Torture/Waterboarding: Discussion/Debate Thread

[anitram]

I can't read their minds and dig down dig into their innermost psyche, but the vast majority here do not seem to weigh the Bible into any of their political opinions, and those that do are regularly taken down a peg.

I don't even know what to say to that.

First of all, even for most Christians (ie. Catholics), the Bible is not the final authority. Second, most of this planet reasonably does not "seem to weigh the Bible into any of their political opinions" because they are not Christian to begin with! Do you think there are no Jews, Buddhists, Hindus here?

 

[martha]

Do you think there are no Jews, Buddhists, Hindus here?

They don't count anyway.

 

[LemonMelon]

I don't even know what to say to that.

First of all, even for most Christians (ie. Catholics), the Bible is not the final authority. Second, most of this planet reasonably does not "seem to weigh the Bible into any of their political opinions" because they are not Christian to begin with! Do you think there are no Jews,
Buddhists, Hindus here?

Nope, didn't think of that when I first wrote my post. Probably should have. Was a bit hasty there, sorry.

I still maintain that using the Bible to defend your point is essentially worthless on this forum (especially since the majority will not share your faith anyway) and I'm curious of why people continue to do so. That was my original point, anyway.

 

[martha]

Two things I find very interesting in this thread:

1. The liberals twisting the arms of the religious by throwing their own book back in their face, even though doing so makes very little sense and will accomplish nothing but stir the pot.

You mean like every time the "liberals" discuss something and we get the Bible used as the final authority for secular law?

And since when do conservatives get to be the only ones who are "religious"?

 

[martha]

I still maintain that using the Bible to defend your point is essentially worthless on this forum (especially since the majority will not share your faith anyway) and I'm curious of why people continue to do so. That was my original point, anyway.

I wanted to know how Christians could so whole-heartedly support torture, when it goes against everything Jesus stood for. I think the answers have been interesting.

 

[LemonMelon]

You mean like every time the "liberals" discuss something and we get the Bible used as the final authority for secular law?

And since when do conservatives get to be the only ones who are "religious"?

Nope, didn't think of that when I first wrote my post. Probably should have. Was a bit hasty there, sorry.

I still maintain that using the Bible to defend your point is essentially worthless on this forum (especially since the majority will not share your faith anyway) and I'm curious of why people continue to do so. That was my original point, anyway.

Claiming that only those who share faith in the same God as me are religious was a ridiculous point, and I'm sorry. But the rest stands.

 

[LemonMelon]

I wanted to know how Christians could so whole-heartedly support torture, when it goes against everything Jesus stood for. I think the answers have been interesting.

Interesting, maybe. But there is an element of arm-twisting to it as well. Besides, "whole-heartedly" makes it sound as if they enjoy it or something similarly sadistic.

Keep in mind that I agree with you in this area, but I'm just not sure if that particular debating tactic is entirely productive.

 

[anitram]

I still maintain that using the Bible to defend your point is essentially worthless on this forum (especially since the majority will not share your faith anyway) and I'm curious of why people continue to do so. That was my original point, anyway.

I actually agree with you 100%.

I have no idea why we're talking about any of this in here. I have no idea why we constantly have to talk about religion when it comes to almost any kind of political discussion. We debate these same issues abroad, outside of the US, without ever resorting to the Bible. If is certainly possible, and frankly it elevates the discourse to something far more intelligent and far less emotional.

 

[LemonMelon]

I actually agree with you 100%.

I have no idea why we're talking about any of this in here. I have no idea why we constantly have to talk about religion when it comes to almost any kind of political discussion. We debate these same issues abroad, outside of the US, without ever resorting to the Bible. If is certainly possible, and frankly it elevates the discourse to something far more intelligent and far less emotional.

"Separation of church and state" is not yet a reality in this country, though we preach it regularly.

I wouldn't think Jesus would torture anyone, I really wouldn't, but it's hard to tell when the entire OT preaches a gospel of "do whatever it takes" in the area of warfare. It just seems to me like people have been trying to guilt the religious into agreeing with them by bringing it up. Please tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Diemen]

It's not so much trying to guilt as trying to bring up a bit of hypocrisy in some who were taking up the pro-torture position in this thread. I personally can't find a way to reconcile a faith in Christianity with this topic at hand, and so I brought it up (admittedly not in the most refined way).

Ultimately, I would much rather not have religion enter the dialogue as often as it does here and I do believe that the argument against torture can be quite convincingly made without bringing religion into it (just see Irvine's response to Indy a page back for an eloquent example), but I thought it was an important point to bring up considering that some of the people arguing in favor of torturing are also those who on other issues have essentially argued for turning Christian beliefs into law.

