The Wrong Question

Hello EdByronAdams.

There is no doubt that the media can go overboard with an issue. Any issue that is current. The level that America has tortured enemy combatants is one of the issues that is up for interest and debate.

Is this really the issue that you would want to be taken lightly?

There was a short time ago when the news media floated reports of terrorism suspects being questioned by buxom women in very tight blouses and wondered whether it constituted torture.

In other questions, would desecrating the Koran or smearing a suspect with bacon grease or telling them they would be buried with a pig carcass constitute torture?

Despite many specific US and international legal definitions of torture, Colson and his ilk still keep asking the same questions. Just like with global warming.

If you have to ask, then it is torture. The fact that you continue to debate what torture is an indication of your inability to understand what morality is. Colson may be a political animal, but he is a religious sham.

The question can be resolved simply, whether a particular 'technique' might constitute torture, by subjecting to a practice those who wish to defend it.

I voted for President Bush twice. The first vote was because I thought him the best man for the job. The second was because I felt him the lesser of two evils.

I must say, though, I should have liked to have seen President Bush waterboarded before he were permitted to make his decision. That might have resolved the 'question' very simply.

As for whether it is ever permissible to do evil in order to obtain a good, of course it cannot be morally permitted. People never do anything except they feel on some level that it will bring them some good. Even sociopathic serial murderers kill only because they feel they will receive some benefit, perhaps the 'high' they receive from their wicked exploits. If the good in view justifies the action at hand, then there can never be an unjust action. The moral question is not about good purposes, but about which actions are forbidden, permissible, or obligatory in their pursuit.

To the contrary I assert that actions must themselves be justified on their own terms in view of broader moral principles, and cannot be justified simply by the good ultimately intended.

Torture is always wrong because it is wrong to reduce a person to a mere object, to a means, to obtain some other good, such as the stopping of an enemy plot or the intimidation of enemies. Who will be safe from exploitation once we have decided to permit such things? If we begin to permit torture and other reductions of the human person to a mere instrument, we will never capture and eliminate all of our enemies.

We will become our enemies.

I do not fear death so much that I would prefer to live in a nation of criminals and torturers, hardened and callous to the core. No, better just to die.

What a copout Colson!

Mr. Colson rightly compares acts of bombing of civilians by terrorists with "deliberate and malicious cruelty" committed against a person. Both are acts of terrorism - although he did not say that.

But, he then attempts to divert the discussion by wanting a detail definition of what acts go so far that they will be called torture. That is a little like debating how far a married man can go in making out with someone other than his wife. How far can he go before it really is adultery??? Can he flirt a little? How about holding hands? How about a single kiss? Is it only adultery if there is intercourse? Is it only torture if the person screams - or dies?

If Colson has to ask what torture is, then it shows how morally depraved his position is in the first place.

Colson is still carrying water for the most unsavory, and yes, evil members of the Republican party.

So let's be clear, "Chuck": waterboarding is torture, by any reasonable definition; it's cruel, it's psychologically scarring, and the victim suffers.

And there is no moral justification for it.

"Nor would a loving God countenance deliberate and malicious cruelty inflicted on another.

The real question in war time is what kind of behavior constitutes torture?"
-------------------------------------
I think Paganplace is jumping the gun a bit here. The second paragraph doesn't read, "what kind of behavior constitutes torture in wartime?", it moves War time to the subject. To me, a rewording of this sentence is, "since we are in war time, we need to decided what is and is not torture".

His first paragraph above contains the "kernel" of his definition of torture - and it's that kernel that I have disagreements with. The word, "malicious", has no place in that sentence. Torture is torture whether it occurs because of malice, or whether it is conducted dispassionately.

That's not saying that I think the definition is easy; it's not. I have, reflexively, used the definition of, "I know cruelty when I see it" (and I have loudly decried our country's practices for 5 years). But I think he does have a point. What is "cruel" behavior?

To me, it's actions that restrict the prisoner's freedom of choice and conscience beyond the minimum required to maintain order and security. That's still open to interpretation (which seems reasonable), but its a start. I work with prisoners, and can see an enormous difference in the way different correctional officers treat the residents - and many examples of petty cruelties. In my mind, they all degrade us as a nation, and we should do our best to eliminate them.

