Torture

[asdf]

1. It's illegal.
2. It's immoral.
3. It leads to bad intelligence, corrupts good intelligence, and confessions stemmed from torture are inadmissible in court.
4. It damages respect and rapport for the US abroad, both among allies and enemies.
5. It puts our troops in greater danger of being tortured when they are captured as POWs.
6. It damages our credibility to condemn torture when done by other regimes.
7. It disrespects the humanity of all involved - the torturer, the victim, and the leadership and society that gives its approval.

Questions? Comments? Ideas for what should be done to repair the damage done by those in the US government who authorized torture?

[MacG]

Originally Posted by asdf

1. It's illegal.
2. It's immoral.
3. It leads to bad intelligence, corrupts good intelligence, and confessions stemmed from torture are inadmissible in court.
4. It damages respect and rapport for the US abroad, both among allies and enemies.
5. It puts our troops in greater danger of being tortured when they are captured as POWs.
6. It damages our credibility to condemn torture when done by other regimes.
7. It disrespects the humanity of all involved - the torturer, the victim, and the leadership and society that gives its approval.

Questions? Comments? Ideas for what should be done to repair the damage done by those in the US government who authorized torture?

Defining torture is subjective. We have cruel and unusual punishment laws on the books that were written when things like draw and quartering (pulling a guy apart by ropes and 4 horses) were around. So we invented humane ways of execution that were less painful. Then some one reads about cruel and unusual and the point of reference is the current humane way (long forgetting about buried alive with your head exposed in the desert waiting for the animals and insects to come around) and it gets labeled inhumane so it changes to a new relative humane. I just watched the Discovery Channel's Machines of Malice and I got to tell a little water boarding on 3 individuals it not so bad compare and see. Remember the Governments are set in place by God and does not bear the sword in vain. This is one of the hardest truths for me to get a grasp on in the Bible.

MacG

[asdf]

Originally Posted by MacG

Defining torture is subjective.

To an extent that's correct; determining the exact delineation where cruel treatment crosses the line into torture is a bit fuzzy. Which is why most of the time when it's defined, such as the Geneva Conventions or the UN Convention on Torture, it is phrased as "torture and other inhumane treatment or punishment".

With regard to some of the specific techniques authorized by the US government - beatings, forced nudity, forced standing, stress positions, exposure to heat and extreme cold to the point of hypothermia, religious and sexual desecration, controlled drowning, etc. - these things are, and always have been, torture.

We have cruel and unusual punishment laws on the books that were written when things like draw and quartering (pulling a guy apart by ropes and 4 horses) were around. So we invented humane ways of execution that were less painful. Then some one reads about cruel and unusual and the point of reference is the current humane way (long forgetting about buried alive with your head exposed in the desert waiting for the animals and insects to come around) and it gets labeled inhumane so it changes to a new relative humane.

One, we're not talking about punishment - torture was ostensibly used in conjunction with interrogation. Two, this was not connected with any specific crimes - the victims of the US system of torture had not been convicted of anything, and their habeus corpus rights had been suspended so they couldn't even request to know why they were detained.

I just watched the Discovery Channel's Machines of Malice and I got to tell a little water boarding on 3 individuals it not so bad compare and see.

"Not as bad as..." the most horrible torture devices ever invented is not a very good heuristic for determining the morality of a course of action.

And to waterboard a person 183 times over the course of a month, after he had been cooperative with interrogators, is actually pretty bad.

Remember the Governments are set in place by God and does not bear the sword in vain. This is one of the hardest truths for me to get a grasp on in the Bible.

MacG

You have to remember that those who wrote those words were the persecuted, not the persecutors. To use those verses in support of the government carrying out immoral acts is to get it entirely upside-down. The scriptures were written to comfort those who were being repressed and victimized by a cruel, godless regime - to know that ultimately, God is in control and it was [his] place to vindicate [his] people.

