Who really cares if we Torture terrorists ?

[SUNSTONE]

Jesus sure as hell was. Trying to explain off war by the old testamant is like trying to explain off dinosaurs by using the same book.

Define injury, because mental injuries are sometimes far far worse then physical injuries.

Then go and move to Saudi Arabia where all the other radials live, we are a civilized nation that does nto torture it's citizens.

In Romans 12(I believe it's 12) it talks about if you do wrong you should fear, because the government doesn't bare the sword in vein.

Jesus Himself will come back with a sword for Armageddon.

God is against sin. The bible says becareful not to sin lest we destroy each other.

So in that sense God is against war.

What we reap is what we sow.

All of these statements are in the NT.

Mental injurys won't enter the picture.

You don't think we don't torture our citizens?

Ever wonder why so many sex offenders admitt to the crime?

I'm willing to bet it was tortured out of him.

I have seen cops get out of line many times, so doing a little pressure tactic torture wouldn't surprise me.

As far as I'm concerned. Anyone who doesn't toture a POW, when their side is cutting off the heads of our POW's, is guilty of manslaughter or maybe even murder.

[Destino]

In Romans 12(I believe it's 12) it talks about if you do wrong you should fear, because the government doesn't bare the sword in vein.

Jesus Himself will come back with a sword for Armageddon.

Roman 12 eh?

Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Rather, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.

Romans 12:17

Doesn't exactly support your position does it? I really like that last bit "Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good."

[The Evil Genius]

Destino,

The Romans 12 he refers to is from the Pat Robertson bible.

[SUNSTONE]

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)

Jesus is talking about insults and revenge.

To lose an eye/tooth, or to be struck on the cheek by someone won't kill you.

He isn't talking about life or death fights or war.

If He was, then you wouldn't be able to "turn the other cheek", you would be mortally wounded if it was a war or serious fight.

And the OT works just fine with the NT.

But people that don't understand will say that the OT is not being used anymore. The OT and the NT are one in the same, but they are expressed in different ways, but with the same meaning.

[SUNSTONE]

Roman 12 eh?

Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Rather, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.

Romans 12:17

Doesn't exactly support your position does it? I really like that last bit "Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good."

It's in 13.

But first look at 12:18 "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men."

Then it talks about "revenge".

You see, sometimes you have to fight. Because sometimes it is not possible to be at peace.

But lets say the evil deed is done, you are to let God get revenge instead of seeking your own.

13:1-6 Talks about doing well, and how we are to obey the government, because it doesn't bare the sword in vein.

[Predicto]

As far as I'm concerned. Anyone who doesn't toture a POW, when their side is cutting off the heads of our POW's, is guilty of manslaughter or maybe even murder.

oh my

[webnarc]

As far as I'm concerned. Anyone who doesn't toture a POW, when their side is cutting off the heads of our POW's, is guilty of manslaughter or maybe even murder.

That's a pretty messed statement. I'd love to hear more about it.

[Thiebear]

Think of it this way. Some guy comes into your home. He mutilates your wife and kids in front of you. He makes you watch and laughs the whole time your doing it.

Then down the road friends of yours capture this guy for you. You go to a woodshed and hes in there. He spits in your face and laguhs and says he enjoyed watching them squeal like a pig. What do you do ?

I'm actually for CIA torture but this is silly: Its more like:

Then down the road the same friends you wouldnt loan your car to capture this guy and say its him.. He's crying and saying he doesnt know what their talking about.. Do you brutalize him or do you turn him over to the professionals...

[Prosperity]

Think of it this way. Some guy comes into your home. He mutilates your wife and kids in front of you. He makes you watch and laughs the whole time your doing it.

Then down the road friends of yours capture this guy for you. You go to a woodshed and hes in there. He spits in your face and laguhs and says he enjoyed watching them squeal like a pig. What do you do ?

A MUCH MUCH more likely scenario: The CIA tells you John S. is a terrorist, they don't want to present evidence and take it to trial to find out they want to go ahead and torture him.

Are you ok with that?

[SUNSTONE]

That's a pretty messed statement. I'd love to hear more about it.

There really isn't much more to say.

If people are cutting heads off of POW's then we need to act fast by torturing some info out of their POW's.

But when we do it, we don't have to do anything that would criple them.

