PDA

View Full Version : Poll shows support for torture among Southern evangelicals



Rufus_1611
Sep 18th 2008, 03:39 PM
WASHINGTON — A new poll finds that nearly six in 10 white Southern evangelicals believe torture is justified, but their views can shift when they consider the Christian principle of the golden rule.

The poll released Thursday, commissioned by Faith in Public Life and Mercer University, found that 57% of respondents said torture can be often or sometimes justified to gain important information from suspected terrorists. Thirty-eight percent said it was never or rarely justified.

... (Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-09-16-torture-baptists_N.htm) Is torturing a suspected terrorist justifiable?

apothanein kerdos
Sep 18th 2008, 03:42 PM
The problem is the poll plays the game of equivocation. It equivocates torture with interrogation. Likewise, it assumes certain interrogation methods are torture when they really aren't. The term is slippery.

Do I believe we can use sleep depravation and psychological manipulation to gain information? Absolutely, this isn't torture. Do I think we can cause permanent physical harm - or physical harm directly inflicted - in order to gain information? No, I don't.

IPet2_9
Sep 18th 2008, 04:57 PM
Is torturing a suspected terrorist justifiable?


Allow me to point out that one very small, bold word: "suspected". You can "suspect" whoever you want.

Fenris
Sep 18th 2008, 06:00 PM
Is torturing a suspected terrorist justifiable?
It depends.

Does this person have knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack? If the answer is 'yes', then I think it's immoral not to torture him.

HisLeast
Sep 18th 2008, 06:02 PM
Does this person have knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack? If the answer is 'yes', then I think it's immoral not to torture him.

It does change the ballgame a little. My problem is, "how do we know if they know"? Traditionally, the answer is usually "well lets torture them and find out".

Fenris
Sep 18th 2008, 06:26 PM
It does change the ballgame a little. My problem is, "how do we know if they know"? Traditionally, the answer is usually "well lets torture them and find out".Nah, that's not good criteria. Let's say we use the legal standard for arrests: probable cause. If it's more likely than not that the guy knows, have at it.

IPet2_9
Sep 18th 2008, 06:28 PM
Nowadays in the U.S., the mere possession of over $5,000 in cash singlehandedly constitutes "probable cause" for drug dealing--and justifies the government to confiscate it. We continue on down this slippery slope, what constitutes "probable cause" then? That they look Arab?

Fenris
Sep 18th 2008, 06:35 PM
Nowadays in the U.S., the mere possession of over $5,000 in cash singlehandedly constitutes "probable cause" for drug dealing--and justifies the government to confiscate it. Really? Do you have a source for this 'fact'?

IPet2_9
Sep 18th 2008, 06:59 PM
It's rooted in the 1984 Drug Forfeiture Law. It has since been limited in some ways, but expanded in others. And oh, it gets better: if you hire an attorney (with the money you don't have) to get your confiscated money back, the attorney is also subject to having everything they have confiscated! Unless, of course, they violate attorney-client privilege and "fully cooperate" with their client's "drug investigation":

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1093c.asp

I have more sources in the "Anything Goes" forum, but that thread is really old.

Fenris
Sep 18th 2008, 07:13 PM
Categories of Property Subject to Forfeiture--Bennis v. Michigan (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-8729.ZS.html) 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) (Stevens, J., dissenting)

1. Contraband
Property for which ownership by itself constitutes a crime, including smuggled goods, narcotics, and automatic weapons. The government's mandate in protecting the public forms the justification for seizure in this case. 2. Proceeds from Illegal Activity

Property directly resulting from, or that can be traced to, an illegal activity. Once a crime is identified, the government may seize any property flowing from the activity. In some cases, the government may seize property in lieu of provable criminal proceeds. Statutory innocent owner defenses provide a check on the seizure power, although this burden lies with the owner, not the government. 3. Tools or Instrumentalities Used in Commission of a Crime

Property used in the commission of a crime, including vehicles and real estate. By being associated with the crime, the property is "guilty" of the offense, and subject to seizure. In some cases, the innocence of the owner may not be a defense, although Constitution limitations, such as the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, may apply.I don't have a problem with this.

HisLeast
Sep 18th 2008, 08:06 PM
I don't have a problem with this.

You don't have a problem with the term "in some cases the innocence of the owner may not be a defense"?

Fenris
Sep 18th 2008, 08:27 PM
I don't have a problem with the 3 categories of material being seized.

The specific paragraph

"Property used in the commission of a crime, including vehicles and real estate. By being associated with the crime, the property is "guilty" of the offense, and subject to seizure. In some cases, the innocence of the owner may not be a defense, although Constitution limitations, such as the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, may apply."

Says that if you buy an object that was used in commission of a crime, it may be seized from you. You may not have used it, but the object itself is associated with the offense.

Clavicula_Nox
Sep 18th 2008, 08:39 PM
Is torturing a suspected terrorist justifiable?

No, it is also ineffective on the whole.

Reynolds357
Sep 18th 2008, 08:44 PM
Is torturing a suspected terrorist justifiable?

Let us look at it this way. If I knew that a terrorist I had in custody knew the location of a nuclear suitcase bomb that was in our country and about to be detonated, I would obtain the knowledge of its location BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

Reynolds357
Sep 18th 2008, 08:57 PM
Nowadays in the U.S., the mere possession of over $5,000 in cash singlehandedly constitutes "probable cause" for drug dealing--and justifies the government to confiscate it. We continue on down this slippery slope, what constitutes "probable cause" then? That they look Arab?

I just happen to be a Police Office who worked Narcotics division for many years, and that claim is simply not based in fact. In the "real world" many people possess $5000. There are times I have more money than that on my person. Cash is still the official medium of exchange in the United States. If I choose to, I can go to the car dealership and count out "green money" for the car or truck I want to buy. Nothing illegal about having cash. There are cases in which Several Hundred thousand dollars have been found and not seized.

IPet2_9
Sep 18th 2008, 09:09 PM
The point of all this is, police are already able to seize everything you own on "suspicion" of drug crime as it is. And sometimes, that suspicion is based on nothing more than the mere possession of cash. People are then left defenseless, without the money to get their own money back. 3 very high-profile cases I know of, in Colorado, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.

Extend this to torturing "suspected" terrorists. Oops! Sorry! You were innocent and shouldn't have been tortured. My bad! What are you going to do--sue the police because they were wrong for torturing you? But they had "probable cause"!

P.S. By the way, you can have everything you own confiscated on "suspicion" of terrorist crime, too. So...if you look Arab and have more than $5,000 and a water pistol in your car--I hope you didn't need that car. I hope you don't own a house, either. God bless America.

Fenris
Sep 18th 2008, 09:17 PM
The point of all this is, police are already able to seize everything you own on "suspicion" of drug crime as it is. And sometimes, that suspicion is based on nothing more than the mere possession of cash. People are then left defenseless, without the money to get their own money back. 3 very high-profile cases I know of, in Colorado, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.Facts of the cases, please.


Extend this to torturing "suspected" terrorists. Oops! Sorry! You were innocent and shouldn't have been tortured. My bad! What are you going to do--sue the police because they were wrong for torturing you? But they had "probable cause"!
I don't think you understand what probable cause is...and it isn't having 5,000 dollars in cash.



P.S. By the way, you can have everything you own confiscated on "suspicion" of terrorist crime, too. So...if you look Arab and have more than $5,000 and a water pistol in your car--I hope you didn't need that car. I hope you don't own a house, either. God bless America.
And we all know this happens to arabs in this country every day :rolleyes:

Clavicula_Nox
Sep 18th 2008, 09:27 PM
Let us look at it this way. If I knew that a terrorist I had in custody knew the location of a nuclear suitcase bomb that was in our country and about to be detonated, I would obtain the knowledge of its location BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

And how would you know that the information he gave you is factual? As I'm sure you're aware, there are some very good methods of interrogation, and torture simply isn't one of them.

TrustingFollower
Sep 18th 2008, 09:57 PM
The point of all this is, police are already able to seize everything you own on "suspicion" of drug crime as it is. And sometimes, that suspicion is based on nothing more than the mere possession of cash. People are then left defenseless, without the money to get their own money back. 3 very high-profile cases I know of, in Colorado, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.

Extend this to torturing "suspected" terrorists. Oops! Sorry! You were innocent and shouldn't have been tortured. My bad! What are you going to do--sue the police because they were wrong for torturing you? But they had "probable cause"!