Shalom,
asdf

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

1. 1
2. It's illegal.
   2
3. It's immoral.
   3
4. It leads to bad intelligence, corrupts good intelligence, and confessions stemmed from torture are inadmissible in court.
   4
5. It damages respect and rapport for the US abroad, both among allies and enemies.
   5
6. It puts our troops in greater danger of being tortured when they are captured as POWs.
   6
7. It damages our credibility to condemn torture when done by other regimes.
   7
8. It disrespects the humanity of all involved - the torturer, the victim, and the leadership and society that gives its approval.

Questions? Comments? Ideas for what should be done to repair the damage done by those in the US government who authorized torture?

Torture: 1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin tortra, from Latin tortus, past participle of torqure, to twist; see terkw- in Indo-European roots

http://education.yahoo.com/reference.../entry/torture


1) Legal is your hot topic. Countries all different in what is legal or not at different periods of time. So saying it is not legal is a matter of what time you are referencing. It is not legal under Obama, but was legal under Truman or FDR is a matter of jurisdiction. Hence, if something was done legally under Bush, it should not be tried as illegal under Obama.

2) immoral. I would submit that some "torture" is not "torture" at all in the minds of most people when contrasting torture methods of the past. I.e. the Vietnamese pulling fingernails, Saddam using batteries on prisoner's genitalia, and a whole load of other such things. Typically, I viewed torture to be anything that actually permanently alter's the bodies appearance or damages any of its functions. I do not think Water Boarding permanently harmed or disfigured those terrorists that were subject to it. Obama not releasing the effects of the Water Boarding, in its prevention of other terroritists plots, is therefore just as immoral for withholding the truth to the American public. If he wants transparentcy in terms of releasing our methods to the world, he should be just as transparent to what it accomplished.

3) If you treat terror as a crime it is admissible only when the methods are presently illegal, if you treat it as civilian combatants, it is different. Again, we should see the results to see whether its intelligence was of value or not.

4) which is why Obama should never have released the information in the first place.

5) I am a soldier. I will tell you that the terrorists have no concern for POW treatment, they are not under the Geneva Convention. I wonder how many naive "human shields" that went to Iraq during the onset of the war there came to realize that Saddam was not a nice person after all when he was positioning them in areas of sites that were blatant violations of U.N. resolutions. I have seen the worst of the worst in the detainee camps, and believe me their hatred for American troops does not dissipate because of Water Boarding. They would still do to the troops whatever they intended if we were captured.

6) really, do other regimes Water Board? I mean when we invaded Saddam, did you not see and hear the stories of the types of torture he used? Do you see us doing the same as Iran when they captured the British Navy sailors and was parading them in their State run media for purpose of propoganda. I do not see this happening in the US. You need some real comparisons between the regimes.

7) back to results and the legality during the time of the interviews and advanced interigations techniques. The terrorists had no concern for humanity when they rammed two commercial jets into the Twin Towers, and the third into the Pentagon, not to mention the fourth that crashed and who knows where it was intended--White House?

If the techniques were authorized in a legal manner, absolutely nothing. If you want to change, change policy and quit looking at the past. It harms our own intelligence gathering when they have to fear litigation within the US from balancing it with doing their ***s with our real enemies.

[Columcille]

I have only one thing to add in terms of torture. One of the comforts I have, from the Scriptures, is that God is in the end going to be the divine judge of all our actions. I would hope that Christians, even in death and in life, would be examples to those terrorists even if they become a POW. We should pray for them as well, so that they will eventually come to know Christ and we can rejoice with them even while on earth we suffer from the hands of others. Since the OP is concerned with more political aspects, I thought a spiritual answer also needs to be addressed since this is a Christian site in honor of the late Dr. Martin. No political answer is ever going to wipe the problems of human nature's corruption. In the history of human politics, it has never been attained, nor shall it ever. Utopia is "no place." Only the Kingdom of God that resides in the potential of the believer is a perfect society to be found and it will be realized when Christ comes again. I have considered this angle recently in terms of the "ontological argument" for God's existence. It is easier for people to imagine a perfect society since politics has become its own religion for the athiest and secular humanist and so they attempt to perfect our society by their participation.