Just show him some Arrington highlights and then have Arrington ask him some questions. He'll be singing like a canary by then.

[Crazyhorse1]

I really dont understand all the outrage about this. Personally I am all for it. If we capture suspected terrorists and we feel that have information that may save lives well then I am all for ticking his nuts with a cattleprod. I dont see anything wrong with it at all. These guys chop peoples heads off for christ sakes.

I dont care about the Geneva Convention or any other law about torture. War is War and there are no rules during war. Our enemy certainly doesnt care about them so I dont see why we should. Personally I think we should take every dead terrorist and wrap them in Pork Skin and then throw their dead body back in the streets. Once the terrorists see this they will be totally freaked out. Because they would be so scared as to what would happen to them in the afterlife. I believe years ago another country took this same approach with the terrorists and it was very effective.

I just dont understand why someone has a problem with us torturing a terrorist to obtain information.

1) There are rules of war. We helped write them and we enforce them.

2) Torture produces bad and misleading intel.

3) Our torture policy has cost us our allies in the Middle East, Egypt and Jordan, and horrified the world. No major country in Europe or South America or Africa continues to support us. We are isolated.

4) Our torture policy has helped split this country apart and produced nothing.

5) We are guilty of many international agreements, not just the Geneva Conventions.

6) Our torture policy incites the enemy to fight harder, increase their attacks, and torture Americans. It also aids the enemy in recruitment.

7) American leaders are now guilty of major war crimes and could end up in prison. They are now despised by a huge percentage of the population and regarded as immoral.

8) A nation that tortures cannot credibly call itself a Christian nation.

[webnarc]

There really isn't much more to say.

If people are cutting heads off of POW's then we need to act fast by torturing some info out of their POW's.

But when we do it, we don't have to do anything that would criple them.

Just show him some Arrington highlights and then have Arrington ask him some questions. He'll be singing like a canary by then.

I appreciate your attempt at humor here, but you've basically stated that anyone who is not pro-torture is guilty of manslaughter or maybe even murder. I don't feel that McCain is a murderer; but maybe we should ask Karl Rove .

[Redskins Diehard]

1) There are rules of war. We helped write them and we enforce them.

2) Torture produces bad and misleading intel.

3) Our torture policy has cost us our allies in the Middle East, Egypt and Jordan, and horrified the world. No major country in Europe or South America or Africa continues to support us. We are isolated.

4) Our torture policy has helped split this country apart and produced nothing.

5) We are guilty of many international agreements, not just the Geneva Conventions.

6) Our torture policy incites the enemy to fight harder, increase their attacks, and torture Americans. It also aids the enemy in recruitment.

7) American leaders are now guilty of major war crimes and could end up in prison. They are now despised by a huge percentage of the population and regarded as immoral.

8) A nation that tortures cannot credibly call itself a Christian nation.

1) Who do these laws of war apply to? Legal combatants, which these guys are not.

2) Source?

3) Name me a "major country" in Africa or South America that was our ally, and now is not.

4) Anything our current leadership does splits this country. They can't win, because one side always automatically disagrees with the other.

5) What are some the other international agreements apply here that we are violating? Or is that just a shot in the dark.

6) Anectdotal at best. What motivated the first bombing of the WTC, the USS Cole, the African Embassies, and the second attack of the WTC and Pentagon. An interesting note is that not a single attack on US soil has occured here since the GWOT started.

7) Which leaders and which crimes?

8) Are we a Christian country? I'm asking you so don't respond by saying "thats what the leaders say". Do you want us to be a "Christian country"?

[Crazyhorse1]

Exactly :applause: And the Geneva Convetion needs to be overhauled to insist that

combatents and otherwise military personel be required to wear uniforms, and represent country or countries, which leaders of said admit to, to qualify for the protection offered by the GC, otherwise fire up the cattle prod.

Secondly, families of terrorists, that have knowledge, harbor, feed, or otherwise support, before, during and afterward (fail to denounce the act), are accessories and should be charged and tried with war crimes.

People in poor countries don't have money for uniforms. Only the poor should be tortured? Maybe the poor shouldn't be allowed to go to war. Maybe relatives of the poor who go to war and support their loved ones should be executed. Do funny little hats qualify as uniforms? Maybe your opinon is the kind of opinion that I would expect Barbara Bush to have. Should poor people in little paper hats be allowed to shoot people in real uniforms?

