." But if the other side adheres to no rules and sees our standards as a form of weakness, such things are counter-productive to our objectives." Just what "objectives" does he have in mind? Certainly not the ones Jesus has for us.

Degrading human life to the level accepted by the terrorists dishonors the spirit of this nation's Founding Fathers. Worse, it distorts the image of God within us.

One of the sad tragedies of 9/11 is how quickly many Christian spokespersons have renounced the teachings of Christ. Not in a formal way, but in the way that Cal Thomas does by embracing unchristian behavior like torture.

Mr. Thomas writes: "We in the West are supposed to adhere to certain rules so we "won't be like them." But if the other side adheres to no rules and sees our standards as a form of weakness, such things are counter-productive to our objectives." Just what "objectives" does he have in mind? Certainly not the ones Jesus has for us.

Degrading human life to the level accepted by the terrorists dishonors the spirit of this nation's Founding Fathers. Worse, it distorts the image of God within us.

But the West has outlawed torture since the demise of the Spanish Inquisition. A TV show trumps history? Oh, never mind.

A real American once said: "I know not what others might say, but as for me: GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH!"

Freedom is dangerous. Grow a pair or go find some two-bit 3rd world hellhole dictator to protect your cowardly hides and leave us real Americans here to fight the GOOD fight.

"That seems to me to be the proper balance if it is reasonably certain the person being tortured (and how do we define torture?) has information that will save innocent lives."

Should you not ask instead, how do we define "reasonably certain"? The contrived situations of "24" are so easily setup, are they not?

Rich Rosenthal:

said "But Cal, when did Jesus say torture was ok? Do you approve of the torture used on Jesus?"

Your name sounds Jewish. It's normal for Jews to not know that the torture of Jesus was necessary so Cal's sins can be forgiven. Cal, all Baptists, evangelicals and other Christians are such rotten eggs the son of God, Jesus had to tortured and put to death to make up for it.

Notice that Jesus died so sins "can" be forgiven and not what is popular thought on the subject, that sins "are" forgiven. Cal's sins "may" be forgiven. On the other hand it's been shown that the supernatural being in the burning bush, the one that Moses made the deal with that is also the father of Jesus, "that" supernatural being is the biggest Devil of them all, none other than He Himself, Lucifer. He am who am so I've heard.

Ref: http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul has the facts. Jews are not off the hook by any means so caution is recommended.

There are instances where torture does a lot of something, good being a possibility. In the case of sinners torture is a necessity, hell being where it's done.

Christians get their reward in paradise, the place where Jesus went after His death which according to sacred scriptures and official Christian factual dogma is hell. Coincidentally, that's where Lucifer has His headquarters and torture is a virtue. Yes indeed, evangelicals are in favor of torture and in on it too, subjects in training.

Uh - wow.

Well - do you call yourself a Christian?

If so, who would Jesus torture?

It's not a flip question. It's a serious one. If you think Jesus agrees with your position on inflicting pain and suffering, please cite scripture showing his agreement with torture.

Otherwise, please adjust your opinion back towards something more in touch with treating people decently, even if they may be our enemies.

We were able to go 200 years in the face of threats without resorting to torture. I say we're strong and brave and decent enough to continue, despite whatever risks a television show theorizes about.

Hewitt:

Coalition forces killed more civilians in Afghanistan this year than the Taliban have (mostly by calling in airstrikes on "suspected insurgent positions".) Dead is dead, whether it's an IED or a "smart" bomb that kills you. We won't win over there by being more brutal than the Taliban...

A Hermit

I just want to clarify a few things. First off, I'm real and you are a bunch of liberal chumps. Torture works because either we get pertinent information about terrorist cells or if we don't, it is good ol' fashioned entertainment. And, just for the record, waterboarding is technically not torture. Watch my show on Fox and Have a Nice Day!!! -Jack

But Cal, when did Jesus say torture was ok? Do you approve of the torture used on Jesus?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Apparently Jesus approved of his own torture. He meant to be sacrificed. He meant to martyr himself. Blood sacrifice, life for a life, capital punishment, he died for our sins, etc.
Must be a mindset that continues to this day in the region. Cal Thomas of course is just defending the Bush administration pre-mptively before the war crimes trials start. Cheney thought they had a loop hole and things got slightly out of hand. They were wrong. Our (America's) redemption now requires the speedy trial of our administration for war crimes and the very public renounciation of torture and our minor descent into "noble fascism".
Bush is right "we don't torture" but we did and the wink came from his administration.

But Cal, when did Jesus say torture was ok? Do you approve of the torture used on Jesus?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Apparently Jesus approved of his own torture. He meant to be sacrificed. He meant to martyr himself. Blood sacrifice, life for a life, capital punishment, he died for our sins, etc.
Must be a mindset that continues to this day in the region. Cal Thomas of course is just defending the Bush administration pre-mptively before the war crimes trials start. Cheney thought they had a loop hole and things got slightly out of hand. They were wrong. Our (America's) redemption now requires the speedy trial of our administration for war crimes and the very public renounciation of torture and our minor descent into "noble fascism".
Bush is right "we don't torture" but we did and the wink came from his administration.

POed Lib:

You said, "the other side is much less brutal than are we at this point." Well, no. We don't

* take civilian hostages
* kill all prisoners of war
* kill policemen
* target and kill civilians with car bombs
* blow up elementary schools
* deliver to their parents the severed heads of children of village leaders

The opposition has done all of that in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cal Thomas, on the other hand, probably could justify any of these crimes against humanity if committed by Americans and if "effective."

I notice that some of those who defend torture also seem to rail at the idea of execution by beheading.

What's with that?

Beheading - when done efficiently, a la the guillotine or the sword - is an instantaneous death. Yes, there's mental pain and suffering before it happens, but there's that with any execution. Compared to death by hanging, firing squad, electrocution or lethal injection, beheading would seem the least-inhumane way of dispatching a person.

My guess is that it's the visual one draws that is really off-putting about beheading.

On the other hand, torture is the methodical and extended application of pain and suffering, and to no end except the entertainment and delight of the torturers.

It seems strange to me that the defenders of torture will cite beheading as some barbaric and painful practice that can't be countenanced or -worse - a practice that can be cited as an excuse to torture someone.

Cal Thomas has presented his moral justification that the ends (stopping a terrorist attack) justify the means (torture). On the surface this appears a simple decision, but is a classic starting point for an ethics class. The next scenario is that two individuals are in custody, and there is evidence that one of them has the necessary information to stop a terrorist attack. I believe Mr. Thomas would feel justified in torturing both to stop the attack, even though one would be innocent. If you expand this scenario to ten, a hundred, or a thousand detainees with potential information, one can see that the justification for torturing one individual is really justification for torture of all.
An ancient Greek story has an individual asking a philospher whether they should persue a morally dubious course. The philosopher replies that he should indeed go down that path. The man is somewhat suprised, and asks if the philospher would do the same thing. He replies "No,but I would have never asked the question". Anyone who believes that torturing any individual is acceptable is the first individual. We can only hope that in the future, those in position of political authority in this country will be the second.

This column is the equivalent of a tabloid. Its arguments are ridiculous, yet it's got a large number of replies.

The only reason this garbage was published, it seems to me, is to attract public attention. Is the Washington Post willing to do anything to increase web traffic?

SHAME ON THE EDITORS THAT ALLOW THE PUBLICATION OF THIS JOURNALISTIC DRIVEL.

Yoo-hoo... Jack Bauer is a television character. A fictional being. Not real. Made up. A figment of someone's imagination. "He" can not make "statements" to Congress because he is NOT REAL! No serious person would use a television show to shore up an argument for anything, let alone torture.

I'm truly disgusted. Cal, you demean yourself and your humanity. Trying to claim we are right or the "good guys" is so much tripe when you are a proponent of those tactics. An imminent threat is one thing but business-as-usual appears to be the criteria for it's use.

Mr. Thomas:
How can you, as an evangelical Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, possibly defend or condone torture under any circumstances? How can you claim to be a follower of Jesus and ignore his teaching to love the enemy? It seems you have turned your back on Christ and his reign of love, righteous and justice in favor of the false security promised by the world that is ruled by violence, coercion and fear.

As a fellow evangelical Christian, I am deeply disappointed by your remarks.

Torture And Selling Our Soul by Skip Moreland. I have heard this argument so many times, they do it, so we should too. Reminds me of when I was a kid and would tell my mom that everyone else does it, so why can't I. If everyone is jumping off a bridge, would you do that? So Cal says that we too should jump off the bridge, look there are others that do it. Well there are alot of people out there committing murders and robberies Cal, maybe we should all just do the same.

Why have principles or standards then? Why bother making up laws and trying to enforce them? Some people aren't going to follow those laws and it gives them an advantage over the rest of us. Why should I remain poor when there is a local bank that I can rob and make myself richer? Why should I be so foolish as to abide by a set of principles that others would break in a sec.

Adversary isn't when you thrown away your principles. And yes you may fail by holding onto those principles. Throw away those principles and then pick them up later on when it's safe? They are ok as long as it's smooth sailing, but when the storm hits, throw everyone else overboard to lighten the load to save yourself? Not somebody I would ever trust.

We keep saying that we are the good guys, the ones you can trust. That we have certain principles that guide us. Now I have always found that is a myth, that unfortunately many times we are the bad guys. But I would really love for us to try and be the good guy in the white hat, that we really do stand for certain principles. That we are not hypocrites when we complain of others torturing and then do the same as them. As we use to complain of the torture the Soviet Union and other countries practiced. Conducted war crimes on Japan and Germany for the torture they committed. Now we study how they did it, what were their methods so that we could copy and use the same. Gee it was so terrible when they did it. Why is it not so terrible now that we do the same. Oh those darn principles, best to just throw them away until it's safe. And then when someone else imitates us, we'll scream in horror, how could you do that? It's so terrible.

Cal I have news for you. 24 is a tv program where there is no reality. Where it is all scripted so that Jack always succeed. But life isn't like that. But someone like you, who has never experienced torture on either side, seem to think that a little torture is good. After all people always tell the truth when tortured, don't they. I mean who would lie to stop the torture? Who would say anything that the people torturing you want you to say? Ask John Mccain. I am sure that he never said anything that his captors wanted him to say, just because of a little torture. I suppose now that we wouldn't condemm the viet cong for using a little torture, after all, it got the truth out of John and the others, didn't it?

Sorry Cal but after how you and many others have demonized our enemy, now you wish to be just like them. And this is going to 'save' us. Good thing I don't believe in hell, because Cal, that's exactly where you want to take us. Go over to AQ then Cal, join them and fight the way they do. Because you are one of them anyhow. You think just like they do. Would be willing to do what they do. The ends justify the means for you. But they don't for me. How I get to the end matters more to me. And if I fail, at least I will know that I stood for something. Your way Cal, you stand for nothing. My wife tells me of this nazi concentration survivor. When he talked of the horrors, he also talked about the people inside. The sacrifices made by some to keep others alive. And he was ashamed, because as he put it, the best of the people didn't survive, they died protecting the others. They died because of principles. But because of them, many others did survive. I could only hope that if I was in a situation like that, that I would not shred my principles to stay alive. For I would be ashamed too. Cal you have no shame, no principles, and you certainly are the lesser man.

Take care, Skip

So it's safe to assume that Mr. Thomas will no longer provide us with his sanctimonious comments anymore? Since Thomas clearly believes here that the ends justify the means, he must also agree that an unmarried teen is justified in getting an abortion since carrying the baby to term will destroy her life.

Could someone please give me a verified example of one instance, just one, in which the so-called ticking time bomb is in place and torture has been used to save lives? And please don't tell me that this has occured but we can't be told for "national security" reasons. I guarantee if the advocates of torture had one documented example, it would be paraded about even if half the details had to be redacted. We invent these scenarios with no regard for veracity or plausibility and then use them to eviscerate moral thinking.

I love this column, especially when it comes from Cal Thomas, who served the interests of Jerry Falwell for so many years. Gee, Mr. Thomas, you call yourself a "Christian," don't you? Whatever happened to the concept of turning the other cheek?
Here's the deal: The United States stands for human rights, the rule of law, fairness, justice, etc. This means we do not coerce people into confessions. Got that? Coercing confessions IS torture, no matter what the method is. To put it another way, ANY METHOD THAT IS INTENDED TO COERCE A CONFESSION IS TORTURE. This has nothing to do with "organ failure" or any other "standard" dreamed up by the Bush administration, the CIA or anyone else. You want someone else's definition of torture? Ask John McCain, who was tortured as a POW. What others do is not under our control; we only control what we do. These stupid scenarios that suggest a prisoner must be tortured in order to save innocent lives because of an imminent terrorist attack are phony, and you know it. We have people in Guantanamo and other secret prisons around the world who are undoubtedly being tortured. If they've been imprisoned for months or years, what possible "imminent" attack could they know about? Americans have an obligation to uphold American standards. We have to set an example in order to maintain our own society as one founded on democracy and the rule of law. It is unfortunate that Americans might well be subject to torture while in the custody of others; at the very least, that torture should never be an act of retaliation for the acts of American torturers.