I am not saying that the political competing voices and actions are not profitable, but in our daily experiences I find it less relevant. I, as a soldier, have more opportunity in encountering our enemies and treating them disrespectfully than most people that will come here. As such, I am under Uniform Code of Military Justice and Geneva Convention rules and regulations. I am not a CIA operative and so my level of interaction is also limited. However, I am a Christian and I have a higher law in God to consider. Even the UCMJ tells me not to obey an unlawful order, but an order and a legal law is not the same. Anyways, I find mutulating the body to be torture, and so long as evidence of the terrorists are substantial, i.e. fingerprints on IEDs, and other such evidences, their lack of sanc***y of human life puts their own comfort at jeopardy when dealing with en***ies they consider to be their enemy and vice versa.

[asdf]

I must say, knowing you're a military man, I had hoped for more from you. I'm thoroughly disappointed. I had hoped we could come to agree on this, if not anything else.

Originally Posted by Columcille

Torture: 1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin tortra, from Latin tortus, past participle of torqure, to twist; see terkw- in Indo-European roots

http://education.yahoo.com/reference.../entry/torture

That's a good start. I'd also like to add that most definitions include non-physical pain, as in the second definition from your link: "Excruciating physical or mental pain".

1) Legal is your hot topic. Countries all different in what is legal or not at different periods of time. So saying it is not legal is a matter of what time you are referencing. It is not legal under Obama, but was legal under Truman or FDR is a matter of jurisdiction. Hence, if something was done legally under Bush, it should not be tried as illegal under Obama.

What was done legally under Bush should not be tried as illegal under Obama. That's fair.

Can you tell me what laws have changed with regards to torture since Obama took office?

2) immoral. I would submit that some "torture" is not "torture" at all in the minds of most people when contrasting torture methods of the past. I.e. the Vietnamese pulling fingernails, Saddam using batteries on prisoner's genitalia, and a whole load of other such things. Typically, I viewed torture to be anything that actually permanently alter's the bodies appearance or damages any of its functions. I do not think Water Boarding permanently harmed or disfigured those terrorists that were subject to it. Obama not releasing the effects of the Water Boarding, in its prevention of other terroritists plots, is therefore just as immoral for withholding the truth to the American public. If he wants transparentcy in terms of releasing our methods to the world, he should be just as transparent to what it accomplished.

"What it accomplished" should be irrelevant, since the ends never justify the means. But we can go there if you'd like. I've found two former Army interrogators who have said it doesn't work, and none of the photographs or memos that have been released have convincingly said otherwise.

Also, as I said to MacG, "not as bad as" is a poor heuristic in determining morality.

3) If you treat terror as a crime it is admissible only when the methods are presently illegal, if you treat it as civilian combatants, it is different. Again, we should see the results to see whether its intelligence was of value or not.

You're conflating two questions here: a) is it a crime? and b) does it work?

For a), the US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention on Torture, both of which condemn torture and other inhumane treatment, regardless of the status of the enemy - whether combatants or noncombatants. The US cons***ution clearly states that the conventions to which we are signatories are binding on US citizens.

For b), no evidence so far has indicated that any useful, actionable intelligence was gained through torture that could not have been gained through traditional means of interrogation. Again, with the torture of KSM, he was waterboarded 183 times over the course of a month, after he had already been cooperating with interrogators.

4) which is why Obama should never have released the information in the first place.

Excuse me? That's absurd! Suppressing the truth about what happened, and how it was authorized, is not the way to gain the respect and trust of others. Don't shift the blame from those who committed the action to those who brought the action to light.

5) I am a soldier. I will tell you that the terrorists have no concern for POW treatment, they are not under the Geneva Convention...

"Not as bad as..." again. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's never been the determining factor for determining the UCMJ or other guidelines for the behavior of US military and intelligence services.

6) really, do other regimes Water Board?

Yes. Yes they have. Waterboarding was developed by the Spanish inquisition and used by the Khmer Rouge and other regimes.