 

[martha]

but I thought it was an important point to bring up considering that some of the people arguing in favor of torturing are also those who on other issues have essentially argued for turning Christian beliefs into law.

Exactly.

 

[martha]

But there is an element of arm-twisting to it as well.

As there is in abortion threads and gay marriage threads, but then the shoe is on the other foot and fits just fine.

 

[phillyfan26]

I still haven't seen a legitimate response to the point that you don't know if you're interrogating a terrorist and to the point that it doesn't work.

 

[yolland]

I wouldn't think Jesus would torture anyone, I really wouldn't, but it's hard to tell when the entire OT preaches a gospel of "do whatever it takes" in the area of warfare.

In the US at least, and I'm pretty sure internationally as well, the overwhelming majority of rabbis consider torture to be in violation of halakha (Jewish law). I only know of 2 American rabbis who've written halakhic arguments supporting torture as an option, whereas more than 700 have authored responsa against it. All three of the US denominations which have their own rabbinical assemblies (Reconstructionist, Reform and Conservative) have officially ruled that torture is halakhically forbidden, as well.

Not that that's likely to be of much interest from a Christian standpoint on how to read the Bible, since the above decisions are based on Jewish law sourcetexts specifically (i.e., the legal portions of our scriptures + the Talmud), not on narrative scriptural passages. Just sayin'...

 

[phillyfan26]

As Lewis Black said, "The Old Testament's our book."

 

[Irvine511]

I just found the way people were debating this very strange.

oh, i agree. i don't give a shit what the bible has to say about most things, and one of the many reasons why is because of the crazy justifications for abhorrent behavior people draw from this book. does a loving God drown the world? you'll notice that someone brought up the "flood" as a justification for killing, and it wasn't an atheist liberal. so i think your eyeroll was a bit misplaced.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Can you actually tell me who these atheist liberals on FYM are?

I've been around here for a while and among regular participants I don't even know if I could come up with more than 5. And the most outspoken atheist here is no liberal to begin with.

Whatever do you mean, I am anti-conservative and therefore a librul.

 

[U2DMfan]

A_W, you're such a classic liberal.

 

[U2DMfan]

I still haven't seen a legitimate response to the point that you don't know if you're interrogating a terrorist and to the point that it doesn't work.

Maybe I don't understand what the specific argument is all about but what about Khalid Sheikh Muhammed?

He's an admitted terrorist, he's the master planner (or was) of our greatest threat in the U.S..

If I'm torturing KSM, I know I'm interrogating or torturing a terrorist.

Same with Ramzi Yusef or some others.

Once you pull out a gun, shoot someone, and then proclaim "I did it and I'll do it again" the whole principle of 'presumption of innocence' goes out the window.

I agree that it usually doesn't work and (like the death penalty) I oppose it in 99% of the cases. I'm just saying, this idea that you can't tell who a terrorist is, is flimsy. If you're talking about the prisoners at Gitmo, then yes you're right on the money. If we're talking about known, admitted, habitual terrorists, this just gives people like diamond fodder for their "liberals hate America" cannon. Also, I watched the 60 minutes episode where the CIA agent admitted it had worked in at least one case he worked on. So we can't fully say that it never works.

I appreciate the argument that someone should oppose torture in 100% of the cases, on principle. I'm saying I disagree. In real world scenarios, I can see a <1% chance we might need it.

it is something I've wrestled with myself.
Not a faith based quandry but a question of principle.

 

[maycocksean]

I really don't see why it's such a crime for people of faith to consider their faith in taking a stand on issues like this. That in no way compels people who aren't religion to approach it from that angle.

This issue can be--and has been, on this thread--argued from multiple perspectives. What's so hard about that?

As if, bringing up religion automatically "lowers the discourse" Please.

Obviously I wouldn't waste my time arguing with A_Wanderer, for example, about what the Bible says. But with INDY or 2861 you better believe I will.

Obviously, legislation needs to be made without reference to particular religious beliefs but in challenging and INDIVIDUAL'S stance on an issue, it is TOTALLY legitamte to invoke religion if the person in question is religious.

 

[Vincent Vega]

^I agree with you there.

 

[phillyfan26]

Maybe I don't understand what the specific argument is all about but what about Khalid Sheikh Muhammed?

He's an admitted terrorist, he's the master planner (or was) of our greatest threat in the U.S..

If I'm torturing KSM, I know I'm interrogating or torturing a terrorist.

Same with Ramzi Yusef or some others.