P.S. By the way, you can have everything you own confiscated on "suspicion" of terrorist crime, too. So...if you look Arab and have more than $5,000 and a water pistol in your car--I hope you didn't need that car. I hope you don't own a house, either. God bless America.

Look out the sky is falling.:lol:

Seriously, you paint one huge gloom and doom picture man. You make it look like the government just wants to come in and take everything form everyone. Cheer up, even though the glass looks half empty, it really is half full.

mcgyver
Sep 18th 2008, 10:05 PM
And how would you know that the information he gave you is factual? As I'm sure you're aware, there are some very good methods of interrogation, and torture simply isn't one of them.

Agreed 100%

Torture is the least desirable method for obtaining information; for the simple fact that the subject being tortured is going to say anything he thinks his captors want to hear just to stop them hurting him....

Reynolds357
Sep 19th 2008, 12:30 AM
And how would you know that the information he gave you is factual? As I'm sure you're aware, there are some very good methods of interrogation, and torture simply isn't one of them.

The Nazi's and Japanese used torture very effectively. I do not think you can argue that they did not. There are times when information must be extracted quickly. If torturing 2 people will save the life of 2 million, it is most definitely justified.

Reynolds357
Sep 19th 2008, 12:32 AM
Agreed 100%

Torture is the least desirable method for obtaining information; for the simple fact that the subject being tortured is going to say anything he thinks his captors want to hear just to stop them hurting him....

IT is the least desirable method. However, there are times that it is the only method that will work in the amount of time you have. The consequense of false information must be so high that false information dare not be given. It has worked for centuries. I personally would not use torture, but I was trained several years ago by a Central American in an area of Drug interdiction. In side conversation he told some of us the methods of torture they use and its effectiveness.

pinky
Sep 19th 2008, 12:37 AM
Does JESUS justify torture of 'suspects' to obtain information????

Does HE even hint at such a thing when instructing our conduct as His followers?

Yeeesh.

How far have some in the churches fallen to even consider such things?

The roman inquisitors would be proud.

Clavicula_Nox
Sep 19th 2008, 12:40 AM
The Nazi's and Japanese used torture very effectively. I do not think you can argue that they did not. There are times when information must be extracted quickly. If torturing 2 people will save the life of 2 million, it is most definitely justified.

No, the Nazis and Japanese used torture, there is no effectiveness or advantage inherent in torture. If you torture a person and he tells you everything you want to know, then everything he says is suspect. He might be telling the truth, or he might be lying, there is simply know way to know.


However, there are times that it is the only method that will work in the amount of time you have to do it.Yes, there are times when you need information quickly, but I cannot understand the thought process required to put faith into an enemy who tells you something after you have tortured him. It simply makes no sense to me, and after being immersed in Counter-Insurgency OperatioNs -COIN for a few years and the special operations community, it doesn't make sense to any I have ever conversed with, either. That's for the practical argument.

The moral argument is that I will always be above my enemy.

*edit*
I would never ask one of my soldiers to do something I wouldn't do, nor would I ask any of my allies to do it. If it's something that I morally would not do, why should I burden someone else with that task?


In side conversation he told some of us the methods of torture they use and its effectiveness.Irrelevant. There are many in the US Army (some are high ranking) who think the best way to handle the insurgency in Iraq is to start aggressively attacking civilian targets, they are clearly, and emphatically wrong, but they can try to quote body-counts and engagements won as some form of victory, even as they ultimately lost the war in their area of responsibility.

pinky
Sep 19th 2008, 12:48 AM
No, the Nazis and Japanese used torture, there is no effectiveness or advantage inherent in torture. If you torture a person and he tells you everything you want to know, then everything he says is suspect. He might be telling the truth, or he might be lying, there is simply know way to know.

Yes, there are times when you need information quickly, but I cannot understand the thought process required to put faith into an enemy who tells you something after you have tortured him. It simply makes no sense to me, and after being immersed in Counter-Insurgency OperatioNs -COIN for a few years and the special operations community, it doesn't make sense to any I have ever conversed with, either. That's for the practical argument.

Yes.

Pure, simple logic.




The moral argument is that I will always be above my enemy.



The only moral argument is grounded in Christ and what HE taught us.

Reynolds357
Sep 19th 2008, 12:58 AM
Irrelevant. There are many in the US Army (some are high ranking) who think the best way to handle the insurgency in Iraq is to start aggressively attacking civilian targets, they are clearly, and emphatically wrong, but they can try to quote body-counts and engagements won as some form of victory, even as they ultimately lost the war in their area of responsibility.

So you do not hold to Sherman's doctrine of total warfare? It has worked every time we have used it. World War II was a classic example of how quickly the implementation of this doctrine ended a war. Vietnam would be a perfect example of how respecting targets with civilian value loses wars. Sherman understood that merely doing battle with the enemy army does not win wars. The will of the populous who supplies and fields the army must also be broken. Sherman's march through Georgia won the Civil war; despite the fact that he attempted to avoid, not engague, the Confederate Army. As history would show, he even provided them an open road of escape. His desire was to break the will of the heart of the Confederacy to fight. He did just that. The war ended. In the end, many lives were saved because the war was brought to and end many years sooner.

Clavicula_Nox
Sep 19th 2008, 01:09 AM
So you do not hold to Sherman's doctrine of total warfare? It has worked every time we have used it. World War II was a classic example of how quickly the implementation of this doctrine ended a war. Vietnam would be a perfect example of how respecting targets with civilian value loses wars. Sherman understood that merely doing battle with the enemy army does not win wars. The will of the populous who supplies and fields the army must also be broken. Sherman's march through Georgia won the Civil war; despite the fact that he attempted to avoid, not engague, the Confederate Army. As history would show, he even provided them an open road of escape. His desire was to break the will of the heart of the Confederacy to fight. He did just that. The war ended. In the end, many lives were saved because the war was brought to and end many years sooner.


Sherman fought a conventional war, which we haven't fought since Korea. Besides, Sherman's conduct during the War of Northern Aggression isn't what we're discussing, and if we were, then I would tell you that the concept of total war did not work in Vietnam, nor would it work in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The only thing that is even remotely relevant to this is the idea of "centers of gravity," as identified in Von Clausewitz's On War. During the War of Northern Aggression, as you pointed out, the center of gravity was not the Army of Northern Virginia (or any of the other Southern armies), instead it was the brittle Southern industry, agriculture, urban areas, and civilian populace.

You incorrectly identify the center of gravity during Vietnam, unlike the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese correctly understood that the American centers of gravity was the American public, and they executed successful psychological operations which ultimately doomed our war effort.

To put it bluntly, although we never once lost on the battlefield, we lost the war. Our military incorrectly identified the centers of gravity to a point where there was no overlaying strategy and the war degenerated into a series of independent units conducting operations with little to no regard for the units around them. This is not how wars, especially wars against a hardened guerrilla force.

To say that civilian targets in Vietnam were spared is shocking, the nature of guerrilla warfare makes it impossible to avoid civilian casualties.

*edit*

And no, I know that the Total War doctrine would not win Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other COIN campaign.

Rufus_1611
Sep 19th 2008, 01:11 AM
So you do not hold to Sherman's doctrine of total warfare? It has worked every time we have used it. World War II was a classic example of how quickly the implementation of this doctrine ended a war. Vietnam would be a perfect example of how respecting targets with civilian value loses wars. Sherman understood that merely doing battle with the enemy army does not win wars. The will of the populous who supplies and fields the army must also be broken. Sherman's march through Georgia won the Civil war; despite the fact that he attempted to avoid, not engague, the Confederate Army. As history would show, he even provided them an open road of escape. His desire was to break the will of the heart of the Confederacy to fight. He did just that. The war ended. In the end, many lives were saved because the war was brought to and end many years sooner.

Sherman was a coward and was guilty of the following:

"Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (Source: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.pdf)

pinky
Sep 19th 2008, 01:13 AM
So you do not hold to Sherman's doctrine of total warfare?

So you do not hold to CHRIST'S doctrine of "love and bless your enemy"?

moonglow
Sep 19th 2008, 03:11 AM
I agree with some of the others here...if I was being tortured for some information you bet I would tell them what I thought they wanted to hear! I would tell them before they started to torture me in fact...:rolleyes: Why would I care if what I said was true or not...just stop the torture!


I just don't see how it could be reliable at all...


And sickening to even think about actually...

I can't image Jesus saying it was ok either...