I mean when we invaded Saddam, did you not see and hear the stories of the types of torture he used? Do you see us doing the same as Iran when they captured the British Navy sailors and was parading them in their State run media for purpose of propoganda. I do not see this happening in the US. You need some real comparisons between the regimes.

"Not as bad as." The US has executed as war criminals people who have tortured using the methods authorized by the previous administration.

7) back to results and the legality during the time of the interviews

No. Point 7 is decidedly a moral argument, not a utilitarian or legal one: it disrespects the humanity of all involved - the torturer, the victim, and the leadership and society that gives its approval. Perhaps it should be combined with point 2.

and advanced interigations techniques

Not to go Godwin on you, but the Nazis developed the euphemism "enhanced interrogation" for torture. We executed at Nuremburg some who were guilty of verschaerfte Vernehmung.

The terrorists had no concern for humanity when they rammed two commercial jets into the Twin Towers, and the third into the Pentagon, not to mention the fourth that crashed and who knows where it was intended--White House?

Back to NABA (Not As Bad As). How long will others' evil actions be used to justify our own?

If the techniques were authorized in a legal manner, absolutely nothing.

A lawyer writes a memo saying that torture is legal (if it conforms to such-and-such limitations). The law itself hasn't changed.

If you want to change, change policy and quit looking at the past.

I agree. If you want the US to change, to overthrow over 200 years' tradition of not mistreating and torturing detainees, do it in the open. Formally withdraw from the UN and Geneva Conventions. Don't just decide that we can ignore them at our leisure.

It harms our own intelligence gathering when they have to fear litigation within the US from balancing it with doing their ***s with our real enemies.

I agree that low-level operatives should not fear prosecution for an illegal and immoral top-down order. If anyone should be prosecuted, it should be those in authority who authorized the torture. (And, for the record, I am open to other plans of action besides prosecution, such as a South African-style Truth Commission)

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I have only one thing to add in terms of torture. One of the comforts I have, from the Scriptures, is that God is in the end going to be the divine judge of all our actions. I would hope that Christians, even in death and in life, would be examples to those terrorists even if they become a POW. We should pray for them as well, so that they will eventually come to know Christ and we can rejoice with them even while on earth we suffer from the hands of others. Since the OP is concerned with more political aspects, I thought a spiritual answer also needs to be addressed since this is a Christian site in honor of the late Dr. Martin. No political answer is ever going to wipe the problems of human nature's corruption. In the history of human politics, it has never been attained, nor shall it ever. Utopia is "no place." Only the Kingdom of God that resides in the potential of the believer is a perfect society to be found and it will be realized when Christ comes again. I have considered this angle recently in terms of the "ontological argument" for God's existence. It is easier for people to imagine a perfect society since politics has become its own religion for the athiest and secular humanist and so they attempt to perfect our society by their participation.

I am not saying that the political competing voices and actions are not profitable, but in our daily experiences I find it less relevant. I, as a soldier, have more opportunity in encountering our enemies and treating them disrespectfully than most people that will come here. As such, I am under Uniform Code of Military Justice and Geneva Convention rules and regulations. I am not a CIA operative and so my level of interaction is also limited. However, I am a Christian and I have a higher law in God to consider. Even the UCMJ tells me not to obey an unlawful order, but an order and a legal law is not the same. Anyways, I find mutulating the body to be torture, and so long as evidence of the terrorists are substantial, i.e. fingerprints on IEDs, and other such evidences, their lack of sanc***y of human life puts their own comfort at jeopardy when dealing with en***ies they consider to be their enemy and vice versa.

Thanks for these thoughts. This is somewhat what I was trying to get at with point 7. Torture disrespects the humanity of all involved - the torturer, the victim, and the leadership and society that gives its approval.

I had not wanted to limit the discussion to the politics involved; I'm very interested in a spiritual and moral argument as well. Have you heard of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture?

Since its formation in January 2006, over 250 religious groups have joined NRCAT, including representatives from the Roman Catholic, evangelical Christian, mainline Protestant, Orthodox Christians, Unitarian, Quaker, Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Baha'i, Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh communities. Members include national denominations and faith groups, regional organizations and congregations.