To the lefty/liberals: You need to cut out the "humane" BS. Torture/interrogation has never been about "humane"; it has been about "information extraction". Don't kid yourself.

To the righty/pro-torturers: You need to stop kidding yourself about how any torture will have a reasonably good chance of giving you the right info. FBI/CIA/military have long concluded that torture does not work. It's not some soft weenie New England liberal that made up this s..t. It's guys who have to extract info for a living.

Stop bullsh.tting yourselves, and then you can have a real debate. Ignoring inconvenient facts is just a way to be an Ann Coulter-style blowhard without having to answer for it.

Most of the time I have disagreed with Cal Thomas on many issues .... but I still read many of his posts because I could always learn something about another point of view, and this was valuable in the marketplace of ideas .... but after reading this las t post of his regarding the use of torture, I can only shake my head in disbelief. From this point on, in my mind, his credibility has been compromised beyond repair.

Does torture work? The answer is "NO".

Can terrorists destroy "civilization?"

The answer is "NO".

Is it just me, or does anyone else thing it is patently absurd to see a column promoting torture in a section of the WaPo web site labelled "On Faith"? Is there a faith-based justification for torture? Or maybe today's so-called Christians are just advocating for a return to the days of the Spanish Inquisition. The end justifies the means....frankly, this whole section of the web site is a load of tripe. Some of it just smells worse than the rest.

"Ernst-

Do you honestly think Osama and company has a snowflake's chance in hell of "taking over" our government? If not, then what exactly is the threat?"

Thank you, oh thank you for your post. I get a case of the screaming mee-mees when some coward starts screaming I'm going to be wearing a burqa if I don't agree to wet myself everytime Osama says "boo".

These cowards want us to stop being Americans because terrorists hate Americans.

Mr. Thomas,
I'm sorry, but if you believe that your soul must answer to God for your behavior on earth - and most Christian religions DO espouse that belief, and since you say you're a Christian, I'll assume you espouse that as well - I don't see how you can advocate your position. You say that there is a double standard, that the Islamic terrorists can do it but we can't, and that that is counter-productive because they makes them see us a weak.
I find it even stranger that you are using a FICTIONAL TV character as your justification for national policy.
But you can forget my incredulousness at that too.
Concentrate on this instead: one of the "big" arguments for advocating torture is the "imminent" situation - a nuclear weapon about to go off in a major US city, etc. - torture would be justified then, right? Consider this, if I were a terrorist - and I believed in MY cause so strongly that I would try to kill massive numbers of people - and I had planted a nuclear bomb that was set to go off in 24 hours (and Jack's show is about 24 HOURS)- then I can guarantee you that I could and would lie through my teeth to you, leading you on every goose-chase around for 24 hours - because that is all I would need to blow you to smithereens! Imagine how many goose-chases I could lead you on if I had more than 24 hours.
Because here's the thing - if I'm willing to die for my cause (and that's pretty much what a suicide bomber generally does)- I will have no problem whatsoever lying for it. And guillible little old you may kill me with that torture but that just makes me a hero to my cause and I'll just inspire others to follow my lead. I will die a hero to my cause. It will also make my fellow terrorists that much more determined. And it will make those who don't like the terrorists but don't especially like you LESS likely to help you in the future.
All in all, I'm unconvinced of your rationale for advocating torture. I think most of the rest of the world is too; especially all those "old Europeans" who remember the effects of WWII, of prison camps or invading German forces that advocated their right to torture and maim and kill, of war in their own backyard. But then I also have a hard time with the morality of Bush's ccontention that we will fight them over there instead of here - I"m not sure that its moral to oorphan an Iraqi child because I can't be bothered with fighting MY fight.

This issue invites confusion. I don't think the Jack Bauer "ticking time bomb" scenario is at the center of the question about whether or not torture should be official government policy.

Anyone absolutely certain that someone else knows about an imminent attack will be excused for taking whatever action is necessary to avert disaster. That includes torturing the suspect. The ACLU would file no complaint, no prosecutor would file charges, no jury would find the accused torturer guilty, and every president would pardon anyone convicted under those circumstances.

The real delimma is what to do to the torturer when they're wrong? When there is no ticking time bomb, or the tortured suspect has no knowlege of an imminent attack, do we apologize with a, "hey, everybody thought you knew where the bomb was."

I want anyone willing to torture a prisoner to have to put their own freedom and their own life on the line. Save the world, you get a ticker tape parade, mut make a mistake and you go to jail. I'd sleep better during the Bush years if I knew they knew that torture was a crime.

Our panelist writes: "It is not coincidental that the trailer for the new season of the TV series "24" features Jack Bauer testifying before a congressional committee on the subject of torture."

Finally, we agree on something. Propaganda is never coincidental.

Mr. Thomas must also think that The Geneva Convention is quaint as did our out-of-touch former Attorney General.

Mr. Thomas must also think that The Geneva Convention is quaint as did our out-of-touch former Attorney General.

Good point. I was thinking of something different, but it's the same thing.

If you want a counter-example of Jack Bauer on TV, look at the character of Sayid Jarrah on "Lost". He was a torturer in the Republican Guards, and lost his soul because of it. It was only when he was confronted with torturing a former girl that he liked did he realize what he had become.

YOU need to be tortured, jerk, after all the drivel you've written.

For the "pro-torture" side ...

Give it up! This is just like the issues of global warming and evolution teaching. The politicians have already given up.

George W Bush can never go on TV and say "we support torture under condition X".

Why not? Because it's never acceptable. Period.

That's why he's up there saying "read my lips ... we don't torture".

So why in the world are you guys still supporting this? Evidently, you think your commander-in-chief is a wuss?

Cal's brief essay on torture wouldn't pass muster in High School English Class (much less AP English). There is nothing of substance contained within it to support his preconceptions. It is a short, rambing diatribe that is beneath his abilities. Why did he bother?

I can't believe there are still idiots out there who honestly believe our "freedom" under threat.

Do you honestly think Osama and company has a snowflake's chance in hell of "taking over" our government? If not, then what exactly is the threat?

Twin towers crashing down may look really spectacular, but are you suddenly unable to walk down Main Street USA without "official papers"? Did you suddenly have to cover up your daughters? Is Maxim suddenly not available at your local newsstand?

What exactly is the "threat" to your freedom?

Let's not minimize the suffering of 3,000+ victims on 9/11, but let's also not pretend that this is some prelude to a massive Islamic military take over.

Call it what it is. Your source of cheap petroleum for your gas guzzling SUV may be threatened. But spare us the BULLSH.T of any "threats to America's freedom".

Athena @November 7, 2007 2:50 PM: You are close. There WAS an experiment and they DID discontinue it after 1 week. They found that the 'victims' were actually developing personality disorders, as were the 'perpetrators'. Essentially, the experiment was proving that it is not so much a case of 'the few bad apples' who spoil the barrel; it is a case of 'the bad barrel' that spoils the apples. (In other words, it was not that the Germans are evil, but Nazism that encouraged them to be).

Applying closer to home, it is not the MP's who should have been tried for Abu Ghraib, but the generals and President who tolerated the behavior.

How are you sure of your information that the human being you are so willing to torture is really the person who has the information you are in need of?

Conservatives are forever accusing liberals of "situational ethics". Isn't the stand you take contradict that?

If after much torturing you get som einformation, and it doesn't pan out. What do you do? Torture more, or say "I'm sorry", and let the person go?

Sorry Cal but one's true character can only rise as high as one's morals have sunk. And more is the pity that the appearance of our nations moral compass is a direct reflection of the moral low point of our present administration. And Bush calls himself a Christian. Jesus must have shat himself.

You don't save civilization by destroying it. If we behave like barbarians ipso facto we are barbarians.

You don't save civilization by destroying it. If we behave like barbarians ipso facto we are barbarians.

Mr. Thomas,

The U.S. Military observed "certain rules" in WWII even though Germany and Japan at times did not. WWII cost millions of innocent people their lives. Why, 60 years later have things changed? I think that your stated opinion is in conflict with the principle of "One Nation Under God." Or perhaps you merely dashed it off to provide fodder for people to argue over. And one more thing, if I might. I am really tired of hearing about fictional TV characters, their ethics and their fictional dilemmas. Too bad we don't have a moral hero on TV we can raise up as an example.

Reader in Maryland

Mr. Thomas claims that in regards to how civilized societies view torture vs radical bands of fanatics "There is a double standard when it comes to this subject."

And dear Mr. Thomas, that's why we have prosperity, liberty and justice and "they" don't.

Kepp Jack Bauer on tv and out of our legal system.

Now it all becomes clear. When you can claim religious superiority over another, you can easily defend torturing him to keep you safe in your ignorance.

Mr. Thomas claims that in eragrds to how civilized societies view torture vs radical bands of fanatics "There is a double standard when it comes to this subject."

And dear Mr. Thomas, that's why we have prosperity, liberty and justice and "they" don't.

Kepp Jack Bauer on tv and out of our legal system.

Hypothetical: "After 6 teeth have been removed, the terrorist finally talks". But they discover there really was no bomb at all!!!!

The child, and the parent, have suffered permanent psychological damage, and they and their acquaintances resolve that barbarians who would do such a thing are not human, and no action committed against them can possibly be 'terror'. So they contact those who DO have a bomb, and proceed to plant it and it explodes (hey, I can be hypothetical, too).

Tell me, which of these sets of actions is justified?

To Cal, the situational moralists, and pseudo-Christians who would torture in the name of preserving Western, or Judeo-Christian values, in face of Islamic onslaught, please answer me this: Was Christ tortured when he was nailed to the cross, or were the Romans simply using "enhanced interrogation techniques"?

To Cal, the situational moralists, and pseudo-Christians who would torture in the name of preserving Western, or Judeo-Christian values, in face of Islamic onslaught, please answer me this: Was Christ tortured when he was nailed to the cross, or were the Romans simply using "enhanced interrogation techniques"?

To Cal, the situational moralists, and pseudo-Christians who would torture in the name of preserving Western, or Judeo-Christian values, in face of Islamic onslaught, please answer me this: Was Christ tortured when he was nailed to the cross, or were the Romans simply using "enhanced interrogation techniques"?

To Cal, the situational moralists, and pseudo-Christians who would torture in the name of preserving Western, or Judeo-Christian values, in face of Islamic onslaught, please answer me this: Was Christ tortured when he was nailed to the cross, or were the Romans simply using "enhanced interrogation techniques"?

To Cal, the situational moralists, and pseudo-Christians who would torture in the name of preserving Western, or Judeo-Christian values, in face of Islamic onslaught, please answer me this: Was Christ tortured when he was nailed to the cross, or were the Romans simply using "enhanced interrogation techniques"?

I have lived in a few countries that torture people, and what I always left with was a sense that the country and its people had lost their souls. People walking around in fear, never sure what to say, who to trust, where to turn. The idea that we torture some (terrorists) and that it has no bearing on us (or that we as members of that society are somehow immune from this) is strange to me. I am more than happy to stand tall and say "no".

simply bomb every square inch of arab soil, using non-atomic weapons, of course, and sell any survivors into slavery. allow free speech, of course, but simply clap anyone you, the rulers, disagree with into jail. this will save lives and solve a myriad of religious and racial problems.
life is so simple, but thinking causes so many problems. if anyone questions you simply say, "it is so decreed."
follow the above for any other "people" who cause you problems.
you're welcome.

Cal, you old hypocrite...you trot out your Christianity as an argument that we must be discriminating against you if we don't agree with you. There is no DOUBLE standard. There is one standard...right and wrong. Torture is wrong. End of story. I don't need your KJ book of historical fables to know that.

Cal Thomas writes:
We in the West are supposed to adhere to certain rules so we "won't be like them." But if the other side adheres to no rules and sees our standards as a form of weakness, such things are counter-productive to our objectives.

For dealing with criminals, we have courts and the
rule of law so we "won't be like them." By Thomas's
reasoning, we should just murder murderers. No need for a trial.

The supercilious expression on an otherwise uninteresting face says it all.

The supercilious expression on an otherwise uninteresting face says it all.

The supercilious expression on an otherwise uninteresting face says it all.

Cal Thomas writes:
We in the West are supposed to adhere to certain rules so we "won't be like them." But if the other side adheres to no rules and sees our standards as a form of weakness, such things are counter-productive to our objectives.