God bless

Reynolds357
Sep 19th 2008, 03:59 AM
Sherman was a coward and was guilty of the following:

"Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (Source: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.pdf)


I am very pro-confederate. I am even an active member of Sons of Confederate veterans. I even have a picture of T.J. Jackson above my bed. However, Facts are facts. Sherman won the war. Had he not "made the Georgia Howl," there is a Strong possibility the war would have ended in stalemate.

Reynolds357
Sep 19th 2008, 04:10 AM
Sherman fought a conventional war, which we haven't fought since Korea. Besides, Sherman's conduct during the War of Northern Aggression isn't what we're discussing, and if we were, then I would tell you that the concept of total war did not work in Vietnam, nor would it work in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The only thing that is even remotely relevant to this is the idea of "centers of gravity," as identified in Von Clausewitz's On War. During the War of Northern Aggression, as you pointed out, the center of gravity was not the Army of Northern Virginia (or any of the other Southern armies), instead it was the brittle Southern industry, agriculture, urban areas, and civilian populace.

You incorrectly identify the center of gravity during Vietnam, unlike the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese correctly understood that the American centers of gravity was the American public, and they executed successful psychological operations which ultimately doomed our war effort.

To put it bluntly, although we never once lost on the battlefield, we lost the war. Our military incorrectly identified the centers of gravity to a point where there was no overlaying strategy and the war degenerated into a series of independent units conducting operations with little to no regard for the units around them. This is not how wars, especially wars against a hardened guerrilla force.

To say that civilian targets in Vietnam were spared is shocking, the nature of guerrilla warfare makes it impossible to avoid civilian casualties.

*edit*

And no, I know that the Total War doctrine would not win Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other COIN campaign.

Sherman fought both conventional and non-conventional forces. I am not a fan of Sherman. I wish he had not fought as he did. We, the CSA, would have won the war. He broke the will of the South to fight. My great, great, great grandfather led one of the cavalry units that fought an unconventional war against Sherman during his march. Sherman was a Soldier. The Confederate Cavalry laid mines. When one of Sherman's men stepped on one of the mines; in an act of military brilliance, Sherman placed the Confedrate prisoners in front of his troops. He then released a prisoner to inform the Confederate cavalry that the Confederate Prisoners were marching in front of the army. That ended the laying of confederate mines. Sherman was a soldier who fought to win, not a soldier who sought to be politically correct.

Civilian targets in Vietnam were spared. We greatly hindered our war effort out of respect for civilian targets. There was a huge list of targets that Johnson forbade the airforce to attack because of civilian implication. As a famous US sniper said. Anyone who feeds the enemy is the enemy.

Reynolds357
Sep 19th 2008, 04:12 AM
So you do not hold to CHRIST'S doctrine of "love and bless your enemy"?
The same Christ who told His disciples that there would be a time for the Sword? The same Christ who will cause the blood to flow as high as the horses bridles at His second advent?

pinky
Sep 19th 2008, 05:46 PM
Reynolds357, if you are a Christian, please support your pro-torture argument with scripture.

Reynolds357
Sep 19th 2008, 05:55 PM
Reynolds357, if you are a Christian, please support your pro-torture argument with scripture.

War is Hell. Please read Jehovah's commands to Joshua, the Judges, and ESPECIALLY to King Saul during their military commands. I think when God directly commanded Saul to kill every living creature the enemy possessed. At God's direct command women, children, and babies were killed. Maybe you missed that in your Bible reading.

It is always kind to attempt to so innocently infer that one is not a Christian as you did in your above post. Two lines under my user name it plainly says "yes, I am a Christian." To infer that I am not is really very much out of line. Anyone who has command of both the old and new testaments will know that there is both a gracious and a vengeful aspect of God. "Vengance is Mine, i will repay; Thus saith the Lord." There is a time for peace and a time to fight. I time to kill and a time to die. For everything there is a season.

When we are at war, there is a time to "fight to win." We are the country that dropped two atomic bombs on huge civilian populations. We were not attacking the "war machine" of Japan. We were attacking the will to fight of the Japanese people. The incendiary camapigns against Berlin were also designetd to end the will of the German people to fight. At the time these bombs were being dropped, the manufacturing of the third reich had already moved most of its plants into underground bunkers. The bombing had very little military value in the late stages of the war. However, it had great demoralizing value. Which is worse, torture one prisoner, or annihilate an entire geographic area with an atomic bomb? I think all would agree that there is a time when nuclear weapons will be a necessary. It there are situations that warrant the killing of millions of civilians with a nuclear strike, surely there can be a case that warrants the torture of one enemy combattant. We are fighting terrorists. They do not follow the rules of war. The do not abide by the rules of war. They do not deserve the same protection that a soldier that adheres to the rules of war deserves. The thugs who behead Israeli soldiers deserve the same when they are captured.

Clavicula_Nox
Sep 19th 2008, 06:54 PM
Sherman fought both conventional and non-conventional forces. I am not a fan of Sherman. I wish he had not fought as he did. We, the CSA, would have won the war. He broke the will of the South to fight. My great, great, great grandfather led one of the cavalry units that fought an unconventional war against Sherman during his march. Sherman was a Soldier. The Confederate Cavalry laid mines. When one of Sherman's men stepped on one of the mines in an act of military brilliance, Sherman placed the Confedrate prisoners in front of his troops. He then released a prisoner to inform the Confederate cavalry that the Confederate Prisoners were marching in front of the army. That ended the laying of confederate mines. Sherman was a soldier who fought to win, not a soldier who sought to be politically correct.

Civilian targets in Vietnam were spared. We greatly hindered our war effort out of respect for civilian targets. There was a huge list of targets that Johnson forbade the airforce to attack because of civilian implication. As a famous US sniper said. Anyone who feeds the enemy is the enemy.

I simply disagree that there is one strategy for every campaign.

pinky
Sep 19th 2008, 09:36 PM
War is Hell. Please read Jehovah's commands to Joshua, the Judges, and ESPECIALLY to King Saul during their military commands. I think when God directly commanded Saul to kill every living creature the enemy possessed. At God's direct command women, children, and babies were killed. Maybe you missed that in your Bible reading.

Please show me where God commands torture.



It is always kind to attempt to so innocently infer that one is not a Christian as you did in your above post. Two lines under my user name it plainly says "yes, I am a Christian." To infer that I am not is really very much out of line.

I didn't mean to infer that you are not a Christian. I meant if you are, ie., "as a Christian" please share the Biblical Christian perspective on torture.



Anyone who has command of both the old and new testaments will know that there is both a gracious and a vengeful aspect of God. "Vengance is Mine, i will repay; Thus saith the Lord."

Rom 12:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom012.html#19) Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Anyone who has understanding of the New Covenant will know that Christ is the very image of God and HE has shown us a different and better way.




When we are at war, there is a time to "fight to win." We are the country that dropped two atomic bombs on huge civilian populations. We were not attacking the "war machine" of Japan. We were attacking the will to fight of the Japanese people. The incendiary camapigns against Berlin were also designetd to end the will of the German people to fight. At the time these bombs were being dropped, the manufacturing of the third reich had already moved most of its plants into underground bunkers. The bombing had very little military value in the late stages of the war. However, it had great demoralizing value. Which is worse, torture one prisoner, or annihilate an entire geographic area with an atomic bomb? I think all would agree that there is a time when nuclear weapons will be a necessary. It there are situations that warrant the killing of millions of civilians with a nuclear strike, surely there can be a case that warrants the torture of one enemy combattant. We are fighting terrorists. They do not follow the rules of war. The do not abide by the rules of war. They do not deserve the same protection that a soldier that adheres to the rules of war deserves. The thugs who behead Israeli soldiers deserve the same when they are captured.


Your position demonstrates your fear of men.

Mat 10:28 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat010.html#28) And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.




Peace in Christ,
pinky

lendtay
Sep 19th 2008, 10:48 PM
Is torturing a suspected terrorist justifiable?

Torture is never justifiable, period.

Jesus Christ would certainly not condone torture. Remember the passage in the Bible where he stopped the crowd from stoning the adulterous woman.

On another note, I am quite shocked to learn that some of my Christian friends think that what went on at Abu Ghraib (not just torture, but sexual abuse) was justifiable. I no longer view them as real Christians, and furthermore, don't feel I can maintain my friendships with them any longer. Rape and sexual abuse are wrong, period, and if someone doesn't recognize that, they are not Christian.

pinky
Sep 21st 2008, 01:15 PM
On another note, I am quite shocked to learn that some of my Christian friends think that what went on at Abu Ghraib (not just torture, but sexual abuse) was justifiable. I no longer view them as real Christians, and furthermore, don't feel I can maintain my friendships with them any longer. Rape and sexual abuse are wrong, period, and if someone doesn't recognize that, they are not Christian.



Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.



Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.


......Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. ......




Luk 6:36 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk006.html#36) Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Fenris
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:14 PM
Do not stand idly by the blood of your brother. (Leviticus 19:16)

If one must torture one person to save the life of one other, let alone many others, I would say that is justifiable before man and God.

Slug1
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:26 PM
Personally for me... torture is not even needed if a soldier remains within the will of God for two reasons. The first reason is they will not be led to use torture and the second reason... they will not need to use torture because soldiers led by God will have the enemy handed to them and will utterly destroy them.

Why we feel we need to utilize torture, I feel is of the flesh.

If we allowed God to lead all elements of this war, we'd be wading right through the enemy and slaying them to the point that satan would find it hard to even find people that he can use against any soldier that fights within the will of God.

RabbiKnife
Sep 22nd 2008, 06:20 PM
Jesus was silent on the issue of air conditioning, too.

Jesus told his followers to give to the Roman soldiers forcing them to carry their armor a mile (as was lawful) to carry it two. To give not only thier outer coat (which was lawful) but also their cloak/sleeping covering.

Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

Contrary to the opinion of many of my dear conservative friends, Jesus really doesn't have a great deal of concern for either politics or the prosecution of war.

thestarofthesea
Sep 22nd 2008, 07:10 PM
My brother and I had a lively debate a few months ago over this same topic. He said something along the lines of:


A mega-story building in a major city receives a telephoned bomb threat. According to the caller, the bomb will go off before evacuation can be completed. Anyway, the bombs are, according to the caller, enough to devastate a significant area outside the building as well. The police catch the caller before he hangs up the telephone. They demand he disclose the locations of the bombs so they can be diffused. He won't. Can we torture him for information?I tried to be really high-minded and so I said no. I believe it's wrong to torture, and such.

Then he added the clause:


It just so happens, your daughter/son/parent/loved one is tied up somewhere in the building. A detailed search will take more time than allowed, so a bomb would go off before he/she can be found. Now is it okay to torture? Or, at least, would you?That made it really hard for me to say "no, never".

NHL Fever
Sep 22nd 2008, 07:53 PM
A mega-story building in a major city receives a telephoned bomb threat. According to the caller, the bomb will go off before evacuation can be completed. Anyway, the bombs are, according to the caller, enough to devastate a significant area outside the building as well. The police catch the caller before he hangs up the telephone. They demand he disclose the locations of the bombs so they can be diffused. He won't. Can we torture him for information?


Problem here is it assumes torture would result in useful information that would save people, but there is no reason to believe it would. One of two situations would likely result assuming the plan works and is not foiled by some other means:
1) No torture is used, and the buliding goes down
2) Torture is used, and the building goes down

Fenris
Sep 22nd 2008, 09:00 PM
Problem here is it assumes torture would result in useful information that would save people, but there is no reason to believe it would.
You never know until you try...

HisLeast
Sep 22nd 2008, 10:17 PM
You never know until you try...
We could try it on everyone and be sure.

always
Sep 22nd 2008, 10:57 PM
It is never a justifiable reason to torture anybody. The fact that Christians could even think the matter is debateable is appalling.

torture -the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

this is not a fruit of the spirit and don't think for a moment that anyone trained to use this technique does not receive a sense of pleasure from extracting truth or agonizing lie to be released from pain

pinky
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:07 AM
For anyone here who claims to be a Christian and advocates torture, please support your position with Scripture!

Verses please?!

Fearful human logic will not suffice.

If you cannot do so, then let your disregard for the Word be evident to all.

IPet2_9
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:47 PM
For anyone here who claims to be a Christian and advocates torture, please support your position with Scripture!

Verses please?!

I remember back when Pat Robertson said we should assassinate the Venezuelan president, Christians were then starting to say maybe we should. We could avoid another Iraq war and save money. I was absolutely floored that we have come this far.

I asked for Scriptural support then, too. I never got any. Anyway, I just noticed the striking parallel.

lendtay
Sep 23rd 2008, 11:13 PM
For anyone here who claims to be a Christian and advocates torture, please support your position with Scripture!

Verses please?!

Fearful human logic will not suffice.

If you cannot do so, then let your disregard for the Word be evident to all.

I also would like to know how anyone could justify sexual abuse-type torture (what went on at Abu Ghraib) - the rape and sexual humiliation of prisoners, forcing them to strip, etc.

lendtay
Sep 23rd 2008, 11:14 PM
I remember back when Pat Robertson said we should assassinate the Venezuelan president, Christians were then starting to say maybe we should. We could avoid another Iraq war and save money. I was absolutely floored that we have come this far.

I asked for Scriptural support then, too. I never got any. Anyway, I just noticed the striking parallel.

I remember that, the Bush administration finally told Pat Robertson to shut up. He was doing a lot of damage.

Jeanne D
Sep 23rd 2008, 11:24 PM
forget it, changed my mind

Reynolds357
Sep 25th 2008, 01:51 AM
I remember back when Pat Robertson said we should assassinate the Venezuelan president, Christians were then starting to say maybe we should. We could avoid another Iraq war and save money. I was absolutely floored that we have come this far.

I asked for Scriptural support then, too. I never got any. Anyway, I just noticed the striking parallel.

At the present rate of escalation, we will go to war with Venezuela. Would it not be better to kill one man than kill thousands of men?

Reynolds357
Sep 25th 2008, 01:53 AM
I remember that, the Bush administration finally told Pat Robertson to shut up. He was doing a lot of damage.

Bush has done a great job in containing Chavez. :D He has gone from a third world thug to a major ally of Russia who now houses their most advanced bombers.

Clavicula_Nox
Sep 25th 2008, 02:00 AM
At the present rate of escalation, we will go to war with Venezuela. Would it not be better to kill one man than kill thousands of men?

That's probably true, and for what?

*edit*

and with what soldiers?

tango
Sep 25th 2008, 02:24 AM
You never know until you try...

I hope for your sake you are never suspected of having information on a terror plot.

Reynolds357
Sep 25th 2008, 02:31 AM
If you lay with dogs, you get fleas. Since I do not associate with suspected terrorists, I have no fear of being mistaken for one.

tango
Sep 25th 2008, 02:34 AM
Jean Charles de Menezes did not associate with terrorists or suspected terrorists but was still shot dead by police. They got it wrong.

Reynolds357
Sep 25th 2008, 02:35 AM
What does that have to do with torture?

tango
Sep 25th 2008, 02:38 AM
I guess if they hadn't shot him they might have tortured him. The point is that "the state" can and does make mistakes. It's a shame if they torture someone for the information to recover the plans for a massive attack and find they've got the wrong person.

Being completely innocent didn't help Mr de Menezes, and if the state has its wires crossed it probably won't help you either.

Fenris
Sep 25th 2008, 11:16 AM
I hope for your sake you are never suspected of having information on a terror plot.
Not likely to happen.

Rufus_1611
Sep 25th 2008, 11:31 AM
I'd like to mention that the results of this poll are quite encouraging, as they appear to be opposite of the one mentioned in the original post.

NHL Fever
Sep 25th 2008, 12:45 PM
If you lay with dogs, you get fleas. Since I do not associate with suspected terrorists, I have no fear of being mistaken for one.

Plenty of good people get in trouble by association. You don't know what your colleagues at work are doing in their private lives, but you may interact with them every day. If one committed a crime, they may look and say a number phone calls were placed to you, or you interacted with them on a regular basis, perhaps went for coffee etc. In a normal just society this might require you to be briefly questioned or give a statement to police, but if the rules can be thrown out when terrorism comes into play, then its a very short leap to say perhaps you should be tortured cause you might know something. Who cares if there's no proof or everyone else that that knows you knows you're a normal guy, when it comes to an attack the stakes are too high to risk not identifying you right?

Fenris
Sep 25th 2008, 12:57 PM
Plenty of good people get in trouble by association. You don't know what your colleagues at work are doing in their private lives, but you may interact with them every day. If one committed a crime, they may look and say a number phone calls were placed to you, or you interacted with them on a regular basis, perhaps went for coffee etc. In a normal just society this might require you to be briefly questioned or give a statement to police, but if the rules can be thrown out when terrorism comes into play, then its a very short leap to say perhaps you should be tortured cause you might know something.I don't believe that's true. It's not that easy to become friends with the terrorists we are facing. Furthermore, mere friendship does not constitute the legal level of suspicion I would require for interrogation.