[Duncan]

BINGO!!!

We have a winner. . . and from the military none the less.

I agree, but the left was frothing at the mouth over psychological tactics. Sleep deprivation and alleged flushing of the Koran sent the left into a tizzy. How about making prisoners stand for a few hours or dogs barking at them?

Some of those guys probably deserve to get their balls hook up to a car battery but I personally wouldn’t support it.

[Mad Mike]

I really dont understand all the outrage about this. Personally I am all for it. If we capture suspected terrorists and we feel that have information that may save lives well then I am all for ticking his nuts with a cattleprod. I dont see anything wrong with it at all. These guys chop peoples heads off for christ sakes.

I dont care about the Geneva Convention or any other law about torture. War is War and there are no rules during war. Our enemy certainly doesnt care about them so I dont see why we should. Personally I think we should take every dead terrorist and wrap them in Pork Skin and then throw their dead body back in the streets. Once the terrorists see this they will be totally freaked out. Because they would be so scared as to what would happen to them in the afterlife. I believe years ago another country took this same approach with the terrorists and it was very effective.

I just dont understand why someone has a problem with us torturing a terrorist to obtain information.

Limited torture in extreme situations is one thing. Your position is quite another.

I've got an idea; why don't you and chom start a private thread and the rest of us will watch you two extremists duke it out.

[MaddogCT]

I just dont understand why someone has a problem with us torturing a terrorist to obtain information.

Two Reasons:

1. Information derived from torture is unreliable, at best.

2. Sanctioning torture of prisoners in our custody is sanctioning torture of our citizens in foreign custody.

:logo:

[Crazyhorse1]

Isn't funny how liberals snivel and weep about us WANTING the OPTION to SAVE american lives using extreme measures when every day its ho hum a thousand babies ARE vacuumed into oblivion??

Actually, NavyDave, many liberals oppose vaccuming babies into oblivion. I'm one, for instance. I'm against abortion, except in the most extreme circumstances. So much for your stereotypes. Also, I rarely snivel and weep. I prefer making others, such as your weak little self, snivel and weep.

[dreamingwolf]

Two Reasons:

1. Information derived from torture is unreliable, at best.

2. Sanctioning torture of prisoners in our custody is sanctioning torture of our citizens in foreign custody.

:logo:

just out of curiousity, what makes you think it has to be sanctioned for our citizens abroad for it to happen?

[lovellj]

I spoke with my father about this, who's retired military, and we both came to the same conclusion. Only if we are certain that it is a terrorist we are torturing is it acceptable, and only then by the CIA. Even then, as people have mentioned, torture seemingly produces unreliable results at best. Finally, he made the point about the Geneva Convention. Simply because one group may not respect it, doesn't mean that we should stoop to the same inhuman level. Western society has advanced to a point where we condemn these practices as sick and twisted, embodiements of the modern terrorist threat itself. I can see the benefits, and if there is a clearly imminent threat that we reliably believe we can resolve with limited torture by our clandestine operatives, then of course it must be used. However, condoning the practice could easily set us on a dangerous downward spiral, and (more likely) allow the current torturing we so strongly denounce as barbaric to become normalized and unravel the important progress made in the Geneva Convention....

So, after all that rambling, I have mixed feelings, but strongly lean against at least the normalization and open condoning of torture as acceptable, particularly as related to military operations.

[BlueTalon]

People in poor countries don't have money for uniforms. Only the poor should be tortured? Maybe the poor shouldn't be allowed to go to war. Maybe relatives of the poor who go to war and support their loved ones should be executed. Do funny little hats qualify as uniforms? Maybe your opinon is the kind of opinion that I would expect Barbara Bush to have. Should poor people in little paper hats be allowed to shoot people in real uniforms?

Lay off the crack, man.

No country is so poor that they can't afford uniforms for their soldiers. If they can afford guns, they can afford uniforms. And that's one of the requirements for Geneva Convention protection of POWs. A combatant must be wearing a uniform complete with rank, and be part of an army that occupies ground, to be protected under the Geneva Convention. If an enemy soldier is captured and not wearing a uniform, he may be treated as a spy, which is a whole 'nother category. Insurgents (terrorists) do not qualify in any way shape or form for Geneva Convention protection. If captured, they are not entitled to POW status, nor are they entitled to the rights of US citizenship in criminal court.