Hello lewaml,

That was a very well said post. Thank you for that input. Indeed, may we all stay true to what is truthful and right, and keep the foundation of soul and consciousness clean and pure. The house is sure to be stronger, and a more joyous place, when the foundations of the self and the republic that it resides in is maintained in integrity.

The accomplishment of ANY desired end - no matter how laudable - is NEVER justified when the means employed to accomplish that end are questionable at best. I am a christian and I am sickened to learn, according to a recent Pew Research Poll, that there are many American christians who apparently deem the use of torture appropriate in some instances. It is the torturer who loses his/her own soul and it is an indictment of any society that supports its use as an instrument of public policy. This president has got it exactly right: the use of torture has a corrosive effect on the soul of a nation. Democracy is frequently a messy and inconvenient enterprise. But Lincoln was exactly right, for all time and forever, when he said: " Let us strive to learn that it is right that makes for might." God help us all, if we succumb to the temptation to take some convenient "short cuts" in the search for the "evil doers" and attempts to bring them before the bar of justice. For in the doing, we will have become just like them! The moral high ground is the only viable position for us to take as a nation, seeing as how we have been crowing about our own exceptionalism for a very long time.

Cause, you see, Reverend. Here's how I look at the 'right' question.

I see people like *you* scaring the warm water out of well-intentioned people over political agendas, saying it's 'God,' Jesus,' and 'salvation' from some notion that how you abuse people is some kind of essential human condition.

You try to justify torture in the name of some 'Absolutely jealous and punishing' view of the 'God' that aparently to you *isn't* 'forgiveness,' just *owns it.*

You keep demanding *I* 'repent' of surviving people like you to be here to say 'God'... And even your god, ...is better than that.

*You* repent.

You stole something, and you don't even know what it is.

You just turned it into coercion and marketing for coercion.

Gods know what you do in prisons, but I don't get a vibe of great sincerity there, either.

*You* fricking 'repent.' I have done *nothing* I would fear your God or Jesus about if I *believed* it. But there you are, spreading the idea people should hate me, but fear ...not-'justifying'-torturing people?

Sweet Goddess of Liberty, Reverend.

One thing I always like to quip about being a Pagan is never having to regret having but one life to give for your country.

Any number of lives spent in the pursuit of the notion that a nation need not torture people, ...even come near it...

Isn't that worth even *one* lifetime?

You seem to think the world's ending over someone in New York being gay, anyway, but ...don't you think...

Don't you think that even *just one* life in *one* nation, dedicated to a notion that *people should not be even *debateably* tortured....

Don't you think that even your jealous desert God ...if his essence really *is* Love and whatever passes for Reason... wouldn't quirk a *little* smile at we mortals, however foolishly, renouncing *institutionalized cruelty?*

Just a *little?*

Reverend?

Speaker of the 'holy?'

After all these historical Charlie Foxtrots doing it 'your' way, ....if you're going to have so much the problem with me not having the same 'rights' as you, I know you believe you have only one life on this Earth, but however many ...Isn't... The notion of one nation, in all times and places, that says *no*... Even without kowtowing...

Even if it's a little risky. Even if a devilish 'terrorist' might just kill any one of us....

Even if the Fundie God comes and wipes us all out cause it'll make someone feel better...

Isn't it *worth a try,* Reverend?

By my Gods and yours, isn't it *worth a try?*

The idea of 'God' you speak here is crass, and no one believes you anymore.

So *you* repent. You never got it, anyway.

"This is particularly disgusting, coming from an individual who has supposedly given his life in service to Jesus, probably the most famous victim of torture."

Can't say I'm willing to accept that the man's been 'serving Jesus' in any sort of positive sense, if it was 'servants' and kings' the dude was looking for in the first place, ...but, I find myself in a peculiar position as a Pagan where I have some ancestors that *did* dedicate their lives to maybe figuring there was something better than *Colson* in it.

Kind of *used* to people spitting on *me* as an American, but he's also spitting on my Christian ancestors as Christians.