NHL Fever
Sep 25th 2008, 01:26 PM
I don't believe that's true. It's not that easy to become friends with the terrorists we are facing. Furthermore, mere friendship does not constitute the legal level of suspicion I would require for interrogation.

Same for me, but neither you or I are making that call on what constitutes the legal level of suspicion. And if certain procedures are waived for terrorist suspects, there's no reason to think more could not be waived and eventually nobody has rights so long as certain investigators have a 'suspicion'.

Fenris
Sep 25th 2008, 01:33 PM
Same for me, but neither you or I are making that call on what constitutes the legal level of suspicion. And if certain procedures are waived for terrorist suspects, there's no reason to think more could not be waived and eventually nobody has rights so long as certain investigators have a 'suspicion'.
But we're not talking about in the abstract what the government could do. We're talking about what I think the government should do. Basically, if there is probable cause (the legal definition of what police in NY state need to effect an arrest) that a terror attack is imminent and that this person has knowledge of said attack, then they must be compelled to tell us what they know.

I'm not saying that it has to go to torture right away. We can interrogate first, and if that doesn't work then perhaps we can use various drugs to get them to talk.

But in the end, the abstract right of citizens to live vastly outweighs a terrorist's right to not be tortured.

tango
Sep 25th 2008, 03:34 PM
I don't believe that's true. It's not that easy to become friends with the terrorists we are facing. Furthermore, mere friendship does not constitute the legal level of suspicion I would require for interrogation.

Living in the same apartment block as a suspected terrorist cost Jean Charles de Menezes his life. Do you know ALL of your neighbours well enough to know none of them are up to something sinister?

Fenris
Sep 25th 2008, 03:41 PM
Do you know ALL of your neighbours well enough to know none of them are up to something sinister?
Nope. But I'm also not tangled up in their lives enough to get caught if they were.

If my neighbors are doing anything criminal, I can't be arrested. Therefore, if they were terrorists, I couldn't be interrogated. Get it?

Reynolds357
Sep 25th 2008, 03:45 PM
Plenty of good people get in trouble by association. You don't know what your colleagues at work are doing in their private lives, but you may interact with them every day. If one committed a crime, they may look and say a number phone calls were placed to you, or you interacted with them on a regular basis, perhaps went for coffee etc. In a normal just society this might require you to be briefly questioned or give a statement to police, but if the rules can be thrown out when terrorism comes into play, then its a very short leap to say perhaps you should be tortured cause you might know something. Who cares if there's no proof or everyone else that that knows you knows you're a normal guy, when it comes to an attack the stakes are too high to risk not identifying you right?

I do not associate with anyone that I am the least bit concerned is mixed up in a terror plot.

Reynolds357
Sep 25th 2008, 03:47 PM
Living in the same apartment block as a suspected terrorist cost Jean Charles de Menezes his life. Do you know ALL of your neighbours well enough to know none of them are up to something sinister?

I sure do. I only have 3 neighbors. One is my 70 year old aunt. The other is my 68 year old cousin. The last is a retired soldier who was heavily decorated in Operation Desert Storm. He flys his U.S. Flag and puts his Republican campaign signs in his yard every election just like I do. The chance of any of them being terrorists is ZERO!
Some people need to just get out of the city and move to the farm. On the farm, you know everybody in your neighborhood. I even know all the people who live within 3 miles of me. Do not talk to all them, but know them.

tango
Sep 25th 2008, 04:04 PM
Nope. But I'm also not tangled up in their lives enough to get caught if they were.

If my neighbors are doing anything criminal, I can't be arrested. Therefore, if they were terrorists, I couldn't be interrogated. Get it?

Tell that to Jean Charles de Menezes, who didn't seem to have had anything to do with his neighbours. Oh, sorry, you can't, he was shot dead by mistake.

NHL Fever
Sep 25th 2008, 04:08 PM
But we're not talking about in the abstract what the government could do. We're talking about what I think the government should do. Basically, if there is probable cause (the legal definition of what police in NY state need to effect an arrest) that a terror attack is imminent and that this person has knowledge of said attack, then they must be compelled to tell us what they know.


The entire point is that you may not know whether you know anyone suspected of something. If you knew, then this whole debate would not be necessary because you would already distance yourself from them or turn them in. The issue is that you may not know, and may not know that you may not know. If you work somewhere with a bunch of people, its not choice to associate with them, and innocent routine interactions could be misinterpreted by an investigator, especially one who can circumvent your rights in the context of an emergency.

And even if you knew very much about everyone you work with, many people have to take jobs where they can get them, and may have to work alongside and develop relationship with those they would otherwise not naturally seek out.


I sure do. I only have 3 neighbors. One is my 70 year old aunt. The other is my 68 year old cousin. The last is a retired soldier who was heavily decorated in Operation Desert Storm. He flys his U.S. Flag and puts his Republican campaign signs in his yard every election just like I do. The chance of any of them being terrorists is ZERO!
Some people need to just get out of the city and move to the farm. On the farm, you know everybody in your neighborhood. I even know all the people who live within 3 miles of me. Do not talk to all them, but know them.

So the way to get around this is for everyone to move to the farm?

tango
Sep 25th 2008, 04:11 PM
I sure do. I only have 3 neighbors. One is my 70 year old aunt. The other is my 68 year old cousin. The last is a retired soldier who was heavily decorated in Operation Desert Storm. He flys his U.S. Flag and puts his Republican campaign signs in his yard every election just like I do. The chance of any of them being terrorists is ZERO!
Some people need to just get out of the city and move to the farm. On the farm, you know everybody in your neighborhood. I even know all the people who live within 3 miles of me. Do not talk to all them, but know them.

If we all left the city and moved to the farm you wouldn't know all your neighbours any more :)

Fenris
Sep 25th 2008, 05:03 PM
Tell that to Jean Charles de Menezes, who didn't seem to have had anything to do with his neighbours. Oh, sorry, you can't, he was shot dead by mistake.No system is perfect. People die while having surgery too. Should we stop all operations because occasionally they go bad?

Fenris
Sep 25th 2008, 05:05 PM
The entire point is that you may not know whether you know anyone suspected of something. If you knew, then this whole debate would not be necessary because you would already distance yourself from them or turn them in. The issue is that you may not know, and may not know that you may not know. If you work somewhere with a bunch of people, its not choice to associate with them, and innocent routine interactions could be misinterpreted by an investigator, especially one who can circumvent your rights in the context of an emergency.

A good investigator should be able to tell the difference between an acquaintance and a co-conspirator.

NHL Fever
Sep 25th 2008, 05:13 PM
A good investigator should be able to tell the difference between an acquaintance and a co-conspirator.

In the war on terror, torture may be the means to determine that.

tt1106
Sep 25th 2008, 05:22 PM
From an idealogical standpoint: I can't imagine God telling his people that torture is fine as long as there is an imminent threat to the nation. I can't imagine winning converts by submitting them to torture.
In the end if it's God's will that we die in a terror attack, then nothing we can do can stop it. As a Christian, I cannot condone torture. I will praise God for his will in my life even if that means my death. If it means the death of many, then so be it, I will exalt the Lord and ask for guidance on what he wants me to learn from this tragedy.
I don't want to sound esoteric or disingenuous, but didn't Jesus say, If a man steals your shirt, will you not give him your tunic too?
I remember reading the story of Brother Yun in a Chinese prison. And the prisoners were laughing hysterically every time the guard would beat them. They were laughing because they had just heard about "turning the other cheek". The guard came to them and stopped beating them, telling them, You Christians are crazy!
I want a Faith like that!

Fenris
Sep 25th 2008, 05:28 PM
In the war on terror, torture may be the means to determine that.
Um, that's outside the guidelines of what the US government will do.

Fenris
Sep 25th 2008, 05:31 PM
From an idealogical standpoint: I can't imagine God telling his people that torture is fine as long as there is an imminent threat to the nation. I can't imagine winning converts by submitting them to torture. It's not about winning converts. It's about saving lives.



In the end if it's God's will that we die in a terror attack, then nothing we can do can stop it.
So we shouldn't have smashed the Nazis?