[Columcille]

In regards to #4, you stated "It damages respect and rapport for the US abroad, both among allies and enemies." It is only logical that what the enemies and allies do not know cannot be used against us. I did not say whether it is right or wrong, only that if you plan to give our enemy ammunition to disrespect us or tear our rapport abroad, nothing does it better than Obama decl***ifying it to world.

As far as what has changed in #1, I think Obama has spelled it out that Water Boarding is not going to used under his administration.

As far as how we conduced Water Boarding, we had a physician present at all times. Secondly we were not putting the water down the mouth, but simulating the experience in a safe manner. Nobody drowned in the case. And until Obama decl***ifies the results, as Former VP Cheney has dared him to do, it is a little premature to say it is not effective. I don't care who you talked to, the number of Water Boarding that actually happened was not widespread.

Also, I am talking about damage control. Like I said, I am not saying pro or con as far as its legalization or not, that is not determined by me. I am not a Congressman, and the issue of legal advanced interrigation techniques is not something I consider when voting for a congressman or senator or President. Abortion is the single greatest termination of the sanc***y of life, so it take more priority than some terrorists who wish nothing more than to successfully accomplish another 9/11.

[Columcille]

You stated in #5 "

It puts our troops in greater danger of being tortured when they are captured as POWs."

You quoted me as saying:

5) I am a soldier. I will tell you that the terrorists have no concern for POW treatment, they are not under the Geneva Convention...

YOu stated

""Not as bad as..." again. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's never been the determining factor for determining the UCMJ or other guidelines for the behavior of US military and intelligence services."

The starting statement is something that if we discard our advanced interrogation techniques, that you would label as torture, then the terrorists that capture soldiers would reciprocate and that the soldier would be in less danger. I mean if we are in greater danger because we use these advanced techniques, it seems logical that giving them up would make me and my comrades less likely to be tortured. I am saying that the taq fury (Sunni extremists) and Al-Queda do not abide by any laws of war, and as such your statement is not true. If you want to say that in regards to other nations, I would take you back to Carter during the days of the hostage crisis. The only type of positive response that dictators and regimes that violate human rights on a regular basis respond to is force, because that is how they keep their own citizens in check. The hostages were released if I recall due to Reagan's strong stance. It is on a smaller level no different than the school bully who terrorizes the little kids until he is stood up against and is punished. It may infuriate him more, but so long as he repeats the same bullying practices with equal punishment to the offenses... eventually he is either going to learn his lesson and stop or he is bonafide insane, since insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Wanted to say one other thing. If it comes down to a capture scenerio with soldier POWs, you have to imagine that we are armed prior to the capture, and our firing back as part of the Rules of Engagement and possibly killing a terrorists' buddy is going to put us in the same situation of torture if captured. Besides, we are infidels, and we are part of their jihad. It makes no sense to tell me not to defend myself so as to reduce being tortured. I'd rather kill them in a small arms fire and take as many out as possible to allow other soldiers to either wait until back-up arrived by air support or a near-by post or at the very least to aid in escape if the scenerio seems overwhelming. Simply because their track record of human rights violations, I would consider myself already dead if I fell into the hands of terrorists. Maybe in terms of in Iran, it might be different, but so far, I have not operated near there and nowing our GPS systems, I would avoid crossing their border.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by asdf

...torture and other inhumane treatment or punishment".

So which leads me to this related side bar: is it humane to lock a free willed human in a cage for the rest of his life?

One, we're not talking about punishment - torture was ostensibly used in conjunction with interrogation. Two, this was not connected with any specific crimes - the victims of the US system of torture had not been convicted of anything, and their habeus corpus rights had been suspended so they couldn't even request to know why they were detained.

They are enemies of the State. Like mom said be careful who you ***ociate with.

And to waterboard a person 183 times over the course of a month, after he had been cooperative with interrogators, is actually pretty bad.

Every 4 hours for a month?