*waving finger around.* No, Reverend. You wanna mess with someone with your Orwellian stuff...

*pointing right between my eyebrows.*

You deal with me.

Don't put words in the mouths of people I know knew better.

Don't think a whole lot of Christianity as an authority, sir. But I know for a *fact* it's better than you act.

This is particularly disgusting, coming from an individual who has supposedly given his life in service to Jesus, probably the most famous victim of torture. Although I'm no longer a believer, the lessons of my Christian upbringing assure me that Mr. Colson is completely wrong in his assertions, and that he has strayed far from the flock he professes to belong to.

Just think..In 2009 we are having a discussion about if Torture is right or wrong.Worse is the manipulation of the law to change the deffintion of the meaning of torture.So is torture wrong?of course it is..It is a barbaric act and brings society back to like medieval days..The United States does not torture plain and simple..The goverment that changed the laws to allow torture clearly leagaly seperated from the united states to from a government in which laws were manipulated to support their agenda.This can never be allowed..What happens if one innocent person was tortured..How shameful is that.Thats why there are laws in place for fair justice and why laws cannot be tweaked and manipulated to support an agenda..All this is the ugly side of war and the damage it does to society..A eye for an eye concept was abolished a long time ago and United States was suppose to be a leader in the worlds society to bring the law to fairness..So what happened?Power,Money Greed,Control ..the same old stuff ..so the question is not if torture is justifiable..the question is hasnt mankind learned one blasted thing over time..,so I propose all world leaders go back to kindergarden to start over..in schooling of history,manner,morals,and how to play nice with one another. God is love..anything else is imaturity ...

Mr. Colson,

This is a particularly cowardly paper. If you do not want to answer the question directly, why respond at all? All this proves is that you are avoiding the obvious, for apparently obvious reasons. Have a nut, if you are going to join a dialogue on how to crack a nutcase.

You seem to be one. You are consistent, I have to admit. Good for you!

One question might be, based on some of the information that we have gleaned from American 'torture' techniques, is "would a loving God countenance" those behaviors done by our 'intelligence officers' and military?

I know you are a lover of the Old Testament and draw from that source for actions to take "in time of war". Given those stories I am sure that we could "countenance" a huge array of 'information gathering techniques'. But how can one do so, if one is a lover of Jesus?

Whether we are at war or not is inconsequential in my view, particularly if looked at through the lens of the New Testament. But none of this matters anyway. Forget religious dogma and conditioning. This is America. This is an insult to the heart and soul of the credo that is America.

How can you suggest otherwise?

We do not need to banter semantics and factualities of definitions of "torture". Lay definitions have never been necessary for theological input. Religions love to be THE determiner of 'correct' perception and are fast to do so in most cases.

You refuse to have the courage to state you heart, which is that torture is just fine for America to use in it's own defense. Especially in time of war and against the infidel Muslim.

But then to say that you would have to bring a nut to the party, and crack that puppy open for all to see.

CHARLES COLSON

You asked, "The real question in war time is what kind of behavior constitutes torture?"

Torture is torture whether it is "war time", "peace time" or "anytime", don't you think?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I mean, you know, Reverend, I hate to get *picky* or non-bipartisan about it, but, yaknow, I have this wacky idea I'm kind of attached to, where, for the 'good guys' to 'win,' there's a bit of not-becoming-the-bad guys involved.

"This is the wrong question. A loving God does not condone the brutality of detonating bombs in crowds to kill civilians. Nor would a loving God countenance deliberate and malicious cruelty inflicted on another.

The real question in war time is what kind of behavior constitutes torture? "

How about, for a working definition, oh, I dunno, deliberate and malicious infliction of cruelty upon another?

That work for you, sporto? :)

'Time of 'war' doesn't change what torture is. Or what it does.

If what your pious boys in the White House did and weaseled around definitions about was so *ok* ... Why couldn't we see?

If it's so upstanding, it should be out in the open, right?

You know, it's really funny how absolutist you can be about who I snuggle with, but figure I guess your God gives some leeway on tying people down and near-drowning them all afternoon.