For dealing with criminals, we have courts and the
rule of law so we "won't be like them." By Thomas's
reasoning, we should just murder murderers. No need for a trial.

Cal Thomas writes:
We in the West are supposed to adhere to certain rules so we "won't be like them." But if the other side adheres to no rules and sees our standards as a form of weakness, such things are counter-productive to our objectives.

For dealing with criminals, we have courts and the
rule of law so we "won't be like them." By Thomas's
reasoning, we should just murder murderers. No need for a trial.

What would Jaysus do?

He was tortured & murdered. Do you think he'd want his torturers & murderers to be tortured & murdered too?

Nope, he forgave them from the cross.

If you are for torture, then you are against Jaysus.

99% of the people writing here agree with me that torture is never acceptable. They make good arguments, but do not change any minds. Cal Thomas has spoken for a lot of people. Why dont those people come in here and give us logical/moral/ethical arguments in order to defend their position?
I dont know, but I've been thinking about it for a while now, and my sense is, the pro-torture people are usually self-styled evangelical or Calvinist Christians. I think they think God has a special plan for them. They are the "chosen people" of the New Testament. So, attacks upon them are attacks upon God. As the Germans, said, Gott mit uns. So, who could be against God? Obviously, the Devil.
What's the penalty for torturing Satan? None. You get a lifetime of free passes followed by an eternity of bliss. Christian version of 72 virgins.
Religious prejudice is the cuplrit. Fundamental Christian Calvinist pre-destinarian scripture- quoting prejudice.

TORTURE DOES NOT WORK.

Criminy, isn't a few thousand years of historical experience enough proof?

If it doesn't work AND it's wrong and debasing and disgusting, then why are we even having this discussion?

Just what the world needs, another whacko fundie campaign - WWJBD.

TORTURE DOES NOT WORK.

Criminy, isn't a few thousand years of historical experience enough proof?

If it doesn't work AND it's wrong and debasing and disgusting, then why are we even having this discussion?

After the Reichstag fire, the Nazis used the public's fear to erode democracy over the next several years, gradually doing away with all civil rights and justifying all their monstrous behavior as being in defense of the country. They were aided by an able corps of propagandists led by Goebbels. Cal Thomas belongs with such people. He would destroy America to "save" it.

After the Reichstag fire, the Nazis used the public's fear to erode democracy over the next several years, gradually doing away with all civil rights and justifying all their monstrous behavior as being in defense of the country. They were aided by an able corps of propagandists led by Goebbels. Cal Thomas belongs with such people. He would destroy America to "save" it.

After the Reichstag fire, the Nazis used the public's fear to erode democracy over the next several years, gradually doing away with all civil rights and justifying all their monstrous behavior as being in defense of the country. They were aided by an able corps of propagandists led by Goebbels. Cal Thomas belongs with such people. He would destroy America to "save" it.

After the Reichstag fire, the Nazis used the public's fear to erode democracy over the next several years, gradually doing away with all civil rights and justifying all their monstrous behavior as being in defense of the country. They were aided by an able corps of propagandists led by Goebbels. Cal Thomas belongs with such people. He would destroy America to "save" it.

After the Reichstag fire, the Nazis used the public's fear to erode democracy over the next several years, gradually doing away with all civil rights and justifying all their monstrous behavior as being in defense of the country. They were aided by an able corps of propagandists led by Goebbels. Cal Thomas belongs with such people. He would destroy America to "save" it.

TORTURE DOES NOT WORK.

Criminy, isn't a few thousand years of historical experience enough proof?

If it doesn't work AND it's wrong and debasing and disgusting, then why are we even having this discussion?

TORTURE DOES NOT WORK.

Criminy, isn't a few thousand years of historical experience enough proof?

If it doesn't work AND it's wrong and debasing and disgusting, then why are we even having this discussion?

TORTURE DOES NOT WORK.

Criminy, isn't a few thousands of historical experience enough proof?

If it doesn't work AND it's wrong and debasing and disgusting, then why are we even having this discussion?

This is BS about someone having time-is-of-the-essence information that only torture can elicit. A martyr will die without giving the information. Others will say whatever you want them to, to get the pain to stop. Cal Thomas is all hellfire and brutality. He would have been an inquisitor, with gusto, given the opportunity. Christian, indeed. He gives Jesus a bad name. I seldom read him, but when I have, I have never read a single article by him that talks about love or charity. It's all Calvinistic punishment, punishment, punishment. He's worse than those he condemns. Worse because Jesus said turn the other cheek. He said the only commandments were to love love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. Thomas, like so many other "evangelicals," distorts the message for political and financial purposes. He is Satanic.

Tortured by Mistake
The case of Maher Arar shows why the Bush administration's secret detention program is wrong.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006; Page A24

A COUPLE of years ago, President Bush might well have counted Maher Arar as one of the success stories of the CIA's secret program for detaining and interrogating suspected terrorists. Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen, was arrested at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 because he was on a watchlist; Canadian police said they believed he had connections to al-Qaeda. Rather than being returned to Canada, Mr. Arar disappeared into the CIA's secret system -- he was transported to Syria and handed over to its military intelligence service. For several weeks, Mr. Arar was tortured by his Syrian captors, who beat him with an electric cable. Eventually he broke and confessed that he had trained at an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan.

The problem with this story, as an official Canadian investigation reported Monday, is that Mr. Arar was innocent. "Categorically there is no evidence" that Mr. Arar was a terrorist or posed a security threat, the report stated. He never traveled to Afghanistan. The Canadian police intelligence about him was simply wrong. But after his coerced confession, he was held in a Syrian dungeon for 10 months and suffered "devastating" mental and economic harm before finally being released in 2003.

Mr. Arar's case vividly illustrates a couple of the points that veteran military and diplomatic leaders have been trying to impress on Mr. Bush about the dangers of the CIA program, for which the president is demanding congressional approval. From early 2002 until this month the agency held some al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons and subjected them to harsh interrogation techniques that, though they don't include beatings with cables, violate the Geneva Conventions and current U.S. law. Others, like Mr. Arar, have been secretly handed over to foreign governments known to use torture in interrogations, including Egypt and Jordan as well as Syria -- a practice known as "rendition."

Mr. Bush claims that the renditions, secret detentions and harsh U.S. techniques -- which most of the world regards as torture -- have yielded important intelligence. But as the military commanders who oppose such methods have insistently and courageously pointed out, it is well known that the information they produce is unreliable. Many detainees, as Mr. Arar did, will falsely incriminate themselves or others to avoid abuse. Over time, better intelligence can be obtained by working within guidelines mandating humane treatment of detainees -- such as those in the new Army interrogation manual released this month.

Moreover, as Mr. Arar's case illustrates, cruel treatment of prisoners, even in secret, eventually becomes known and can badly damage the honor and influence of the United States and its relations with allies. The mistreatment of Mr. Arar has hurt U.S. relations with Canada and could impede cooperation with its police and security services in the future. Other cases of rendition have similarly upset U.S. intelligence relations with Italy, Germany and Sweden.

It's no wonder that two former Republican secretaries of state, Colin L. Powell and George P. Shultz, oppose Mr. Bush's attempt to modify U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions to permit future secret detentions and renditions by the CIA. Or that military leaders ranging from Gen. John W. Vessey Jr., a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the senior serving uniformed lawyer in the Army, also oppose the president's initiative. They understand well what Mr. Bush refuses to see -- that the price of his policies is bad intelligence, the criminal mistreatment of some innocent people, and damage to U.S. prestige and alliances that the country can ill afford.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901547.html

Torture is never acceptable. Ever. It is better to stay consistant with our moral and legal beliefs, even at the expense of lives, than to ignore them in times of crisis. Once we start, it is nearly impossible to go back. If it is okay to torture someone to save 3000 lives? What about 1000? 100? 1? Where do you draw the line? What makes violating our moral and legal code to save 1000 lives better than violating it to save 1?

One question people need to ask themselves is, "Would I be fine with that being done to me, or my loved ones for all the reasons given? Would I understand if it were just a simple mistake of identity?" If the answer is no, then it is torture and it is illegal under every legal code we hold dear.

What abysmal crap. The other side is much less brutal than are we at this point. We ARE the Great Satan.

Liberty is paid for with blood. We are all soldiers now. The cost of freedom is shared.

America should remain a moral beacon. If you value your personal security more than our traditional values, move. There are plenty of other places where the government maintains tight control. America - love it or leave it.

At first, it seemed laughably hypocritical to see a supposedly Christian (and manifestly preachy and fatuous) apologist suggest that, with respect to torture, the ends apparently justify the means. Then I remembered that the Bible on which this man's ideology rests is dripping with metaphorical blood shed in the name of his particular god, and it makes complete sense...after all, if some are able to justify murder in the name of "Allah," how hard can it be to rationalize brutality behind the thin veil of Christian ethics, given its underpinnings?

In 1977 I was 17 and attending a Mennonite Church conference in Ohio when I first met a torture victim; a young woman from Argentina who had been detained, along with the rest of her University sociolgy class and their professor because of their work setting up social programs for the poor in the Barrios of Buenos Aires. This activity made them suspect as "Communists", and justifed their detention and "agressive interrogation" by the military junta.

She was released because her mother was American, and had given birth to her in the United States, giving her citizen status, although she had never visited the US. She said her tormenters complained about the Americans' double standard; approving and aiding the "anti-communist" activities except when an American was involved.

I'll never forget the way she told her story; calmly, quietly, even smiling slightly now and then as she described the electric shocks, being raped with a wine bottle, forced to sleep on a cold concrete floor, chained to the wall with grain scattered around her to attract the rats...

This is the kind of thing Cal Thomas is defending here. Someone labeled that girl a "Communist" and that was enough to justify treating her like something sub-human. Today they use "terrorist" to do the same thing. For the morally bankrupt, like Mr. Thomas, the fact that someone they can call "the enemy" is being punished is what matters. It makes the cowards feel safe.

Makes me sick...

A Hermit

Wasn't there an article about six months ago about people from West Point asking the producers of "24" to stop using torture as a plot device, because it's giving their cadets the wrong idea? Obviously, "24" is giving more than some impressionable young Cadets the wrong ideas about whether or not torture works. However, the show has as much bearing on real intelligence and counter-terrorism as "CSI" has on criminal forensics. It's all sexied up to make it look good on TV, but in real life, it's a long, time-consuming slog.

I wonder if the torture-happy writers of "24" are sitting out on the picket lines with their fellow WGA union members? Probably not.

what an idiotic post? Leave it to a right winger to conveniently craft its foreign policy based on a tv docu-drama?

I'm sorry, but you are wrong and your defense of torture is misinformed. There is no double standard in the torture debate. As has been noted by professional interrogators in this debate, the information gained through torture is not reliable. Second, September 11th is no reason to debase our nation's ethics and morals to meet ignorance and hatred halfway.

Third, saving innocent lives is a dubious defense of torture. It hides the hinted truth behind the acceptance of torture, which is it is OK to punish the wicked. That is wrong and ignorant, and it poaches on Divine Judgment.

BURT

You defend torture by arguing that "if, through inaction, we allow ANY innocent civilians to be harmed, maimed, or killed, it is WE who have violated their right to live peacefully..." Your argument assumes torture works, but it does not. And your argument assumes both morality and defining who we are are irrelevant. They are not irrelevant.

Your argument could be and probably is made equally well by the terrorists who commit daily crimes against humanity. Is that the side you want to be on?

Cal thinks we should go ahead and torture "if it is reasonably certain the person being tortured (and how do we define torture?) has information that will save innocent lives".

How do we define "reasonably certain"?
I'm reasonably certain that Cal has information that could be useful in saving lives. I doubt he'll reveal it upon torture, since he's a strong soul, but I think we should give it a try.

So Cal Thomas actually got paid for writing this piece of tripe?

I laugh at the Washington Post. You published a shoddy discussion of Jack Bauer testimonies? Wow...

Really, can't they just get a high school intern to fill this guy's shoes? It would be cheaper, and likely more entertaining than this poor excuse for a "column".

SHAME ON YOU, EDITORS.

Maybe we can waterboard Jeb Bush to find out if he really knew his "felon voter" list he used to swing the 2000 election was inaccurate.

I would say waterboard Katherine Harris, but that might be considered torturing the torturer.

yes, i see. we should judge our actions by the standards of the terrorists.

in your case, that appears entirely appropriate.

whom WOULD jesus torture, anyway?

You're damn right there's a double standard between the civilized nations of the "West" practice and the "them" that routinely torture. But my mother taught me that two wrongs don't make a right--kind of a pillar of post 18th century Judeo-Christian thought don't you think? What proof do we have that terror will ever save any life? And what about winning the hearts and minds of those who are neither "us" nor "them" upon whom we depend to resist the venom of Islamic extremism? Which value of torture do we want them to accept?