You have to remember that those who wrote those words were the persecuted, not the persecutors. To use those verses in support of the government carrying out immoral acts is to get it entirely upside-down. The scriptures were written to comfort those who were being repressed and victimized by a cruel, godless regime - to know that ultimately, God is in control and it was [his] place to vindicate [his] people.

I wonder how much comfort to these words were:" 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. " while being crucified burned as lamps to know if you resist authority you resist the ordinance of God. I realize there are verses that say to count it as a blessing to suffer in the same way as Christ.

As I said this is one of the most difficult things to understand how God gave Sadam "authority". I see the pattern of God using the unrighteous nation to discipline the backslidden nation and vice versa. It is difficult none the less.

MacG

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

In regards to #4, you stated "It damages respect and rapport for the US abroad, both among allies and enemies." It is only logical that what the enemies and allies do not know cannot be used against us. I did not say whether it is right or wrong, only that if you plan to give our enemy ammunition to disrespect us or tear our rapport abroad, nothing does it better than Obama decl***ifying it to world.

When such information leaks, as it inevitably will (see: Abu Ghraib), do you think it looks better for the government to have denied it or to have told the truth?

My faith teaches me that the truth is always better than the suppression thereof, that "that which is spoken in secret will be shouted from the rooftops".

As far as what has changed in #1, I think Obama has spelled it out that Water Boarding is not going to used under his administration.

I did not ask what changed policy-wise, I asked what changed law-wise. It was a response to your quite reasonable ***ertion that what was done legally under Bush should not be tried as illegal under Obama.

As far as how we conduced Water Boarding, we had a physician present at all times. Secondly we were not putting the water down the mouth, but simulating the experience in a safe manner. Nobody drowned in the case.

Like I said: Spanish Inquisition. Khmer Rouge. The practice was developed exactly so that the victim could experience the terror of drowning in a "safe manner".

And until Obama decl***ifies the results, as Former VP Cheney has dared him to do, it is a little premature to say it is not effective.

Lovely. So you can **** him for releasing the evidence because it "gives our enemies ammunition", and **** him for not releasing the evidence because it might vindicate Cheney.

I don't care who you talked to, the number of Water Boarding that actually happened was not widespread.

That's correct. There were only a few people waterboarded, which is why I think it's a mistake to exclusively focus on that one practice, ignoring the widespread system put in place in every theater of war: Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram...

Nudity, hypothermia, religious desecration, exploitation of phobias, sexual humiliation, beatings, stress positions...waterboarding was only a small part of the larger picture.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

The starting statement is something that if we discard our advanced interrogation techniques, that you would label as torture, then the terrorists that capture soldiers would reciprocate and that the soldier would be in less danger. I mean if we are in greater danger because we use these advanced techniques, it seems logical that giving them up would make me and my comrades less likely to be tortured.

It is a fact that the torture of detainees conducted by American forces has been used to recruit more terrorists.

I am saying that the taq fury (Sunni extremists) and Al-Queda do not abide by any laws of war, and as such your statement is not true.

We are supposed to abide by the laws of war, whether or not our enemy does. While it is true that an individual terrorist is not likely to give up using "advanced techniques" against Americans if we fight ethically, al-Qaeda is more likely to fall out of mainstream Arab favor.

If you want to say that in regards to other nations, I would take you back to Carter during the days of the hostage crisis. The only type of positive response that dictators and regimes that violate human rights on a regular basis respond to is force, because that is how they keep their own citizens in check. The hostages were released if I recall due to Reagan's strong stance. It is on a smaller level no different than the school bully who terrorizes the little kids until he is stood up against and is punished. It may infuriate him more, but so long as he repeats the same bullying practices with equal punishment to the offenses... eventually he is either going to learn his lesson and stop or he is bonafide insane, since insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Or, we could go the route of Gandhi, or MLK, or the Iranian green revolution, or...Jesus the Christ.