As a Christian, I cannot condone torture. I will praise God for his will in my life even if that means my death. If it means the death of many, then so be it, I will exalt the Lord and ask for guidance on what he wants me to learn from this tragedy. Maybe the Lord wants you to do what you have to in order to save human lives.



I don't want to sound esoteric or disingenuous, but didn't Jesus say, If a man steals your shirt, will you not give him your tunic too?That lesson was to you as an individual, not to society as a whole. Or maybe you think criminals should roam free too?


I remember reading the story of Brother Yun in a Chinese prison. And the prisoners were laughing hysterically every time the guard would beat them. They were laughing because they had just heard about "turning the other cheek". The guard came to them and stopped beating them, telling them, You Christians are crazy!
I want a Faith like that!
Easy to say when you aren't the one being beaten.

tt1106
Sep 25th 2008, 05:56 PM
It's not about winning converts. It's about saving lives.

I'm aware. I still think it's called converting if you come from another religion and since the entire dialog was about terrorism, which is usually or has been discussed as being islamic fundamentalist, converts seemed appropriate although I get that salvation would be what they are winning.


So we shouldn't have smashed the Nazis?
Did we do that with torture? If so, then maybe not.


Maybe the Lord wants you to do what you have to in order to save human lives.

I can't imagine the Lord condoning something like torture for any human purpose or consideration.


That lesson was to you as an individual, not to society as a whole. Or maybe you think criminals should roam free too?
I think the lesson was to each individual Christian. Although I recognize that much of the world is not Christian. The Lord believes in Justice too, but I wonder how much you'd support torture if it was our troops in the American Army getting tortured by Iraqi's to gain information on our next attack.


Easy to say when you aren't the one being beaten.

I've had those moments in my life. I trust the Lord that when push comes to shove, the his strength will carry me through.
I pray every day for more persecution, to wake up those that have taken God for granted. So maybe I'll get the chance to find out.
Blessing Brother Fenris, Thank You for the response.

Fenris
Sep 25th 2008, 06:13 PM
I'm aware. I still think it's called converting if you come from another religion and since the entire dialog was about terrorism, which is usually or has been discussed as being islamic fundamentalist, converts seemed appropriate although I get that salvation would be what they are winning. Uh, I don't get it.



Did we do that with torture? If so, then maybe not.We did what we had to do to win. That included executing spies and bombing cities.




I can't imagine the Lord condoning something like torture for any human purpose or consideration.The Lord specifically commanded us not to stand by our brother's blood. That means if you have to opportunity to save a human life, and you don't, then you have sinned.



I think the lesson was to each individual Christian. Although I recognize that much of the world is not Christian. I don't understand.


The Lord believes in Justice too, but I wonder how much you'd support torture if it was our troops in the American Army getting tortured by Iraqi's to gain information on our next attack.
Uh, they did torture and behead out troops.



I've had those moments in my life. I trust the Lord that when push comes to shove, the his strength will carry me through. Fair enough.


I pray every day for more persecution, to wake up those that have taken God for granted. So maybe I'll get the chance to find out. Uh, what?


Blessing Brother Fenris, Thank You for the response.
The pleasure was all mine.

tango
Sep 25th 2008, 06:45 PM
No system is perfect. People die while having surgery too. Should we stop all operations because occasionally they go bad?

Of course not, people undergo surgery knowing the risks. When we leave our home to catch a train most of us expect to get to our destination without being shot dead by anti-terror police.

Fenris
Sep 25th 2008, 06:49 PM
When we leave our home to catch a train most of us expect to get to our destination without being shot dead by anti-terror police.And if you don't associate with terrorists, you won't have any problems.

tango
Sep 25th 2008, 06:58 PM
Did you actually read any of my posts above? The whole point of what I have been saying is that anti-terror police shot dead a man who was NOTHING to do with terrorists, who have NEVER associated with terrorists, simply because they made a mistake. The man they shot happened to live in the same apartment block as a suspected terrorist. Last time I checked that didn't count as a crime, nor did it count as "associating" with them.

Fenris
Sep 25th 2008, 07:10 PM
Did you actually read any of my posts above? The whole point of what I have been saying is that anti-terror police shot dead a man who was NOTHING to do with terrorists, who have NEVER associated with terrorists, simply because they made a mistake.
Police to occasionally shoot people by accident. In the case you mention, no charges were filed against the police. It's one of the costs we sometimes pay for having a safe society.

tango
Sep 25th 2008, 07:14 PM
Police to occasionally shoot people by accident. In the case you mention, no charges were filed against the police. It's one of the costs we sometimes pay for having a safe society.

Safe? It wasn't very safe for Mr de Menezes. So you're happy to write off an innocent man being shot dead in front of dozens of innocent people as "just one of those things".

I'll revert to my original assertion, I hope that you and your family are never the ones shot dead by mistake, or tortured for the information they can never give because the police got it wrong.

pinky
Sep 25th 2008, 08:40 PM
I remember back when Pat Robertson said we should assassinate the Venezuelan president, Christians were then starting to say maybe we should. We could avoid another Iraq war and save money. I was absolutely floored that we have come this far.


I hear what you are saying about being floored. I felt the same way after the attacks on Lebanon.

Sadly, it appears that there are so many worldy, carnal, violent, occultic, materialistic things that 'Christians' advocate today that I too am floored........................... and full of grief.


It seems to me that advocating torture really underscores the idea of 'falling away' from Christ.................. Christian love waxing cold..............and those who say "Lord, Lord", but don't really know Him.





I asked for Scriptural support then, too. I never got any. Anyway, I just noticed the striking parallel.

Call me a pessimist but.......I expect this request to be completely ignored and for those who are pro-torture to continue giving human, fear based logic for the duration of this thread.




May the Lord be merciful and give cause for reflection on His Word. May His Words resonate through our thoughts and our souls.


Pro 14:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Pro/Pro014.html#12) There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.











Pro 10:11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Pro/Pro010.html#11) The mouth of a righteous man is a well of life: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked.













Pro 28:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Pro/Pro028.html#17) A man that doeth violence to the blood of any person shall flee to the pit; let no man stay him.












Luk 3:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk003.html#14) And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.









Isa 5:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa005.html#20) Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

pinky
Sep 25th 2008, 08:55 PM
Rom 12:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom012.html#21) Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Fenris
Sep 25th 2008, 09:50 PM
Safe? It wasn't very safe for Mr de Menezes. So you're happy to write off an innocent man being shot dead in front of dozens of innocent people as "just one of those things".

So what's your solution? take guns away from the police?

pinky
Sep 25th 2008, 10:14 PM
So what's your solution?


Jesus.............and HIS ways.

Fenris
Sep 25th 2008, 10:23 PM
Jesus.............and HIS ways.
In the ideal world, we could all behave like Jesus. Since we don't live in the ideal world, we are sometimes called upon to do things that seem distasteful. That includes things like fighting wars and killing people.

Slug1
Sep 25th 2008, 10:28 PM
In the ideal world, we could all behave like Jesus. Since we don't live in the ideal world, we are sometimes called upon to do things that seem distasteful. That includes things like fighting wars and killing people.AMEN. God had to do this Himself through man to just get His very Son to be born. He's not gonna stop wars so satan can roll right over all of us Christians and wipe us out before His Son can return... so man will continue to be used as Ministers of God to "bring [God's] vengeance to the wrongdoer"

pinky
Sep 25th 2008, 11:41 PM
As I said.....I expect ......for those who are pro-torture to continue giving human, fear based logic for the duration of this thread.

Slug1
Sep 25th 2008, 11:48 PM
As I said.....I expect ......for those who are pro-torture to continue giving human, fear based logic for the duration of this thread.Look at my vote Pinky. Fight, yes... torture, no.

God has not changed and He'll use man to fight against satan until He returns and does the fighting Himself.

Fenris
Sep 26th 2008, 12:00 AM
As I said.....I expect ......for those who are pro-torture to continue giving human, fear based logic for the duration of this thread.
It's not fear-based. It's quite rational and reasonable.

tt1106
Sep 26th 2008, 01:37 AM
I think there is a huge difference between fighting a war and torturing terror suspects to obtain information. It's pretty amazing that the two seem to be being equated.
I also think it is a dangerous thing to make decisions on who the wrongdoer is?
I do not think torture is reasonable or rational.
Are you suggesting that the ends justify the means? Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example. The sacrifice of millions of lives to save years of fighting?

tango
Sep 26th 2008, 03:30 AM
So what's your solution? take guns away from the police?