Once you pull out a gun, shoot someone, and then proclaim "I did it and I'll do it again" the whole principle of 'presumption of innocence' goes out the window.

I agree that it usually doesn't work and (like the death penalty) I oppose it in 99% of the cases. I'm just saying, this idea that you can't tell who a terrorist is, is flimsy. If you're talking about the prisoners at Gitmo, then yes you're right on the money. If we're talking about known, admitted, habitual terrorists, this just gives people like diamond fodder for their "liberals hate America" cannon. Also, I watched the 60 minutes episode where the CIA agent admitted it had worked in at least one case he worked on. So we can't fully say that it never works.

I appreciate the argument that someone should oppose torture in 100% of the cases, on principle. I'm saying I disagree. In real world scenarios, I can see a <1% chance we might need it.

it is something I've wrestled with myself.
Not a faith based quandry but a question of principle.

The problem is that we have no system in place to judge "how certain" we are that a person is a terrorist. It's sort of like the death penalty arguments. People are trying to rate how certain they are that someone's guilty. It can't work like that. Inevitably, they will be wrong.

 

[martha]

If I'm torturing KSM, I know I'm interrogating or torturing a terrorist.

Which puts you, and those you work for (US citizens), squarely on the same level as the terrorist.

 

[INDY500]

You posted so very much supporting and excusing the use of torture, then said you weren't condoning it.

It's either yes or no. You either think it's appropriate conduct or you don't. No excuses, no hypotheticals, no "everybody else does it," no nothing.

I'm gonna take another crack at this and address Sean as well.

Let's agree for a moment on what torture is, that it's repugnant, that it coarsens the heart and that it sends society down a slippery slope of accepting more and more of what was previously unacceptable. Agreed?

One, but what if we can't agree on a definition of torture?
And two, if we seek to restrict or even outright ban the practice, should we allow for exceptions?
Those are fair questions aren't they?

Now realize that a great many people feel the exact same way about abortion.

But by the same token, what if we can't agree on a definition of life?
And again, if we seek to restrict or even outright ban the practice, should we allow for exceptions?
Equally fair questions?

Bottom line.
We don't have a consensus on what is, and isn't torture, and
I don't feel I "condone," "support," or "excuse" torture -- simply because I can see the need for highly-restricted exceptions -- anymore than I condone, support or excuse abortion because, there as well, I acknowledge that exceptions must be allowed for in any restriction.

I don't know if that helps or not?

 

[BVS]

Obviously I wouldn't waste my time arguing with A_Wanderer, for example, about what the Bible says. But with INDY or 2861 you better believe I will.

Obviously, legislation needs to be made without reference to particular religious beliefs but in challenging and INDIVIDUAL'S stance on an issue, it is TOTALLY legitamte to invoke religion if the person in question is religious.

Exactly. I don't think anyone was arguing against torture using faith in a legislative way. But just questioning the consistancy of someone who uses faith in almost every other thread.

There are those that bring up their faith in every other thread. They want their faith to be legislated when it comes to marriage, when it comes to teaching science, they want it in the courthouses, some even bring it up when it comes to global warming, BUT then all of a sudden their moral compass shuts off and faith can't be used when talking about torture?

It's very telling. To me it's a screwy compass and poor alignment of priorities.

Two women loving each other makes Jesus cry(even though he never mentioned such thing).

Torture, Jesus is cool with(even though he did speak out against).

How does this hypocrisy make sense?

 

[anitram]

As if, bringing up religion automatically "lowers the discourse" Please.

Sorry Sean, but in this case it absolutely does. Roll your eyes all you want.

There is one person here, Irvine, arguing actual facts and statistics - that torture does not and has not worked. In fact, it is the crux of John McCain's argument (but I guess conservatives now hate him?) as well. THIS is what the discourse should be about. Because at the end of the day, whatever Jesus may or may not think - and frankly like I said, predicting what Jesus would do is the sort of arrogance we could all stand to do without - nothing changes the fact that torture is just inefficient and brings about bad information.

But instead we're going to debate back and forth Biblical passages with people who are set in their ways anyway and will not change. And nobody except the one guy is actually bothering to point out why it is precisely that torture doesn't work. You bet that to me, this is a lowering of the discourse. It is exactly the same thing as when we were debating cloning here and half the people were quoting scripture without even knowing what the hell cloning is and the fact that it's been done for decades and the fact that it's singlehandedly responsible for essentially all medical research being done.

 

[maycocksean]

Sorry Sean, but in this case it absolutely does. Roll your eyes all you want.