You nothing but a modern day Torquemada and a stain on the notions of humanity and christianity.

Just one comment: Whatever creatures like Cal should be called, I've got a huge problem calling them Christians.

As a practicing Catholic, the teachings of the church - as pointed out CRYSTAL CLEAR by pope Benedict - are very simple: Torture is _evil_ and can not be justified even by possible positive means. I want to insist that Catholics are christians, too. And I think it's worth pointing out that christian religions in Europe are effectively universally opposed to torture aswell.

The only religious group in the western world which I know has a disturbingly ambivalent reaction to torture are the Evangelicals in the US.

Sad.

OMG. There is nothing Christian about this man.

To Deborah Howell, Washington Post Ombudsman,

I am writing to you in response to an OnFaith blog post by Cal Thomas on Nov 7, 2007, entitled "Torturing Ourselves To Death." I would just like to register my dismay that the Washington Post considers such a post editorially acceptable.

Torture is a serious subject. Mr. Thomas essentially makes a child's argument in favor of torturing suspected terrorists: they did it first, a character on TV does it, and it might save lives.

Now Mr. Thomas can make whatever argument pleases him. However, by publishing his "thoughts" as they appear, the Post is tacitly approving him, and his level of reasoning, as acceptable for a discussion on a serious subject. By doing this, I believe the Post is trivializing this subject, degrading its own standards, and degrading the larger discussion of torture.

I recognize that there is a Web, there is a blogosphere, and that the Post wants to participate in this arena. I would question, however, why such participation requires granting those who think and write on Mr. Thomas' level the status of contributor to the Washington Post.

I ask you to please bring this question before your Web/New Media Editor, and to reconsider whether the quality of discussion Cal Thomas brings really belongs on the website of the Washington Post.

Sincerely

Cal has revealed for all to see that his religiosity is a pure sham, a political ploy embraced to gain power and to retain power at all costs.

How else to explain a person who believes that adults engaged in consensual sex (Bill & Monica) is an immoral act that could bring down the nation while also advocating that torture is just spiffy and the moral equivalent of helping one's neighbor?

Yes, Cal Thomas takes his marching orders from bushco. What they says, goes. No ifs, and or buts about it. If bush said that executing Cal's children would help find bin Laden, Cal would ask to be the one to flip the switch.

You're a ghoul, Cal. A soulless, heartless ignoramus with the morals of a Stalin. You're also, sadly, typical for what passes for a Xian in these United States in the reign of the Xians.

And Xians wonder what the rest of us find so disgusting about their repugnant beliefs. Go figure.

SLSpencer:

Luke 6:46-49:

"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey Spencer, the Bible is a proved hoax. But then it might be the word of Devil. Was that really God or just someone who wanted to be God in the burning bush. You know, the one Moses made the deal with to beat the murder rap and become the most important person that ever lived.

Ref: http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

Devil just loves chaos. Is there anything in American politics more chaotic than the torture issue? I understand there's a little torture going on in hell. Any ideas about that, the God you worship, the supernatural being in the burning bush? Something spiritual here like, "if the shoe fits....?" I'll spare you the story about the foo bird.

Remember to join Lucifer's army and fight hard. There's a fire extinguisher in heaven, so Lucifer says. He almost won last time, kinda like,, you know.

So now we stoop to the lowest of the low by doing what our enemies are doing. What kind or morality is this? There is no defense for using any torture methods on anyone anytime. During WWII torture was used by the Nazi's to get information I don't recall the Allies using such methods. But maybe I'm old fashion and believe in American values that do not exist anymore. Cal what values do you rely on? The values of our enemies I presume.

Typical mindless right-wing ideology from Cal ("I'm a GOP prostitute who loves George W. Bush no matter what") Thomas.
Terra's post sums up what this hack is.
Maybe Thomas should remember this: After Italian leader Aldo Moro was murdered in 1978 by the Red Brigade, some officials suggested torturing captured terrorists to get answers out of them. One Italian leader responded, "Italy can stand the loss of Aldo Moro. Italy cannot stand the loss of its soul."

Most obvious point in these responses is that most readers do not know what is actually going on. Whether we torture or not, sooner or later a WMD will go off here. The real moral question is: if, as now, we do not know exactly who (or what state) set off the weapon on US soil, what will our response be? Who will be retaliated against?

So now we stoop to the lowest of the low by doing what our enemies are doing. What kind or morality is this? There is no defense for using any torture methods on anyone anytime. During WWII torture was used by the Nazi's to get information I don't recall the Allies using such methods. But maybe I'm old fashion and believe in American values that do not exist anymore. Cal what values do you rely on? The values of our enemies I presume.

Starhawk has written on this in her usual wisedom.
Torture has a long history...most of the nations have had to change or have fallen...or we point to them and call them tyrants. Look at Saddam...he tortured and Bush used that to topple him.

Torture creates more enemies and so more need to torture. Wrong never makes right...ever.

In Iraq, American soldiers took a father and his 16 year old son...believeing they were terrorists. They were sent to Abu Ghraib. Once there the father insisted he was not a terrorist and neither was his son. His son was just a high school student. Well the Father would not, or could not answer the questions...so they took his son out, took his clotheing away and doused him with cold water. This was winter and freezing out. They took the boy back into his father's cell, which was also freezing and showed the son to the father. The father started crying. They doused the child with cold water again...the boy was suffering. The father could not answer, he knew nothing as he was not a terrorist, they learned later. He and his son had been taken from their home.

The boy ended up very sick, I did not hear what ended up happening to the dad and son. It was testimony in the hearing on Abu Ghraib. That was one case among hundreds.

So...was this torture to the Dad and son? yes. And a lasting trama to them both.

I have no respect for anyone that thinks that harming a child to get to the parent is allowable. Thomas is a cretin, A fool, and a hateful pig. Other then that is a right swell fellow.

terra

So simply put, our ends justify our means when convenient? How do we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the one to be tortured knows what we need to know? So are we to punish first and convict or acquit later? The framers thought they were framing a nation of laws and due process. If we give those up, we give up the nation and the terrorists have won. If the price of freedom is diligence, then we first need to direct that diligence toward ourselves.

Is there any proof that torture of any kind produces more reliable intelligence than more humane methods? I recall an interview (PBS) a few weeks ago with some WW2 veterans who had interrogated captured Nazi officers during the war. Their universal belief was that you get more and better information over a game of chess or ping pong than from anything else.

Is there any proof that torture of any kind produces more reliable intelligence than more humane methods? I recall an interview (PBS) a few weeks ago with some WW2 veterans who had interrogated captured Nazi officers during the war. Their universal belief was that you get more and better information over a game of chess or ping pong than from anything else.

I am pleased to see that the US and Mr. Thomas have accepted that torture is OK. Now we can stop all of this blathering about how special America is. I mean, all of the American exceptionalism business was really getting annoying.

Those in favor of torture, apparently including Mr. Thomas, always like to ask the "would you if a person had information...."question. I would like to pose one in return. How far would you go in torturing someone. For example, if the only way to get information was to gang rape a man's four year old daughter and then skin her alive in front of him--would you do it? I presume if not, you are not in favor of saving "civilization."

Have a nice day.

david STROHM: ~ Yes! Kill for God!

9-11-2001 somebody "killed for God." And that somebody continues to announce the intention to "kill ever more for God." I do believe I heard your name mentioned as one to be "killed in the name of God."

As the old anti smoking ad said, "what does God have to do to you before you get the message, actually kill you?"

Solution to God is out to get you problem: Bring 5 million Godless Chinese troops to Iraq and establish, at gun point, Chinese God laws. Note that God is never out to get anyone in China.

Just the minimal examination of the problem leads to the conclusion that God is not really out to get you unless Osama bin-Laden is God. Isn't one of the more compelling characteristics of God the power of life and/or death over you? Therefore, bin-Laden must be God. But he can't be God because there is but one God and Billy Graham already has the job, (God is the best job there is).

War is the situation where two or more groups of people attempt to send each other to hell as soon as possible. Think about it.

You're not paranoid, God really is gunning for you and you have a choice of Gods, Allah, Billy or none at all. Now what'll it be? And, stop torturing yourself.

You're an over-the-hill "Has Been", whose ideas are as obsolete as you are.

We prosecuted Axis soldiers for water-boarding, now we say it's OK under certain circumstances. That's BS - it's no more OK today than it was during WWII.

Bush and Cheney have exacerbated the so-called "war on terror" with their illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq in order to steal the oil in that country.

The so-called "terrorists" want us out of the Middle East, period. If Bush and Cheney had invested $500 billion and 200,000 jobs to finding 100% independence on MidEast oil, where would the US be today?

Oh, that's right: the Bush family is bonded to the (corrupt) House of Saud and Cheney panders to his Big Oil (Energy Policy Committee) enablers.

So the American public for the next 3 generations will suffer the consequences of the misguided decisions of two delusional, corrupt politicians in Washington through 1/0/2009.

And don't even WHISPER that Bush is Divinely inspired. Check out the 10 Commandments, such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill", "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Goods (oil)" and "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness (WMDs) Against Thy Neighbor". Bush is NOT going to Heaven with all that blood on his hands!

Cal,

You are in possession of one very sick psyche, and, while you undertake to comment on world affairs, you evidently have no knowledge of WWII.

If you did you'd remember that we didn't torture enemy prisoners. Both American and enemy soldiers were prosecuted by the U.S. government for using waterboarding.

We still won, didn't we?

And we kept our predominantly Christian values alive in relation to torture (which you Satanically now endorse).

Send me a postcard from Hell when you get there.

Hi Cal--Alas for you, lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like the tombs covered with whitewash; they look well from the outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all kinds of filth. So it is with you; outside you look like honest men, but inside you are brim-full of hypocrisy and crime.

how about let's torture cal. i'm sure he'll love it.

Cal,

You are in possession of one very sick psyche, and, while you undertake to comment on world affairs, you evidently have no knowledge of WWII.

If you did you'd remember that we didn't torture enemy prisoners. Both American and enemy soldiers were prosecuted by the U.S. government for using waterboarding.

We still won, didn't we?

And we kept our predominantly Christian values alive in relation to torture (which you Satanically now endorse).

Send me a postcard from Hell when you get there.

By torturing we just become exactly what we are fighting. I find it amazing that this discussion can take place in America...is this country becoming unrecognizable? What makes us different? I'd like to believe that there is something left here that is better.
The day we are not distinguishable from the terrorists, they have won. And from what I see, they seem to be winning.

Burt-

What utter nonsense. Of course a vote and murder are not equivalent. That's why America is supposed to be the good guy.

Here you go:

Hypo:
**...After 6 teeth have been removed, the terrorist finally talks, the bomb is found, and lives saved. The child suffered no "permanent bodily harm" -- the fingernails will grow back and new teeth will come in.

Are the interrogator's methods justifiable?**

My answer:

Under no circumstances, with no uncertainty, never, NO.

In this situation, where the torture of this child either would or could yield information that would save your child, what is your answer?

Hi Cal--Alas for you, lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like the tombs covered with whitewash; they look well from the outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all kinds of filth. So it is with you; outside you look like honest men, but inside you are brim-full of hypocrisy and crime.

Hi Cal--Alas for you, lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like the tombs covered with whitewash; they look well from the outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all kinds of filth. So it is with you; outside you look like honest men, but inside you are brim-full of hypocrisy and crime.

Burt-

What utter nonsense. Of course a vote and murder are not equivalent. That's why America is supposed to be the good guy.

Here you go:

Hypo:
**...After 6 teeth have been removed, the terrorist finally talks, the bomb is found, and lives saved. The child suffered no "permanent bodily harm" -- the fingernails will grow back and new teeth will come in.

Are the interrogator's methods justifiable?**

My answer:

Under no circumstances, with no uncertainty, never, NO.

In this situation, where the torture of this child either would or could yield information that would save your child, what is your answer?

As a society we condone killing everyday...unborn fetuses, self-defense, war casualties (our soldiers, enemies and civilians), and prisoner executions. Our society has taken a moral stance that government delivered death is acceptable to achieve ends. So, there is an element that killing people is an acceptable means to achieve an end.

HOWEVER, torture doesn't fall in the same category because we get NOTHING for it. Professional interrogators will tell you that interrogation subjects will lie/say anything to make torture stop. In a sense, we impart pain and suffering for nothing. That is evil.

Luke 6:46-49:

"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?

"I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.

"But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."

Burt-

What utter nonsense. Of course a vote and murder are not equivalent. That's why America is supposed to be the good guy.