About the Bible -- there is a distinction between our role as individuals, and our role as agents of the govenment. As a person, I can choose to turn the other cheek, but as an agent of the government, I don't have that prerogative. The sword mentioned in Romans belongs to the government agent (police, military) and it is not wielded in vain.

About the torture -- I don't have a problem with it. If we capture Al Zarqaui (however it's spelled), I wouldn't have the slightest problem with carving up his hands and feet with pigblood-dipped knives, chopping pieces of him up and feeding them to pigs while he and his cohorts watch, and delivering his head in a box to Al Jezeera to be forwarded to Al Qaeda.

Please note, this is a different context than information gathering, though I'm not opposed to torture in that context, either.

[DjTj]

You know, I thought this thread kind of came out of the blue - especially considering that we had already talked this subject to death on this forum, but then I came across this:

In any case, I think the pro-torture people are right that "in theory" torture could save lives in the event of an imminent terror attack. However, for this to happen, it would require:

(1) We know of a specific imminent attack

(2) We have a known terrorist in captivity

(3) That terrorist has specific information regarding the specific attack

(4) We know that the terrorist has that specific information

(5) The terrorist does in fact give up information under torture

(6) The information that the terrorist gives us is truthful

(7) We are able to use that information in time to stop the attack

Now this happens on TV and in movies all the time, but I have yet to hear of a real life story where the world was going to be destroyed in 24 hours and there was only one person that knew how to stop it.

In the most improbable of scenarios, yes, torture would help save American lives. However, is it worth the moral degradation and international condemnation to protect ourselves in that Hollywood scenario? Can we stand up and tell China to stop its human rights abuses when we as a country can't muster up the moral fortitude to condemn torture? What do we as a nation stand for if we don't stand against torture?

Sometimes it's just not worth it to protect against an extremely likely scenario. Should we legalize theft because someone's life could depend on getting $1,000 to pay off a loan shark? Should we legalize drunk driving because it is possible that someone will need to get to the hospital to save someone's life, but everyone is drunk?

We don't write little exceptions into our laws for ridiculous scenarios. Some things are just wrong, and torture is certainly one of those things.

[chomerics]

I spoke with my father about this, who's retired military, and we both came to the same conclusion. Only if we are certain that it is a terrorist we are torturing is it acceptable, and only then by the CIA. Even then, as people have mentioned, torture seemingly produces unreliable results at best. Finally, he made the point about the Geneva Convention. Simply because one group may not respect it, doesn't mean that we should stoop to the same inhuman level. Western society has advanced to a point where we condemn these practices as sick and twisted, embodiements of the modern terrorist threat itself. I can see the benefits, and if there is a clearly imminent threat that we reliably believe we can resolve with limited torture by our clandestine operatives, then of course it must be used. However, condoning the practice could easily set us on a dangerous downward spiral, and (more likely) allow the current torturing we so strongly denounce as barbaric to become normalized and unravel the important progress made in the Geneva Convention....

So, after all that rambling, I have mixed feelings, but strongly lean against at least the normalization and open condoning of torture as acceptable, particularly as related to military operations.

Good post, and although I am strongly against it, I basically came to the POV with the exact same reasoning you did.

[MaddogCT]

just out of curiousity, what makes you think it has to be sanctioned for our citizens abroad for it to happen?

It will INCREASE the amount that is already occuring.

:logo:

[dreamingwolf]

It will INCREASE the amount that is already occuring.

:logo:

you gotta elaborate on that one. I might be wrong, but I think its pretty much 100% if we dont go in and free the prisoners from them they are beheaded. Before they are beheaded they are beaten and certainly not treated nearly as nice as those in gitmo.

What could they possibly increase?

Maybe Im missing what the expansion of torture request is all about. Im under the impression that its to be used on terrorists and not to be used on national troops. Terrorists dont have the support structure to adequately care for their prisoners, so probably by your definition of torture the mere fact that a terrorist has a prisoner will probably mean they are torturing them by your definition.

You gotta make it clearer how if we torture terrorists, it will increase it. Cause by my definition of torture, the terrorists groups are already maxed out on it. You have to school me on how they will increase it.