Wanted to say one other thing. If it comes down to a capture scenerio with soldier POWs, you have to imagine that we are armed prior to the capture, and our firing back as part of the Rules of Engagement and possibly killing a terrorists' buddy is going to put us in the same situation of torture if captured. Besides, we are infidels, and we are part of their jihad. It makes no sense to tell me not to defend myself so as to reduce being tortured. I'd rather kill them in a small arms fire and take as many out as possible to allow other soldiers to either wait until back-up arrived by air support or a near-by post or at the very least to aid in escape if the scenerio seems overwhelming. Simply because their track record of human rights violations, I would consider myself already dead if I fell into the hands of terrorists. Maybe in terms of in Iran, it might be different, but so far, I have not operated near there and nowing our GPS systems, I would avoid crossing their border.

I have no issues with following the standard Rules of Engagement, and I understand that matters are different between a combat zone and a detention facility.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by MacG

So which leads me to this related side bar: is it humane to lock a free willed human in a cage for the rest of his life?

I have no issue with following the standard definitions of humane treatment in detention, punishment and/or rehabilitation.

On the other hand, it is not humane to detain anyone the president decides (citizen or non-), without being accused of a crime, for as long as the president decides, with no access to legal counsel. Habeus rights have existed in every civilized society since at least the Magna Carta.

They are enemies of the State. Like mom said be careful who you ***ociate with.

No. Some were not enemies of the state at all. Would you like some reading material?

Every 4 hours for a month?

I guess so. Pretty horrific, no?

I wonder how much comfort to these words were:" 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. " while being crucified burned as lamps to know if you resist authority you resist the ordinance of God. I realize there are verses that say to count it as a blessing to suffer in the same way as Christ.

As I said this is one of the most difficult things to understand how God gave Sadam "authority". I see the pattern of God using the unrighteous nation to discipline the backslidden nation and vice versa. It is difficult none the less.

MacG

Again, I think that the context of these earliest Christians being the victims, not the "authority", is key here. They did not have the option of voting in a new Emperor if they didn't like the treatment under Vespasian, let alone deposing the tyrant through force of arms.

Jesus himself opposed those who favored revolt against the occupying forces, warning them that their agenda of violence would lead to devastation. The earliest followers of Jesus "turned the world upside-down", and in so doing, were called atheists because they refused to bow to the gods of empire.

Shalom,
asdf

[disciple]

Greetings,
Interesting comments by everyone. I would like to add that in America, our law enforcement, military and government are mostly non-Christian and as such
probably feel no moral obligation to adhere to any non torture/brutality code or law. There will always be someone willing to do anything to another human being to get information and it is also human nature for most people to silently agree to this. After all, the day after 9-11 we would have tortured Mother Theresa to find the ones responsable. Here is something that will always be true, you will reap what you sow and there will never be peace or righteousness untill Jesus returns.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by disciple

Greetings,
Interesting comments by everyone. I would like to add that in America, our law enforcement, military and government are mostly non-Christian and as such
probably feel no moral obligation to adhere to any non torture/brutality code or law. There will always be someone willing to do anything to another human being to get information and it is also human nature for most people to silently agree to this. After all, the day after 9-11 we would have tortured Mother Theresa to find the ones responsable. Here is something that will always be true, you will reap what you sow and there will never be peace or righteousness untill Jesus returns.

Who told you that law enforcement, military, and government is made of of (mostly) non-christians? Who told you how these non-christians probably "feel"? What makes you think most people silently agree with torture? No one I know would subject Mother Teresa, or anyone else to torture.
I agree that 'you reap what you sow'. In other words, one thing will tend to follow another in a logical and predictible manner.

[disciple]

Originally Posted by GiGi

Who told you that law enforcement, military, and government is made of of (mostly) non-christians? Who told you how these non-christians probably "feel"? What makes you think most people silently agree with torture? No one I know would subject Mother Teresa, or anyone else to torture.
I agree that 'you reap what you sow'. In other words, one thing will tend to follow another in a logical and predictible manner.