Here you go:

Hypo:
**...After 6 teeth have been removed, the terrorist finally talks, the bomb is found, and lives saved. The child suffered no "permanent bodily harm" -- the fingernails will grow back and new teeth will come in.

Are the interrogator's methods justifiable?**

My answer:

Under no circumstances, with no uncertainty, never, NO.

In this situation, where the torture of this child either would or could yield information that would save your child, what is your answer?

Ask yourself how this person made a career as a representative of Christianity in the corporate media and a lot of other things will make sense.

As a society we condone killing everyday...unborn fetuses, self-defense, war casualties (our soldiers, enemies and civilians), and prisoner executions. Our society has taken a moral stance that government delivered death is acceptable to achieve ends. So, there is an element that killing people is an acceptable means to achieve an end.

HOWEVER, torture doesn't fall in the same category because we get NOTHING for it. Professional interrogators will tell you that interrogation subjects will lie/say anything to make torture stop. In a sense, we impart pain and suffering for nothing. That is evil.

If you want torture to only be used as a *last* resort, you cannot make it legal in any way, otherwise it *will* be used as a first resort by the sadists.

Just who do you think will be doing the torture? Good people?

"And how do we define torture?" says Mr Thomas

Torture is what you would not like done to your brother or daughter. Are we clear on this now Mr Thomas? When I see torture defense arguments in religious columns I am certain we are returning to the mindset of the Crusades. Yes! Kill for God!

"And how do we define torture?" says Mr Thomas

Torture is what you would not like done to your brother or daughter. Are we clear on this now Mr Thomas? When I see torture defense arguments in religious columns I am certain we are returning to the mindset of the Crusades. Yes! Kill for God!

"And how do we define torture?" says Mr Thomas

Torture is what you would not like done to your brother or daughter. Are we clear on this now Mr Thomas? When I see torture defense arguments in religious columns I am certain we are returning to the mindset of the Crusades. Yes! Kill for God!

Sad. Cal, a Christian, a man of "faith", believes that it is OK to starve, freeze, beat, suffocate, humiliate, torment, deprive of light/sound, deprive of sleep, cut, and inflict excruciating pain on other human beings. His fellow men.

I don't care what information he might get from these acts (the validity of which is dubious anyway). The fact that he would be willing to do them to his fellow human beings makes him depraved.

This is the same man who would call me depraved simply for not believing in any God or Gods, despite the fact that I live a good life in which I am gentle to others. Which is worse?

Cal Thomas, your itty-bitty mind and complete lack of a moral compass is showing. What's sad is the fact that our President and much of our government are as stupid and souless as he is.

Thanks, Cal, for revealing what utter scum you conservatives are. I'm sure Jesus himself would gladly pour gallons of water down the throat and electrocute the genitals of anyone the American government suspects of wishing to harm our nation.
As you conservatives see it, the Golden Rule is for cowards. Your moral bankrupcy disgusts all of us who value decency.

I think that the main reason conservatives are defending torture these days is to avoid the prosecution of Cheney, Bush & Co. who we now know have violated U.S. and international laws and should be treated as war criminals.

Only a right wing ChristoFascist™ would use a fictional TV program created and produced by the propaganda organ for the American Neo Nazi Party (i.e. the GOP) as justification for his complete lack of morality.

If you want torture to only be used as a *last* resort, you cannot make it legal in any way, otherwise it *will* be used as a first resort by the sadists.

Just who do you think will be doing the torture? Good people?

I think that the main reason conservatives are defending torture these days is mainly to avoid the prosecution of Cheney, Bush & Co. who we now know have violated U.S. and international laws and should be treated as war criminals.

Cal Thomas's is blind to his own immorallity.

this nasty clown has it all backwards. By permitting torture we put civilization at risk. when we torture we return to barbarism.

this nasty clown has it all backwards. By permitting torture we put civilization at risk. when we torture we return to barbarism.

For decades, evangelical Christians have used the Spanish Inquisition as a means to beat up on the Catholic Church. One of the Inquisition's three forms of torture was waterboarding. The Inquisition called it torture; moreover, the Inquisition knew enough to question the validity of confessions made under torture. Now some of those self-same evangelicals refuse to acknowledge that waterboarding is anything more than enhanced interrogation? Amazing.

And as for the ridiculous "ticking bomb" justification--if any US agent or official found himself in that situation, he should be willing to break the law and commit an act of torture for the greater good. That official's action should still be illegal, and that official, if willing to commit such an ugly act, should be willing to make his own potential sacrifice to save those victims. One would hope that given the circumstances of his crime, no jury would convict him. By handling such a situation this way, the official takes his own risk to commit the atrocity, and the law continues to do what it should: characterize the torture as impermissible.

The Washington Post has clearly crossed a moral boundary by allowing Cal Thomas to extol on what he perceives to be the virtues of torture.

What Cal - and his editors at the Post - don't seem to understand, shockingly, is that only terrorists use torture as a tactic. To make the whole situation even more of a dark, maddening parody is that only terror-tactic sympathizers like Cal, who've never actually fought for their country or had to question suspects, don't know what the experts have been saying for decades:

Torture doesn't work.

By continuing to give torture sympathizers a voice in our national discussion, the Post is hastening our national decline. Some day, we will look back on this time and curse media outlets like the Post for pushing us further into our own Dark Ages. There will be no salvation for Cal, and, as long as the Post keeps holding his megaphone, there will be no salvation for Americans, either.

This is a waste of words from Cal.
He could have just written instead;
GET LOST JESUS!

Hypo:

I kindof figured that was where you were going. And ever since I was old enough to understand the difference betwen an editorial and a letter to the editor, I have had the urge to shower with Brillo after reading Cal Thomas.

The Washington Post has clearly crossed a moral boundary by allowing Cal Thomas to extol on what he perceives to be the virtues of torture.

What Cal - and his editors at the Post - don't seem to understand, shockingly, is that only terrorists use torture as a tactic. To make the whole situation even more of a dark, maddening parody is that only terror-tactic sympathizers like Cal, who've never actually fought for their country or had to question suspects, don't know what the experts have been saying for decades:

Torture doesn't work.

By continuing to give torture sympathizers a voice in our national discussion, the Post is hastening our national decline. Some day, we will look back on this time and curse media outlets like the Post for pushing us further into our own national demise. There will be no salvation for Cal, and, as long as the Post keeps holding his megaphone, there will be no salvation fro Americans, either.

Please. The main rule people forget, when defending torture, is "innocent until proven guilty." It's great to say we should torture terrorists who have life-saving information. But WHO is making this decision? The arresting officer? No, it's not police but military who are doing the torture... Are they making this claim on a charge sheet? No, no charges - indefinite detention without charge. And is this claim held up for public scrutiny? No, it's "extraordinary rendition" to third-party countries with dictatorships and no rule of law.

It's not JUST about justifying torture. The other important question is - WHO is being tortured? How can the public know for sure that innocent people aren't being tortured?

Wiccan:

How far would you go to save your family? If the death of your child would save your neighbor's children, would you allow your child to be killed? And, if so, how do you know the deaths would stop there?

We already know of some people who willingly ordered the deaths of innocent people multiple times *to make a political point* (can you say "Arafat"?). Are you defending their right to use murder merely as another technique to make their point?

Once again, let me emphasize that I am AGAINST the use of torture as anything other than an absolutely last resort. I'm absolutely convinced that we will get the information we need through other less-inhumane means, whether it's by wiretaps, decrypting electronic communications, or intense questioning in an uncomfortable (not painful) environment.

However, I cannot - and will not - rule out the use of even the most horrific of methods if it means that my children, your children, your neighbor's children, and the lives of untold numbers of unrelated people can be saved.

We're not talking about nice folks here. We're talking about people who calculatingly and coldly murder people in furtherance of a political agenda.

You and I use our vote.

They use murder.

Do you see these as equivalent?

It is OK to torture if one is "reasonably sure" that the victim has "ticking bomb" type information. Just as it is OK to invade a country and cause the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraquis and displacement of millions more if one is "resonably sure" that there are weapons of mass destruction and Al Queda links. There never has been and never will be a real life ticking bomb situation with knowledge sufficient to justify torture. Bush, like Thomas (and Reagan) seems to actually believe the fantasy movies. God help us survive the next 15 months.

Thank you, lepidopteryx. I agree with you, and hope the answer would be obvious.

But under CT's reasoning, the answer would clearly be YES. Meaning that there is clearly something seriously and morally wrong with CT's reasoning (as well as the reasoning of Bush, Cheney, etc.)

So Christ's apostles could have waterboarded Judas if it would save the life of Christ?

I doubt that any American is really against using torture given the right set of conditions. If twisting a prisoner's arm can turn the tide of battle or as Truman used the bomb to save lives then torture is not just acceptable but desirable. But there is a problem with torture.

We cannot use torture as standard practice because we would need to create a torture corps. As much as we hate government agencies all hate for them combined would not equal the hate we have for formal torturers. So the question is, was torture, is torture being used as standard practice? Now or ever?

The answer is a an ear drum rupturing no. We do not have a torture corps. What we have is a political nit picking, find anything wrong that can be found to be wrong.

There comes a time when one gets down to the last straw, where only bumping unruly children's heads together can be thought of as a solution.

On the idiot fringe left we have people who are against everything. On the idiot fringe right we have people who are against everything. They need to have their heads bumped together.

If there was a Democrat in the white house the two groups would be on opposite sides of the torture debate. That says it all. They're only for or against it because their hero is in charge or not in charge of it.

So Cal, I wonder how you would feel about it if Goore was president and we were being accused of torturing prisoners. How about a little effort to get in the safe and same middle of the road for a change. There are no black and white issues especially torture. Try telling someone who, "has just put his hand in a pile of goo that a minute before was his best friend's face" that torture is not acceptable practice, as the situation dictates.

The problem is only in the minds of those who make public that which is very private, a soldier and the pile of goo that was his best friend's face. I'm afraid I have to declare their motivation to be dishonorable, kinda like "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" when all they have to offer is lies.

Bush sowed the wind to get into office, appointed Air National Guard types to run a war and now reaps the whirlwind. Wars are won not by surgically removing enemy forces but by collateral damage. They've totally overlooked the fact that no government exists against the will of the governed. That included Saddam Husein's government.

Hypo:
**...After 6 teeth have been removed, the terrorist finally talks, the bomb is found, and lives saved. The child suffered no "permanent bodily harm" -- the fingernails will grow back and new teeth will come in.

Are the interrogator's methods justifiable?**

Once again:

Under no circumstances, with no uncertainty, never, NO.

The Golden Rule is the foundation of civilization. The Golden Rule says "Treat people the way you wish to be treated".

The opposite of the Golden Rule is proposed by Cal and other kooks: "Treat people the way they treated you".

Cal's path leads to anarchy. Jesus' path (Love your neighbor as yourself") leads to civilization.

Which are we, America, civilized or barbarous?

What Cal is advocating is that Jesus should have ordered his deciples to torture Judas to expose the plot to identify Jesus to the Roman soldiers.

And maybe WW2 would have been won quicker if we had just given up our freedoms like Germany and Japan had done because they might have seen it as a weakness. Of course when the war in Europe was over, who were the Germans running to surrender to, the Western allies or the Russians?

I can't believe anyone pays to have Cal's poorly written, poorly supported "articles" printed on paper that could be put to much better use, such as in a bathroom.

Hypo:
**...After 6 teeth have been removed, the terrorist finally talks, the bomb is found, and lives saved. The child suffered no "permanent bodily harm" -- the fingernails will grow back and new teeth will come in.

Are the interrogator's methods justifiable?**

No, no, no, no, and no. And just in case there's any confusion, I'll clarify - NO.

Cal your logic escapes me...So what you are saying is in effect, since other cultures, societies, or goverments, "jump off the proverbial bridge" the US should follow them over the cliff?

C'mon we are better than that, this is the USA. We are not some primitive, uneducated, tribal clan, who at the slightest, slight has to hack someones head off.

Just because the enemy behaves badly, doesn't mean we have to do the same, you're not making sense.

Suppose the US has detained a terrorist who has knowledge of a bomb, planted in a secret location, that will denotate soon and likely kill hundreds of people. The terrorist refuses to divulge the secret location under non-coercive interrogation.

We also have custody of the terrorist's 2-year old son. In plain view of the terrorist, the US interrogator start pulling out the child's fingernails, telling the terrorist that all the fingernails will be pulled out, one-by-one, until the terrorist talks. The child is obviously screaming in pain.

After all the fingernails have been removed, the interrogator moves on to the child's teeth, again telling the terrorist that all the teeth will be removed, one-by-one and without anasthesia, until the terrorist talks. The screaming and agony continues.