There is one person here, Irvine, arguing actual facts and statistics - that torture does not and has not worked. In fact, it is the crux of John McCain's argument (but I guess conservatives now hate him?) as well. THIS is what the discourse should be about. Because at the end of the day, whatever Jesus may or may not think - and frankly like I said, predicting what Jesus would do is the sort of arrogance we could all stand to do without - nothing changes the fact that torture is just inefficient and brings about bad information.

But instead we're going to debate back and forth Biblical passages with people who are set in their ways anyway and will not change. And nobody except the one guy is actually bothering to point out why it is precisely that torture doesn't work. You bet that to me, this is a lowering of the discourse. It is exactly the same thing as when we were debating cloning here and half the people were quoting scripture without even knowing what the hell cloning is and the fact that it's been done for decades and the fact that it's singlehandedly responsible for essentially all medical research being done.

Not everyone who believes in the Bible is set in their ways and unwilling to change. Not by a long shot. I maintain it is NOT unreasonable--especially among Protestants for whom Biblical authoritity is a big deal--to discuss Biblical or faith perspectives with other people who share the same outlook.

I would concede that people who aren't that interested in the Bible using the Bible to try force people to admitt their hypocrisy is probably a fruitless endeavor.

I recognize the strength of Irvine's arguments--they are excellent on a secular level, but I'd also point out to people of faith that there is no serious counterargument from a position of faith either. So in that case, maybe we agree. Religion shouldn't enter into it, because religion doesn't have a pro-torture argument (well, actually it does, but nobody dared to actually put that forward--well, besides me. And it wasn't put forward because it reveals the ugliness of the God a lot of people believe in).

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Associated Press / February 7, 2008

WASHINGTON - The White House yesterday defended the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding, saying it is legal - not torture as critics argue - and has saved American lives.

President Bush could authorize waterboarding for future terrorism suspects if certain criteria are met, a spokesman said.

A day earlier, the Bush administration acknowledged publicly for the first time that the tactic was used by US government questioners on three terror suspects. Testifying before Congress, CIA Director Michael Hayden said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were waterboarded in 2002 and 2003.

Waterboarding involves strapping a suspect down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning.

It has been traced back hundreds of years, to the Spanish Inquisition, and is condemned by nations around the world.

Hayden banned the technique in 2006 for CIA interrogations, the Pentagon has banned its employees from using it, and FBI Director Robert Mueller said his investigators do not use coercive tactics in interviewing terror suspects.

Senate Democrats demanded a criminal investigation after Hayden's disclosure.

Bush personally authorized Hayden's testimony, White House deputy spokesman Tony Fratto said.

"There's been a lot written out there - newspaper, magazine articles, some of it misinformation," Fratto said. "And so the consensus was that on this one particular technique that these officials would have the opportunity to address them - in not just a public setting, but in a setting in front of members of Congress, and to be very clear about how those techniques were used and what the benefits were of them."

Fratto said CIA interrogators could use waterboarding again, but would need the president's approval to do so. That approval would "depend on the circumstances," with one important factor being "belief that an attack might be imminent," Fratto said. Appropriate members of Congress would be notified in such a case, he said.

"The president will listen to the considered judgment of the professionals in the intelligence community and the judgment of the attorney general in terms of the legal consequences of employing a particular technique," he said. "The president will listen to his advisers and make a determination."

Fratto said waterboarding's use in the past was also approved by the attorney general, meaning it was legal and not torture.

Officials fear calling waterboarding torture or illegal could expose government employees to criminal or civil charges or even international war crimes charges.

"Every enhanced technique that has been used by the Central Intelligence Agency for this program was brought to the Department of Justice and they made a determination that its use under specific circumstances and with safeguards was lawful," Fratto said.

Critics say waterboarding has been outlawed under the UN's Convention Against Torture, which prohibits treatment resulting in long-term physical or mental damage.

They also say it should be recognized as banned under the US 2006 Military Commissions Act, which prohibits treatment of terror suspects that is described as "cruel, inhuman, and degrading."

The act, however, does not explicitly prohibit waterboarding by name.

 

[diamond]

Associated Press / February 7, 2008

WASHINGTON - The White House yesterday defended the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding, saying it is legal - not torture as critics argue - and has saved American lives.

i rest my case.

dbs

 

[U2isthebest]

i rest my case.

dbs

Impressive. This White House apparently also thought it was ok to deceptively lead our country into a war based on lies and, in effect, sent thousands of young soldiers to their deaths. I don't think too many people are putting a lot of stock into what comes out of the mouths of those in the White House these days.