Certainly I don't believe every police officer needs a gun. Secondly the police need to do their jobs properly, the whole point of Mr de Menezes is that it rather blows a hole in the idea that mere suspicion can ever be enough to warrant any form of direct police action against someone. It turns out the surveillance officers didn't even have a good picture of the man they were looking for :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636798.stm

It's all very well throwing out hypothetical situations of "what if your wife/mother/brother/whatever was under threat while the suspected terrorist wouldn't talk", but we also need to consider the reverse, namely what if you or your wife/mother/brother/whatever was tortured or executed by police who had made a mistake. Would you still regard it as a fair price to pay for your so-called "safe" society?

Fenris
Sep 26th 2008, 09:56 AM
I also think it is a dangerous thing to make decisions on who the wrongdoer is?Is it? Is OBL a bad man, or can we not judge him lest 'we be judged'?



I do not think torture is reasonable or rational.It is very rational. What has more value:: One person's comfort or many people's lives?



Are you suggesting that the ends justify the means? Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example. The sacrifice of millions of lives to save years of fighting?Yes, it was worth it.

It wasn't the sacrifice of millions to save years of fighting, as you put it. It was the weighing of hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives vs hundreds of thousands of American lives. And we decided that the lives of American GIs had more value than the lives of Japanese civilians. That's the way it is in war.

Anyone who thinks that the life of an enemy is worth more than the life of a soldier fighting to protect them is making a poor judgment.

Fenris
Sep 26th 2008, 09:59 AM
Certainly I don't believe every police officer needs a gun.Well, since you don't do their job, that's an easy thing for you to say.

S
econdly the police need to do their jobs properly, the whole point of Mr de Menezes is that it rather blows a hole in the idea that mere suspicion can ever be enough to warrant any form of direct police action against someone.I'm not talking about mere suspicion. I'm talking about a higher level of proof.




It's all very well throwing out hypothetical situations of "what if your wife/mother/brother/whatever was under threat while the suspected terrorist wouldn't talk", but we also need to consider the reverse, namely what if you or your wife/mother/brother/whatever was tortured or executed by police who had made a mistake. Would you still regard it as a fair price to pay for your so-called "safe" society?
A better analogy would be what if my wife/mother/brother/whatever was killed in a terror attack (God forbid!!) because the government was too concerned with the rights of a terrorist to get information from them.

tt1106
Sep 26th 2008, 01:10 PM
Is it? Is OBL a bad man, or can we not judge him lest 'we be judged'?

It is very rational. What has more value:: One person's comfort or many people's lives?

Yes, it was worth it.

It wasn't the sacrifice of millions to save years of fighting, as you put it. It was the weighing of hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives vs hundreds of thousands of American lives. And we decided that the lives of American GIs had more value than the lives of Japanese civilians. That's the way it is in war.

Anyone who thinks that the life of an enemy is worth more than the life of a soldier fighting to protect them is making a poor judgment.

I find it interesting that you consider Japanese civilians "the enemy". What do you think OBL considers the people in the World Trade Centers.

I don't think it is a poor judgement at all. That's ad hominem.
Are you sure it wasn't just an opportunity to test atomic capabilities and the war provided a convenient opportunity?
What if some of those Japanese civilians were Christian? Does that change your perspective at all?

I understand War and have served my country carrying an M-16 every day I served. I respect and Honor all those who are serving and have served. That doesn't mean that every war is for a good reason. Nor does it mean we should support our countries decisions behind the flag each time we drop a bomb on civilians and chalk it up to that's war. That's a dangerous perspective considering that OBL thinks he's a freedom fighter too. and by your reasoning, he is perfectly authorized to chop heads off of reporters, if that will illicit valuable information or save his countrymen.

Whether or not OBL was a bad man depends on your perspective.Millions of people in the middle east think he is a Freedom Fighter. That is why Wars don't bring people to Christ. Missionaries do.
There are always two sides. OBL doesn't do things because he is just mean, he does things because he believes his religion and his nationalism
require him too.

Ahhh.I'm an idiot. Sorry Fenris, I just noticed your profile says you are not a Christian. Of course that will influence your perspective. I'll be praying for you. Disregard anything I typed that requires a Christian Worldview.

Fenris
Sep 26th 2008, 01:20 PM
I find it interesting that you consider Japanese civilians "the enemy". They were the infrastructure that supported the Japanese war machine. They had to die so that Americans could live.


What do you think OBL considers the people in the World Trade Centers. So now President Truman is comparable to OBL?


I don't think it is a poor judgement at all. That's ad hominem.Maybe judgment isn't the right word. Inverted values, perhaps?



Are you sure it wasn't just an opportunity to test atomic capabilities and the war provided a convenient opportunity?Uh, no. We exploded one in the desert. We knew what it would do. that's why we used it. To end the war and save American lives.


What if some of those Japanese civilians were Christian? Does that change your perspective at all?I am sure some were. And most Germans were Christians too. But we bombed them back into the stone age anyway.


I understand War and have served my country carrying an M-16 every day I served. I respect and Honor all those who are serving and have served. Thank you for your service.


That doesn't mean that every war is for a good reason.Agreed.


Nor does it mean we should support our countries decisions behind the flag each time we drop a bomb on civilians and chalk it up to that's war. Also true. But if we do fight a war, we have to adopt the attitude that our soldier's lives have more value than the enemy. Otherwise don't fight at all.


That's a dangerous perspective considering that OBL thinks he's a freedom fighter too.He isn't fighting to 'free' anybody. He's fighting to implement Sharia law all over the world.


and by your reasoning, he is perfectly authorized to chop heads off of reporters, if that will illicit valuable information or save his countrymen.He isn't authorized to fight at all, considering he doesn't represent a state.


Whether or not OBL was a bad man depends on your perspective.Millions of people in the middle east think he is a Freedom Fighter. They themselves are not 'free', so it's difficult to take their viewpoint seriously.


That is why Wars don't bring people to Christ. Missionaries do. The objective of war isn't to make people Christian. It's to protect our country.


There are always two sides.That doesn't mean that both sides are right.


OBL doesn't do things because he is just mean, he does things because he believes his religion and his nationalism
require him too.
He believes his religion requires him to do mean things. The man is a monster.

Fenris
Sep 26th 2008, 01:23 PM
Ahhh.I'm an idiot. Sorry Fenris, I just noticed your profile says you are not a Christian. Of course that will influence your perspective. I'll be praying for you. Disregard anything I typed that requires a Christian Worldview.No apology is needed. :)

I understand the Christian worldview and don't have major disagreements with Christian ethics. (Theology is something different, of course...:lol:) There are Christians who agree with me on the subject, as the original post suggests. Most here seem to disagree though.

Slug1
Sep 26th 2008, 01:26 PM
Let's not forget that God has given a mission to governements and that is to use the sword and bring His vengence to the wrongdoer and protect with force when needed.

God has given a mission to His church and that is to spread the Word of God.

Let's not blend the two together cause that is where we confuse ourselves.

tt1106
Sep 26th 2008, 01:29 PM
I agree on the subject of warfare and the requirement to defend the Nation. I also agree that in that defense, there may be civilian casualties.
My mind has changed on alot of issues since I became a Christian, which hasn't been that long ago.
I was not trying to defend OBl, simply illustrate that other people believe what they believe just as vehemently as we believe what we believe.
Imperail Hubris was an excellent book on the subject and I woudl recommend it highly to anyone who does not get why someone would strap explosives to their midseciton and blow up a Hotel Lobby.
Thanks for the insight.

I get that Slug. But also believe that Governments do things for wrong reasons sometimes. Sometimes they do what they really want, while the side effect might be helpful the intention is still questionable.

Fenris
Sep 26th 2008, 01:34 PM
I agree on the subject of warfare and the requirement to defend the Nation. I also agree that in that defense, there may be civilian casualties. OK, we're on the same page here.


My mind has changed on alot of issues since I became a Christian, which hasn't been that long ago. It sounds to me like you're still sorting issues out. Nothing wrong with that.


I was not trying to defend OBl, simply illustrate that other people believe what they believe just as vehemently as we believe what we believe. Of course. But there is a difference between a free nation fighting to defend itself and a lone individual waging war against civilians in an attempt to enslave people.


Imperail Hubris was an excellent book on the subject and I woudl recommend it highly to anyone who does not get why someone would strap explosives to their midseciton and blow up a Hotel Lobby.
Thanks for the insight.
There's no good reason why anyone would do that.

pinky
Sep 26th 2008, 08:12 PM
Look at my vote Pinky. Fight, yes... torture, no.