After 6 teeth have been removed, the terrorist finally talks, the bomb is found, and lives saved. The child suffered no "permanent bodily harm" -- the fingernails will grow back and new teeth will come in.

Are the interrogator's methods justifiable?

What a surprise, Cal approves of torture. Not surprising that he watches "24" where torture works every time. But Cal, when did Jesus say torture was ok? Do you approve of the torture used on Jesus?

Cal wrote: "We in the West are supposed to adhere to certain rules so we "won't be like them." But if the other side adheres to no rules and sees our standards as a form of weakness, such things are counter-productive to our objectives."

The terrorists seeing our denunciation on torture as a weakness is a perception on their part. What it actually is is a strength of the West. We should recognize out values for what they are and not what our enemies perceive them to be. Consider that today Muslims are fleeing parts of the ME and heading to the US and Europe. Our civilization is our strength. People like Cal do not see that, they only see short term gains and the joy of vengence. If Cal does not love the freedom America provides he should go to where torture is used not just in wars but in daily policing. Yes Cal, go to Cuba or Turkey and enjoy your safe life there and leave us to our freedom. They might even have a TV so you can watch "24" as they pour water down your nostrils after being arrested for speeding. Cal, you are just plain wrong wrong wrong ... again.

Suppose the US has detained a terrorist who has knowledge of a bomb, planted in a secret location, that will denotate soon and likely kill hundreds of people. The terrorist refuses to divulge the secret location under non-coercive interrogation.

We also have custody of the terrorist's 2-year old son. In plain view of the terrorist, the US interrogator start pulling out the child's fingernails, telling the terrorist that all the fingernails will be pulled out, one-by-one, until the terrorist talks. The child is obviously screaming in pain.

After all the fingernails have been removed, the interrogator moves on to the child's teeth, again telling the terrorist that all the teeth will be removed, one-by-one and without anasthesia, until the terrorist talks. The screaming and agony continues.

After 6 teeth have been removed, the terrorist finally talks, the bomb is found, and lives saved. The child suffered no "permanent bodily harm" -- the fingernails will grow back and new teeth will come in.

Are the interrogator's methods justifiable?

I always wondered why the religious right (mostly Evangelical Christians) were looked down upon by liberals and atheists. Now I know... and I don't blame them.

Support torture, Cal? Really? What brand of religion have you been following? Reminds me of another right wing nut: Ann Coulter ("invade their countries and force convert them to Christianity). Do you even realize that you are becoming what you detest/hate in your enemy. Or maybe some of you always were like that. It probably took an incident like this to bring out your true nature. Sad...very sad!

Cal,

This simply cannot be justified from a moral or faith perspective. You don't combat evil by doing more evil.

Losing one's soul and searing one's conscience rarely happens in one swift move. It happens incrementally so it's less noticeable because each move is only a teesy bit worse than the one before it. Also, it doesn't happen out of the blue. It comes in the guise of being "necessary."

We start in small ways compromising our principles (the things that make a country great) and those because "the battle has changed" or "this enemy is different." But over time, small compromises lead to slightly bigger ones. The urgency and "necessity" of the times and the enemy we're dealing with are viewed as greater and more pressing and thus serve as a justification. After a while you look back at how far down this road you've allowed yourself to travel and you wonder how the hell you got here and whether the thing you claim to be fighting for even exists anymore. If you're willing to use evil to fight evil, then what is the good that you're supposedly saving?

We need to get out of this state of moral compromise and fear-based reactions and recover the sense of moral decency that used to separate us from the enemy. Sure, we may not be quite as bad now. But compromises like this tend to be like lighting a stick of dynamite. You might extinguish the wick, but when you relight it the next time, it doesn't go back to the original starting point. You pick up where you left off and go even further than before.

That's not the United States of America I know and love.

Suppose the US has detained a terrorist who has knowledge of a bomb, planted in a secret location, that will denotate soon and likely kill hundreds of people. The terrorist refuses to divulge the secret location under non-coercive interrogation.

We also have custody of the terrorist's 2-year old son. In plain view of the terrorist, the US interrogator start pulling out the child's fingernails, telling the terrorist that all the fingernails will be pulled out, one-by-one, until the terrorist talks. The child is obviously screaming in pain.

After all the fingernails have been removed, the interrogator moves on to the child's teeth, again telling the terrorist that all the teeth will be removed, one-by-one and without anasthesia, until the terrorist talks. The screaming and agony continues.

After 6 teeth have been removed, the terrorist finally talks, the bomb is found, and lives saved. The child suffered no "permanent bodily harm" -- the fingernails will grow back and new teeth will come in.

Are the interrogator's methods justifiable?

I think you're all failing to realize that inaccurate information is *exactly* what these people are looking for. If you get tons of false "terrorist plots" from innocent people (or even people guilty of far lesser offenses), you can parade them around as "successes" in your War on Terror. Plus, you'll always have faux plots you can release information on when politicians are thinking of laws that restrict your ability to shred the rights of the populace and prevent you from enacting your plan for monarchical dictatorships.

Look Cal, as soon as you say it is OK to torture someone who has knowledge about an impending event, you just gave approval to torture just about anyone. Why? Because you don't know if someone has this great information until you have tortured the person. Can you not see CIA types thinking they have collared a terrorist and thus they need to torture the person so that they give up their intel? Just because they do not have any useful intel is no reason to stop the torture. Soon our spooks are torturing most prisoners because they "may" have that one bit of intel that will save thousands. It is so ludicrous. I have seen this drivel from many so-called conservative religous folks. It demonstrates that these people have no real morals. And it makes me ashamed to be an American. But the conservatives rule the day and thus goes our nation down the toilet.

Just look at the trace of columns Mr Thomas left over time, it should tell us he's the complement of Ann Coulter.

Just ignore them, they are the fringe. Dinosaurs.
Incomprehensible what these folks put down on paper and hard disks.

Sorry, but this is at a level that makes ad hominem the only feasible response.

Burt-

Why pussyfoot? If torture is OK to save your family, lets just bomb the hell out of anyone or anything that might cause us harm. That way we don't have to get our hands dirty and we'll be safe.

kudos, cal, for at least stimiluting discussion on the topic. the comments posted here suggest a frightening consensus: that people are unwilling (or unable) to think beyond the surface of this extremely significant issue and - for a moment - steer away from the emotional reaction the word "torture" engenders and visit the land of the practical. of which you, my friend, are king.

A man without principals is no man at all. A nation without principals is no nation at all.
The Nazis, heightened the fear of anarchy to come to power, and "legitimize" whatever methods were necessary to foster "safety" in the motherland.
The "best generation" gave its all to overcome that concept. After WWII, we prosecuted war criminals for water boarding as well as other forms of torture. We cannot, we must not, condone torture, for any reason.
The childish argument, "Johnny does it, so why can't I?" is being raised to an absolute "Terrorist torture so we must torture". Hitler would be proud.

I'll tell you what real weakness is. It's pandering to terrorists by lowering ourselves to their level out of fear.

There's your weakness, Cal.

All the while knowing torture does not work is beside the point. Some people seem to revel in the pain of those they despise.

Just look at the trace of columns Mr Thomas left over time, it should tell us he's the complement of Ann Coulter.

Just ignore them, they are the fringe. Dinosaurs.
Incomprehensible what these folks put down on paper and hard disks.

Sorry, but this is at a level that makes ad hominem the only feasible response.

Hey Cal--if torture is OK because Jack Bauer said so, is gay marriage OK because Will and Grace said so?

Most of the previous anti-Cal and anti-torture postings have missed one significant point: In the current "war on terror", there is NO SINGLE GOVERNMENT or GROUP OF GOVERNMENTS directly responsible or claiming responsibility for acts of terror against the US or other countries (Spain, UK, France, etc.)

The Geneva Convention does indeed outlaw torture against armed combatants, or those who can be clearly identified according to Article 44 Section 3. However, those who willingly and intentionally attack non-combatants (e.g. innocent unarmed civilians) in order to promote a political agenda are *not* covered under the Geneva Convention. It is THEY who violated the "rules of war", it is THEY who refused to "fight fair", and it is THEY who now want to use public opinion and "bleeding hearts" as mitigating circumstances.

Excuse me? My mere existence justifies your horrific acts?? So, if I suddenly cease to exist, does that mean that you will just as suddenly return to nonaggression? Yeah... right. And the moon is made of blue cheese.

Those who are acting outside the Geneva Convention are doing so intentionally and probably with the knowledge that we will willingly TIE OUR OWN HANDS in our response in order to satisfy some mythic "we are better than our enemies" fairytale. We are only "better" if we have prevented deaths without __causing__ deaths. And, as far as I understand, waterboarding dies not __cause__ death.

If, through inaction, we allow ANY innocent civilians to be harmed, maimed, or killed, it is WE who have violated their right to live peacefully and without bodily threat. If we do NOT take any possible action to avoid or prevent the disruption and destruction of innocent lives, WE are complicit and equally to blame for the horrors that occur.

Torture should be the absolutely last method that we use in order to prevent the death of innocent non-government, non-combatant, ordinary women, children, and men.

However, if it comes down to the use of "torture" to save the lives of my wife and/or children -- or YOURS, in fact -- I'll wholeheartedly support it.

Cal, I presume you view the war on terror as a fight between good and evil. Can good (the US) really justify using evil (torture) to fight evil (Al Qaeda, et al)? Doesn't that just make us evil?

Cal,
Your whole argument is based on the assumption that torture works. Noone seems to have proven that's even effective...and this is before we even begin to weigh the merit of your moral relativist reasoning. So not only are we possibly incompetent (once again) we're also amoral. Great.

BTW, I worked backed stage for a political talk show a time not long ago. Before the camera came on or the guest (Bob Woodward) appeared on the show, Cal remarked about how he hadn't read the book they were going to discuss. As soon as the cameras rolled and Woodward spoke, Cal remarked ab out how much he had liked the book and complimented Woodward's eloquent "prose". Cal is not only a sycophant flatterer; he's a liar.

We can define tortue--and have done so in the past including water boarding. We do hold and must hold certain values which terrorists" do not. Those values (we will not force you to belive a certain religion, we will not rip out your fingernails) are part of the moral groun upon which we stand. Mr Thomas, your logic appals me. You are on teh slipperly slope of relative morality, a concept you have fought against. Torure is a bad means to a good end--except you do not get the good result. What do you really think ; any means to a noble end?

Cal, I presume you view the war on terror as a fight between good and evil. Can good (the US) really justify using evil (torture) to fight evil (Al Qaeda, et al)? Doesn't that just make us evil?

Cal, I presume you view the war on terror as a fight between good and evil. Can good (the US) really justify using evil (torture) to fight evil (Al Qaeda, et al)? Doesn't that just make us evil?

What a surprise, Cal approves of torture. Not surprising that he watches "24" where torture works every time. But Cal, when did Jesus say torture was ok? Do you approve of the torture used on Jesus?

Cal wrote: "We in the West are supposed to adhere to certain rules so we "won't be like them." But if the other side adheres to no rules and sees our standards as a form of weakness, such things are counter-productive to our objectives."

The terrorists seeing our denunciation on torture as a weakness is a perception on their part. What it actually is is a strength of the West. We should recognize out values for what they are and not what our enemies perceive them to be. Consider that today Muslims are fleeing parts of the ME and heading to the US and Europe. Our civilization is our strength. People like Cal do not see that, they only see short term gains and the joy of vengence. If Cal does not love the freedom America provides he should go to where torture is used not just in wars but in daily policing. Yes Cal, go to Cuba or Turkey and enjoy your safe life there and leave us to our freedom. They might even have a TV so you can watch "24" as they pour water down your nostrils after being arrested for speeding. Cal, you are just plain wrong wrong wrong ... again.

What??!! You can't be serious. "They do it, so we can, too?" I'm sure Jesus would be right behind you on this one.

Cal,
Your whole argument is based on the assumption that torture works. Noone seems to have proven that's even effective...and this is before we even begin to weigh the merit of your moral relativist reasoning. So not only are we possibly incompetent (once again) we're also amoral. Great.

BTW, I worked backed stage for a political talk show a time not long ago. Before the camera came on or the guest (Bob Woodward) appeared on the show, Cal remarked about how he hadn't read the book they were going to discuss. As soon as the cameras rolled and Woodward spoke, Cal remarked ab out how much he had liked the book and complimented Woodward's eloquent "prose". Cal is not only a sycophant flatterer; he's a liar.

Gar! Looks like Don beat me to it!

If the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials taught us anything, it should have been that torturing people does NOT get you accurate information; it gets you whatever you want to hear. People will confess to things they never did just to make the pain stop. They will name innocent people as co-conspirators just to make the pain stop. Almost never do you see torture responded to a la the rack scene in Braveheart. It's almost always like Winston explaining to Julia why he betrayed her - confronted with his worst fear, he would do ANYTHING to make it go away.