Hi GiGi,
So you believe that the majority of policemen, soilders and government officials are followers of Jesus Christ? It is my opinion that that is not the case. As far as knowing how non-Christians or Christians feel for that matter, I base that statement on observing human nature and most people put thier own interests and safety first. I think most people silently agree with torture because most people overtly agree with killing live babies in thier mothers womb. The Mother Teresa statement was an exaggeration to make a point.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by disciple

Hi GiGi,
So you believe that the majority of policemen, soilders and government officials are followers of Jesus Christ? It is my opinion that that is not the case. As far as knowing how non-Christians or Christians feel for that matter, I base that statement on observing human nature and most people put thier own interests and safety first. I think most people silently agree with torture because most people overtly agree with killing live babies in thier mothers womb. The Mother Teresa statement was an exaggeration to make a point.

As long as we all know that your statements here have no facts to back them up, we can take it for what its worth. Comments like these serve only to get people riled up unless we know not to take them seriously.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by disciple

Greetings,
Interesting comments by everyone. I would like to add that in America, our law enforcement, military and government are mostly non-Christian and as such probably feel no moral obligation to adhere to any non torture/brutality code or law.

Perhaps. But why would it be that the so-called Religious Right has become the greatest apologist for the use of torture and brutality?

Our laws, military codes, and conventions to which we are signatories are designed to be faith-neutral, i.e., they can and must be followed by people of all, or no, religious faith.

There will always be someone willing to do anything to another human being to get information and it is also human nature for most people to silently agree to this. After all, the day after 9-11 we would have tortured Mother Theresa to find the ones responsable.

I agree, more or less, which is why we have laws written before the "heat of the moment" to guide our behavior, to prevent us from committing atrocities out of our fear and anger over...atrocities.

BTW I pretty much agree that someone would have tortured Mother Teresa in the aftermath of 9/11. Do you think it would have yielded good intelligence?

The torture I am referring to is not the action of one or two rogue individuals in the days immediately following September 2001. An entire program of torture was developed from the very highest levels of government, from 2002 through at least 2006. It's not an interrogator "snapping" and doing an evil act that concerns me, it's when it becomes bureaucratized and ins***utionalized, describing exactly how many minutes a detainee may be subjected to hypothermia-inducing temperatures, exactly how many ****s may be stricken, etc. That's what is chilling to me.

Here is something that will always be true, you will reap what you sow

I agree.

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate....

Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

and there will never be peace or righteousness untill Jesus returns.

So should we give up on pursuing "the things which make for peace"?

[disciple]

Good comments Asdf,
We should not give up pursuing the things that make for peace nor decrying torture or any other inhumanity, abortion included. But we must also realize that peace will not come from the efforts of the U.N , the E.U, the ACLU or any other man made organization or government. Isn't it odd that the very organizations that say they strive for peace and justice will not include God?

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by disciple

Good comments Asdf,
We should not give up pursuing the things that make for peace nor decrying torture or any other inhumanity, abortion included. But we must also realize that peace will not come from the efforts of the U.N , the E.U, the ACLU or any other man made organization or government. Isn't it odd that the very organizations that say they strive for peace and justice will not include God?

LOL! Which god?
http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml

[disciple]

Originally Posted by GiGi

LOL! Which god?
http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml

Hi GiGi,
The God of the Bible, the One who created you and me, the One who became flesh and dwelt amoung us. The One who died to pay for our sins and then rose from the dead so we would know we could trust Him to do what He said He would do. The One who will redeem you and place you in His family forever if you ask in faith and repentance. Yea He's the One.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by disciple

Yea He's the One.

That's (pretty much) what they all say.

[disciple]

Originally Posted by GiGi

That's (pretty much) what they all say.

Greetings GiGi,
Just sharing the good news.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by disciple

Greetings GiGi,
Just sharing the good news.

Uh-Huh.
Tell it to the U.N., E.U. and A.C.L.U.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by disciple

Isn't it odd that the very organizations that say they strive for peace and justice will not include God?

At times when God is integrated into the equation, very great cruelties are committed in his name. In the past, the bible had become the strongest case for the black slavery. Until they wake up. Just look at those hysterical religious people in front of the White House last weekend. Obama, portrayed as Hitler, Stalin or as an African sorcerer. Violent today in their speeches, violent tomorrow in their actions.

Trinity