There is absolutely no intellectual or moral justification for your position. You claim that not torturing people is "counter-productive?" Perhaps you should read Fiasco by Thomas Ricks or General Petreaus's counter-insurgency manual for a lesson or two in modern military strategy. There are no grounds whatsoever to believe that using torture as an interrogation technique provides better intelligence than other (less morally bankrupt) techniques. In fact, it makes things harder for us. Counter-insurgency is all about hearts and minds. Kidnapping and torturing people, denying habeas corpus, and illegal surveillance operations become public relations nightmares that make the problem exponentially worse.

And as for the "24" canard, there has never been a "ticking bomb" scenario and probably never will be. Do we set up our standard techniques based upon a situation which won't exist? That is how abuses like Abu Ghraib happen. "Forward leaning" CIA officers got under-trained grunts to "soften up" their prisoners because as Dick Cheney said, "the gloves have come off." Abu Ghraib , of course, became an international PR disaster, WHICH MADE THE TERRORISM PROBLEM WORSE.

Do you want to win the "war on terrorism"? (Don't even get me started about the idea of declaring war on a tactic - a war which by its very definition will never end.) Start listening to the smart people who understand these things. You think it was a coincidence that the man Bush has turned to in Iraq (Petreaus) has a PHD plus a staff chock full of the best educated men in our armed forces? Military force and brutal and unconstitutional tactics WILL NOT MAKE US SAFER. I know this is probably a tough concept for you as it is certainly counter-intuitive, but sometimes the world is exactly that complex. Sometimes you need to think about problems rather than rely on knee-jerk emotion and television dramas to inform your actions.

Who would Jesus torture?

Only someone completely lacking in morals would believe that torture is a worthwhile pursuit. Those individuals, like Cal Thomas, who think torture is a valid interrogation ought to volunteer to undergo each procedure themselves.

> There's only one word to describe Cal Thomas and his ilk: ghouls.

"Christians" works too. Remember, Mr. Thomas' god, like Sheikh Osama's, franchises the operation of a supernatural torture chamber where most of humanity will shriek in agony throughout eternity.

There is absolutely no intellectual or moral justification for your position. You claim that not torturing people is "counter-productive?" Perhaps you should read Fiasco by Thomas Ricks or General Petreaus's counter-insurgency manual for a lesson or two in modern military strategy. There are no grounds whatsoever to believe that using torture as an interrogation technique provides better intelligence than other (less morally bankrupt) techniques. In fact, it makes things harder for us. Counter-insurgency is all about hearts and minds. Kidnapping and torturing people, denying habeas corpus, and illegal surveillance operations become public relations nightmares that make the problem exponentially worse.

And as for the "24" canard, there has never been a "ticking bomb" scenario and probably never will be. Do we set up our standard techniques based upon a situation which won't exist? That is how abuses like Abu Ghraib happen. "Forward leaning" CIA officers got under-trained grunts to "soften up" their prisoners because as Dick Cheney said, "the gloves have come off." Abu Ghraib , of course, became an international PR disaster, WHICH MADE THE TERRORISM PROBLEM WORSE.

Do you want to win the "war on terrorism"? (Don't even get me started about the idea of declaring war on a tactic - a war which by its very definition will never end.) Start listening to the smart people who understand these things. You think it was a coincidence that the man Bush has turned to in Iraq (Petreaus) has a PHD plus a staff chock full of the best educated men in our armed forces? Military force and brutal and unconstitutional tactics WILL NOT MAKE US SAFER. I know this is probably a tough concept for you as it is certainly counter-intuitive, but sometimes the world is exactly that complex. Sometimes you need to think about problems rather than rely on knee-jerk emotion and television dramas to inform your actions

The New Testament says less about homosexuality and abortion than about the use of violence on our enemies, yet for Cal and pals the "Christian" stand on homosexuality is absolute, the "Christian" stand on abortion is sacrosanct, yet they get all mushy on whether or not torture is allowed.

It would be hard to dream up a clearer example of how Cal's faith is focused on the exercise of power over the powerless rather than love for God and neighbor.

Insanity. There is no chance the US or Western Civilization is going to fall because torture isn't codified as a function of our government. Is there a chance innocent people could die because we don't? Maybe but so what? The danger of this method being applied more broadly as time goes on is a much greater threat.

Pure cowardice.

For fear of a possible nuclear bomb, you would compromise your morals. For fear of a potential terrorist, you would torture him. How many innocent people will be waterboarded before you learn to catch flies with honey instead of vinegar? So long as you let fear guide your moral decisions, you will be nothing more than a coward.

America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. The free and the brave trust to a system of justice - the weak and cowardly sink to torture.

Life is not TV show, Mr. Thomas.

torture is useful for extracting false confessions and creating fear, nothing else. It never saves lives, it never leads to reliable intelligence and in the process it dehumanizes the torturer as well as the victims.

We now have the spectacle of American foreign service lawyers refusing to condemn torture techniques like waterboarding even if they used by other governments or terrorists against American soldiers!

Bush and his Conservative sheep have pissed away any moral advantage the West had with this cavalier attitude.

WWJT?

Who would Jesus torture?

WWJT?

Who would Jesus torture?

It pains and tortures me Not to tell what I feel about your writtings since the Iraq war started because of the rules I have to abid by in writting a comment in this public domain. That is civilization.
To save civilization does not give you or me the right to break the Law of civilized people. NO JUSTIFICATION TO TORTURE BY ANY METHOD FOR ANY REASON.

By the way I was a fan of your writting

It pains and tortures me Not to tell what I feel about your writtings since the Iraq war started because of the rules I have to abid by in writting a comment in this public domain. That is civilization.
To save civilization does not give you or me the right to break the Law of civilized people. NO JUSTIFICATION TO TORTURE BY ANY METHOD FOR ANY REASON.

By the way I was a fan of your writting

Read Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine" to see how commonplace torture has become, aided and abetted by "the good guys". How one can talk about "proper balance" when defining torture is quite beyond me. The thugs who lead your country and many who work for them have become Al Quaida in all but name.

It pains and tortures me Not to tell what I feel about your writtings since the Iraq war started because of the rules I have to abid by in writting a comment in this public domain. That is civilization.
To save civilization does not give you or me the right to break the Law of civilized people. NO JUSTIFICATION TO TORTURE BY ANY METHOD FOR ANY REASON.

By the way I was a fan of your writting

So according to Mr. Thomas the end justifies the means (i.e., torture is okay if it will save innocent lives). But who decides when that balance has tipped in favor of torture? The Executive Branch (the current iteration of which has demonstrated consistently poor judgment)?

And what about torturing someone who may have information that could save innocent lives, but who is himself innocent? That person may have legitimate reasons not to divulge information (e.g., self or family under threat), despite his innocence. Is it also okay to torture that person to obtain information since that would satisfy Mr. Thomas' test? Otherwise, if we restrict torture to those someone has determined is "guilty", isn't it in effect just a form of punishment without due process?

This form of balancing, in which otherwise unacceptable conduct (i.e., torture) can be justified based upon perceived benefits, is the slipperiest and most perilous of slopes. The "benefits" will always be subjective, and those favoring torture will have a natural bias in favor of a determination that the perceived threat justifies their misconduct. Don't go there! Sometimes there are bright lines that must not be crossed, and this is one of them.

It pains and tortures me Not to tell what I feel about your writtings since the Iraq war started because of the rules I have to abid by in writting a comment in this public domain. That is civilization.
To save civilization does not give you or me the right to break the Law of civilized people. NO JUSTIFICATION TO TORTURE BY ANY METHOD FOR ANY REASON.

By the way I was a fan of your writting

So according to Mr. Thomas the end justifies the means (i.e., torture is okay if it will save innocent lives). But who decides when that balance has tipped in favor of torture? The Executive Branch (the current iteration of which has demonstrated consistently poor judgment)?

And what about torturing someone who may have information that could save innocent lives, but who is himself innocent? That person may have legitimate reasons not to divulge information (e.g., self or family under threat), despite his innocence. Is it also okay to torture that person to obtain information since that would satisfy Mr. Thomas' test? Otherwise, if we restrict torture to those someone has determined is "guilty", isn't it in effect just a form of punishment without due process?

This form of balancing, in which otherwise unacceptable conduct (i.e., torture) can be justified based upon perceived benefits, is the slipperiest and most perilous of slopes. The "benefits" will always be subjective, and those favoring torture will have a natural bias in favor of a determination that the perceived threat justifies their misconduct. Don't go there! Sometimes there are bright lines that must not be crossed, and this is one of them.

What have we become when a question like this is even debatable? How does torture fit into the "Innocent until proven guilty" foundation of our country. How can these same people who prattle about America being [falsely] a Christian nation, at the same time [and from the other side of their mouths] condone any sort of torture. Torture is wrong today, tomorrow, and forever - end of story.

um cal -- were you going to make a point somewhere in there? Yes, you pointed out that, as bad people, they do bad things.

Last time I checked, you can tell the bad people becasue they are the ones doing bad things. People who don't do bad things are, at least on their face, not the bad people.

So, which should we be? If you are saying that good people can still be good people and do bad things, I think you should just come out and say that instead of dancing around.

Torture is a technique which garners fairly INACCURATE information. Since it's well-documented that folks will say anything to avoid pain over a period of time, what's the purpose of garnering suspect information? *cough* Salem witch trials and the Inquisition.

The argument that the bad guys do it is trite. If the bad guys kill civilians, we're going to do the same thing? Oh wait, we just hire Blackwater to do that for us......

Seriously, stop basing your "real world" assessment on 24 and maybe read some literature out there on the subject matter.

PS. Get a better picture.

You are a coward and no friend of liberty.

um cal -- were you going to make a point somewhere in there? Yes, you pointed out that, as bad people, they do bad things.

Last time I checked, you can tell the bad people becasue they are the ones doing bad things. People who don't do bad things are, at least on their face, not the bad people.

So, which should we be? If you are saying that good people can still be good people and do bad things, I think you should just come out and say that instead of dancing around.

The Washington Post really should think about getting commentators of some minimal stature. I mean the scrawls of this guy remind me of neo-Nazi pamphlets you might find scattered in a public bathroom somewhere. Don't know why the Post volunteers space on its web forums for propagating this kind of filth.

Mr Thomas have long defended religion. According to him, morality is not possible without religion. He claims to be a good Christian.
He defends torture as a state policy.
This is morality Evangelical Christian style. Christians will kill doctors, silence scientists and torture heathens and call it Salvation.
Christians are civilized, heathens are not. So Christians should expect decent behavior from others, they are entitled. Heathens, on the other hand are not fit for human decency since they deny Christian Dogma.
Hardly surprising that when it comes to real moral issues, Christians like Mr Thomas show their true colors: cowardly defense of torture.

No, not "we in the West." The West – Germany in WW II, France in Algeria, with plenty of others besides – has been more than willing to torture.

The question is, or should be for Mr Thomas, can Christians torture? I didn't realize that Christ suggested we strike a "proper balance" between our security and our morals. On the contrary, my reading of the Gospels suggests that Jesus taught that if we sacrifice our morals to insure our security, we have abandoned Him who sacrifed everything to teach us, among other things, the error of that reasoning.

Why in heaven's name don't people just admit it and get it over with: in the so-called war on terror, torture is a useful even necessary tool. Obviously we are ashamed to admit that, and for good reason. This is a sad, sad place for our country--that educated, even supposedly religious people as Carl Thomas wish to make torture acceptable in polite society. I suppose for the innocent who may be tortured it's just too bad. There must be some absolutes for us even in this so-called war: NO TORTURE, period. Here, sir, we just don't do that!!!

So we're expected to use a technique that probably won't work so we can appear to be as tough as the terrorists we are supposed to despise.

At what point do we decide to appear to be different from the terrorists?

They torture. We torture.

They attacked us over here. We've sent the CIA into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran for decades. Not to mention collateral deaths.

They're religious extremists. We're religious extremists.

Only their religion will get you into heaven. Only Christians will get into heaven and the rest need to be 'perfected'.

My colored world just got a whole lot greyer.

Somehow, in the days of Eisenhower, Patton, McCarthur, you know, those pansies, waterboarding was considered a war crime when perpetrated by the Japanese on our boys, and we prosecuted them for it. Somehow, those same pansies would never have considered using it on even Japanese soldiers (you remember how highly we thought of the Japanese around then) who could have given us information that would have saved lives. So Cal knows better than Ike how to fight a war? I doubt it.

The silly "captive who knows where the bomb will go off in 20 minutes" canard is absurd. It assumes that we already know he knows, that we already know there's a bomb going off in 20 minutes, etc, all ridiculous assumptions to construct a hypothetical that we might be tempted to swallow. I find it hard to imagine that in all the world wars, such a hypothetical situation seems not to have occured yet. If it ever does, that will be soon enough for those in the situation to evaluate whether they feel justified and make a personal moral choice they can defend.

and we aren't justified in torturing others just because they didn't sign the Geneva Convention.

If the folks at the CIA are waterboarding, they should be held accountable.

is a typical right-wing, narrow-minded idiotic drivel

CAL THOMAS

Of course there is a double standard on torture. We WANT to be better than the terrorists!

A "we will torture if it saves lives" standard is no standard at all. Given uncertainty in the world, it means nothing more than, "torture if it could conceivably be useful." It is a standard that begs the question of utility. And it is a standard bereft of morality and meaning. We are what we choose to do. So we are torturers now?

You are advocating a standard no better than that used by terrorists.

This is the usual specious pro-torture argument: If it's needed to save lives, then by all means, do it. I doubt that even one incidence of torture at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib or throughout the CIA's secret gulag system has saved even one life.

Perhaps Cal Thomas can point out in the New Testament that he loves to cite exactly where Jesus approves of torture.

Perhaps Cal Thomas can point out in the New Testament that he loves to cite exactly where Jesus approves of torure.

Did anyone else feel the need to take a shower after reading What?'s post. Ick.

Ha-

You obviously know nothing about Wicca. Our ethics forbid using magick on someone without their permission. I know, talking of ethics on a Cal Thomas thread is rare, but deal.

So can anyone tell me how this is different from the Third Reich and the Nazi pogroms?

Attention atheists, liberals and witches..

(btw...witches beware...dont cast your spells on anyone...thats torture!....how inhumane...wanting someone to become a frog just because you dont like them...tisk tisk)

Its simple...just turn off FOX and go get your morals from any new show with, say, Rosie on it on another cable news show.

((((((((((((((((HAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAA)))))))))))

(((((((((((((((((ROLF))))))))))))))))))))))))

((((((((((((((((((((HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

YES, TELEVISION AS A MORAL COMPASS-
WISE!

how do we define torture?

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.

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1984 and entered into force on June 26, 1987.

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:
obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession
obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession
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;
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.*
*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.

What is ill treatment?
It is impossible to draw a clear dividing line between ''torture'' and other ''cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.? Whether an act of ill treatment constitutes torture depends on a number of factors, including the nature and severity of the abuse. Both torture and ill treatment are prohibited in all circumstances by international law.

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.

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." The drafters of common Article 3 avoided a detailed list of prohibited acts in order to ensure that it had the broadest possible reach, leaving no loophole. As the official commentary by the International Committee of the Red Cross explained:

''It is always dangerous to go into too much detail -- especially in this domain. However great the care taken in drawing up a list of all the various forms of infliction, it would never be possible to catch up with the imagination of future torturers who wished to satisfy their bestial instincts; the more specific and complete a list tries to be, the more restrictive it becomes. The form of wording adopted is flexible, and, at the same time, precise.''

Every act of torture is a crime under international law.
If torture is committed in an armed conflict, it constitutes the war crime of torture.
If torture is committed as part of a systematic or a widespread pattern of similar acts, it constitutes the crime against humanity of torture.
The Convention against Torture prohibits torture as an independent crime, as a war crime, and as a crime against humanity, absolutely and in all circumstances.
The Geneva Conventions prohibit the war crime of torture in both international wars and internal conflicts such as civil wars or rebellions.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibits torture when it constitutes genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime.
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."

The prohibition of torture has a special status in international law. It is part of customary international law, which means it is binding on all states, whether or not they have ratified any of the international human rights treaties.

The prohibition on torture is also a ''peremptory norm,'' which means that it cannot be overruled by any other law or by local custom.

May the United States extradite a person to country where s/he might face torture?
No. Article 3.1 of the Convention against Torture states that: ?No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.?

On October 21, 1998, Congress adopted the United States Policy with Respect to the Involuntary Return of Persons in Danger of Subjection to Torture as part of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act. According to Section (a): "[i]t shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States."

Has the United States accepted the obligations set forth in the Convention against Torture?
The United States ratified the Convention against Torture in October 1994. The Convention entered into force for the United States on November 20, 1994.

What statements has the United States government made about its compliance with the guidelines set forth by the Convention?
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?? (Read the entire report)

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. 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. No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. United States law contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for example, during a ?state of public emergency?) or on orders from a superior officer or public authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject to suspension. 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]

49. Torture has always been proscribed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits ?cruel and unusual punishments?. This Amendment is directly applicable to actions of the Federal Government and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, to those of the constituent states.... While the constitutional and statutory law of the individual states in some cases offers more extensive or more specific protections, the protections of the right to life and liberty, personal freedom and physical integrity found in the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution provide a nationwide standard of treatment beneath which no governmental entity may fall. The constitutional nature of this protection means that it applies to the actions of officials throughout the United States at all levels of government; all individuals enjoy protection under the Constitution, regardless of nationality or citizenship. [p. 13]

47. In 1994, Congress enacted a new federal law to implement the requirements of the Convention against Torture relating to acts of torture committed outside United States territory. This law, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2340 et seq., extends United States criminal jurisdiction over any act of (or attempt to commit) torture outside the United States by a United States national or by an alleged offender present in the United States regardless of his or her nationality. The statute adopts the Convention?s definition of torture, consistent with the terms of United States ratification. It permits the criminal prosecution of alleged torturers in federal courts in specified circumstances. [p. 13]

51. Remedies. United States law provides various avenues for seeking redress, including financial compensation in cases of torture and other violations of constitutional and statutory rights relevant to the Convention. Besides the general rights of appeal, these can include any of the following, depending on the circumstances [pp. 14-15]:

Some avenues for seeking redress
Seeking a writ of habeas corpus, which guarantees judicial review of the reasons for and conditions of detention and ensures that a person who believes his or her detention violates constitutionally protected rights has access to an independent and impartial court for a determination of its propriety;
Filing criminal charges, which can lead to investigation and possible prosecution;
Bringing a civil action in federal or state court under the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, directly against state or local officials for money damages or injunctive relief;
Seeking damages for negligence of federal officials and for negligence and intentional torts of federal law enforcement officers under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., or of other state and municipal officials under comparable state statutes;
Suing federal officials directly under provisions of the United States Constitution for ?constitutional torts?, see Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979);
Challenging official action or inaction through judicial procedures in state courts and under state law, based in statutory or constitutional provisions;
Seeking civil damages from participants in conspiracies to deny civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985;
Bringing civil suits for damages based on international legal prohibitions against torture under the Alien Tort Claims Act, and the Torture Victims Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and note;
Pursuing administrative remedies, including proceedings before civilian complaints review boards, for the review of alleged police misconduct;
The Federal Government may institute civil proceedings under the Pattern or Practice of Police Misconduct Provision of the Crime Bill of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, to eliminate patterns or practices of misconduct by law enforcement agencies and their parent organizations. Similarly, the Federal Government may institute administrative and civil proceedings against law enforcement agencies receiving federal funds who discriminate on the basis of race, sex, national origin, or religion;
Individuals may bring administrative actions and civil suits against law enforcement agencies receiving federal funding that discriminate on the basis of race, sex, national origin, or religion, under the federal civil rights laws. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (Title VI) and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d (Safe Streets Act);
In the case of persons in detention, the Federal Government may institute proceedings under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997, to eliminate a pattern or practice of abuse in any state prison, jail or detention facility.
61. Judicial reference to the Convention. The Convention against Torture has been cited and referenced in a number of federal judicial proceedings to date, including, inter alia, the following decisions?. [p. 19]

62. A number of federal courts have also recognized that the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is an accepted norm of customary international law.... [p. 19]

63. In many of these cases, United States courts looked to the Convention for guidance in determining whether there exists a customary international legal norm which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Although it is not self-executing, the Convention was viewed by these courts as illustrative of the general agreement among states that such practices are unlawful. Thus, the Convention has played a significant role in the development of international human rights law in United States courts. [pp. 19-20]

The Inquisition tortured people to save their immortal souls. The Nazis tortured people to preserve the purity of the Aryan race. The Stalinists tortured people to protect the working class. And so, and so on.

If you want to use a fictional character to make a point, rather than Jack Bauer, why not try Ivan Karamazov? he asks himself...if he could save the entire human race from misery, hunger, and pain by sacrificing the life of one innocent child, would he do it? If I remember rightly, he would not. Which would make him a far better Christian than Mr. Thomas, insofar as I can read the Bible and understand what it says.

There's only one word to describe Cal Thomas and his ilk: ghouls.

Morality drawn from a Fox TV show. How inspired!

Cal advances the BOGUS argument that torture gets one information that saves lives. Torture gets you nothing, and everyone knows it. The specious argument, "if a terrorist knows a bomb will go off within 24 hours, is torture acceptable to get that info?," is specious because any REAL intelligence official will tell you that GOOD information comes from developing relationships of trust with the subjects under interrogation, and that TAKES TIME. A terrorist with a gun to his head will more likely take the bullet than give out good info, especially as they tend to be "in the zone" the closer they are to the event transpiring, either before or after.

So it comes down to Cal drawing a false security by BELIEVING something is being accomplished when nothing is being accomplished. Hmm? What's that sound like? Oh, right, it sounds a lot like a RELIGIOUS belief.

No wonder Cal and his "Warrior Christ" crusader buddies fall into the same "if I believe it, it must be true" trap on torture as they do when it comes to the myth that is Xianity. It's the same mindset feeding both delusions, no matter what the facts say.

I now know why Cal didn't bother posting on the Halloween topic. He was saving up the real ghoulish horror for today.

Oh...the poor helpless terroist that wants to walk the streets of New York with a dirty nuclear bomb strapped to his waist.

Heck, we knew about him a few weeks ago when we interrogated him. Even had witnesses that he has plans to set off a bomb. But since he did not want to answer our questions...we felt soooo sorry for him and we were afraid that the ACLU would chastise us...so we let him go, hoping that he would change his mind or something.

>>If any individual at any given moment feels the nessecity to torture someone for vital information that may save lives, then that person can make that choice, at the moment when that choice is necessary. But it still should not be made legal for the government to torture people to extract information from them.

Let me see.. Daniel stated "..feels the necessity to torture someone for viatl information that may save lives, then that person can make that choice at the moment when that choice is necessary..." Daniel then says....."But it still should not be made legal for the government to torture people to extract information from them"

Talk about talking out of both sides of ones mouth.

Do people ever think that maybe some dont really want to 'torture' (and the means of 'torture' can be anything to anyone)..but the way our world is shaping up, they may feel there is no other means in certain situations (not all situations, folks)to protect our freedom.

I agree with John Stossel's phrase..."Give me a break". Sure, it would be great if we lived in a world where this wouldnt need to happen. I believe that all of this was in the making long before the present administration took office.

On to another blog where there are others not having hissy fits over what the government feels it needs to do. Maybe they think they could do better under duress and threats. Yeah, right.

Cal asked " (and how do we define torture?)"

I'd define it as causing mental or physical anguish in order to gain information. You know, like what your god did to Job.

Cal Gets His Morality from Fox TV Series

yes Matt: it defies imagination, don't it.

And paradoxically, from Cal it is not surprising.

As they say, You Couldn't Make it Up.

"and how do we define torture?" Indeed. Which is why torture cannot be justified. Since even the experts say that torture is unreliable as a source of information, the only justification left is revenge. In other words, torture can never be justified.

Did you just cite a TV show on FOX as a justification for torture?

If any individual at any given moment feels the nessecity to torture someone for vital information that may save lives, then that person can make that choice, at the moment when that choice is necessary. But it still should not be made legal for the government to torture people to extract information from them.

You may as well say that murder should be made legal, because somewhere, sometime, someone might need to kill someone to avoid something worse happening. But we do not do that; instead, the person who has chosen to take another life is subjected to hearings and a trial, and arguments of self-defense or mitigating circumstances are presented.

I think, now Cal Thomas has shown his true colors, and now, I think of him as not being pitifully misguided, but malevolently immoral, and religiously hypocritical.

Isn't America supposed to be better than her enemies? Can you see George Washington, Abe Lincoln, or heck, John Wayne torturing someone?

Can you see Dick Cheney?

Heavens! Cal is a Moral Relativist

So Cal, the morality of our actions is determined by what other countries do, eh?

If the Germans exterminate Jews, well, darn it, we will just have to hold our nose and exterminate Jews too. Is that the "reasoning" here?

I do suspect that Stephen Colbert is writing Cal's columns.