Yes........ I noticed that, :). I am happy to see that we agree on the subject of torture. Perhaps I should have emphasized that more.

I know we have disagreed on the subject of war though..........................however........... .....reconciling torture with Christ cannot be done.

God bless in the Prince of Peace,
pinky

pinky
Sep 26th 2008, 08:29 PM
Can ANYONE give a Biblically sound Christian view in support of torture???


waiting....

waiting....

waiting....

Slug1
Sep 27th 2008, 02:22 PM
Well, when I read this scripture... seem that God's wrath will inflict torture on many for 5 months, they also can't even kill themselves to stop the pain ;)

Revelation 9:1 Then the fifth angel sounded: And I saw a star fallen from heaven to the earth. To him was given the key to the bottomless pit. 2 And he opened the bottomless pit, and smoke arose out of the pit like the smoke of a great furnace. So the sun and the air were darkened because of the smoke of the pit. 3 Then out of the smoke locusts came upon the earth. And to them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. 4 They were commanded not to harm the grass of the earth, or any green thing, or any tree, but only those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5 And they were not given authority to kill them, but to torment them for five months. Their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it strikes a man. 6 In those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will desire to die, and death will flee from them.

RabbiKnife
Sep 29th 2008, 01:48 PM
Can ANYONE give a Biblically sound Christian view in support of torture???


waiting....

waiting....

waiting....

One cannot give a Biblically sound Christian view in support of air conditioning either, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.

Scripture is absolutely silent on the issue. In order for the issue to be examined, we are then outside the parameters of theology and into the arenas of philosophy and ethics, which although informed by theology, are not the same as theology.

If one believes in just war theory, and one believes in the greater good premise, then it is reasonable for one to permit torture in select circumstances, just as it is possible to hold to a contrary view.

Free Indeed
Sep 29th 2008, 02:27 PM
Scripture is absolutely silent on the issue.

If you really believe that, I strongly recommend re-reading the Sermon on the Mount.

IPet2_9
Sep 29th 2008, 08:00 PM
Scripture requires the true testimony of wrongdoing by two or more witnesses before you can even think of doing torture. The OP is whether it's okay to torture SUSPECTED terrorists.

Fenris
Sep 29th 2008, 09:15 PM
Scripture requires the true testimony of wrongdoing by two or more witnesses before you can even think of doing torture. The OP is whether it's okay to torture SUSPECTED terrorists.
Tsk tsk. So legalistic. I mean, shouldn't we look at the spirit of the law?

The law states we should not stand by our brother's blood. So if our brother is going to bleed, or even worse, die, shouldn't we do anything in our power to prevent that? Including torture?

IPet2_9
Sep 29th 2008, 09:43 PM
The law states we should not stand by our brother's blood.

Well I guess if we're going to do that, then we should not stand by your sister's or mother's blood, either. I suspect your grandmother is secretly plotting terrorism. Let's torture her and find out for sure. Thousands of lives are at stake here, you know.

Fenris
Sep 29th 2008, 09:48 PM
Well I guess if we're going to do that, then we should not stand by your sister's or mother's blood, either. I suspect your grandmother is secretly plotting terrorism. Let's torture her and find out for sure. Thousands of lives are at stake here, you know.
You're not very familiar with the legal system, are you?

I'm not talking about mere suspicion or even reasonable suspicion, where are fairly low levels of legal proof. I'm talking about probable cause of an imminent attack. That means it's more likely that there's an imminent terrorist attack, and the person being held more likely than not has knowledge about it.

Or we could do what you want, and stand by our brother's blood.

Reynolds357
Sep 30th 2008, 07:23 PM
So the way to get around this is for everyone to move to the farm?

Works for me. I have lived in the city and in the country. When I left home for college, I could not wait to graduate and get back to "God's country." I could not stand the traffic, and the hustle and bustle of city life. People in the city are so wrapped up in themselves. I think we would all be a lot better off if we slowed down and milked a few cows.

Reynolds357
Sep 30th 2008, 07:27 PM
From an idealogical standpoint: I can't imagine God telling his people that torture is fine as long as there is an imminent threat to the nation. I can't imagine winning converts by submitting them to torture.

War is war. Plain in simple. War is hell and torture is part of war. If you want a refresher on how God wants wars fought, go read his instructions to King Saul a little closer. By today's standards, God would be a "war criminal."

Reynolds357
Sep 30th 2008, 07:29 PM
Of course not, people undergo surgery knowing the risks. When we leave our home to catch a train most of us expect to get to our destination without being shot dead by anti-terror police.

In a society with with very poor intelligence gathering, you might board that train only to be blown up by a terror bomber. REMEMBER SEPT 11 !

Reynolds357
Sep 30th 2008, 07:30 PM
Did you actually read any of my posts above? The whole point of what I have been saying is that anti-terror police shot dead a man who was NOTHING to do with terrorists, who have NEVER associated with terrorists, simply because they made a mistake. The man they shot happened to live in the same apartment block as a suspected terrorist. Last time I checked that didn't count as a crime, nor did it count as "associating" with them.

A SWAT team I used to train with executed a Search Warrant at the wrong house and shot an innocent person. Should we stop executing Search Warrants in this country now?

Reynolds357
Sep 30th 2008, 07:34 PM
As I said.....I expect ......for those who are pro-torture to continue giving human, fear based logic for the duration of this thread.

Man is expected to act to protect himself. God used the United States to protect the Jews during WWII. Had people just idly sat by and prayed millions more jews would have been annihilated and the world would be speaking German and Japanese. Would your solution have been to witness to Hitler?

Reynolds357
Sep 30th 2008, 07:36 PM
I think there is a huge difference between fighting a war and torturing terror suspects to obtain information. It's pretty amazing that the two seem to be being equated.
I also think it is a dangerous thing to make decisions on who the wrongdoer is?
I do not think torture is reasonable or rational.
Are you suggesting that the ends justify the means? Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example. The sacrifice of millions of lives to save years of fighting?

The ends most definitely justify the means. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 100% justifiable. We should not have sacrificed the lives of thousands of US soldiers to spare the lives of our enemy. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. We did not start the war with them. They started it. We finished it!

Reynolds357
Sep 30th 2008, 07:41 PM
Can ANYONE give a Biblically sound Christian view in support of torture???


waiting....

waiting....

waiting....

I have told you to read the military campaigns of King Saul. Somehow, you just refuse to acknowledge the response has been given. By today's standards, God would be a war criminal. He would be a torturer. He would be a baby killer. However, God is, and has always been 100% just and righteous. There are most definitely different rules for war than there are for peace time. God recognizes that there are times when His children must use the Sword to stamp out unrighteousness.

tango
Sep 30th 2008, 09:03 PM
In a society with with very poor intelligence gathering, you might board that train only to be blown up by a terror bomber. REMEMBER SEPT 11 !

That, unfortunately, is part of the risk we take if we want to live in a free society. I missed the July 7 bombings on London's Underground by less than half an hour, simply because I overslept. I'd still rather take my chances against terrorists (and indeed I ride the Tube into the heart of London's financial district every day) than make it too easy to pick people off by mistake. If we live our lives in fear then the terrorists have beaten us.


A SWAT team I used to train with executed a Search Warrant at the wrong house and shot an innocent person. Should we stop executing Search Warrants in this country now?

No, we should take more care and make sure we do have the right people. Since you're so fond of mentioning bad intelligence, what sort of intelligence takes a SWAT team to the wrong house?

pinky
Sep 30th 2008, 10:00 PM
I have told you to read the military campaigns of King Saul. Somehow, you just refuse to acknowledge the response has been given. By today's standards, God would be a war criminal. He would be a torturer. He would be a baby killer. However, God is, and has always been 100% just and righteous. There are most definitely different rules for war than there are for peace time. God recognizes that there are times when His children must use the Sword to stamp out unrighteousness.



Saul is NOT the example that I as a Christian follow. Christ is!!

1Sa 18:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Sa/1Sa018.html#10) And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul's hand.
1Sa 18:11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Sa/1Sa018.html#11) And Saul cast the javelin; for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it. And David avoided out of his presence twice.


Are you suggesting that Saul has more authority than Christ and His teachings?


Please show us where Christ says it's OK to torture people?

Reynolds357
Sep 30th 2008, 11:27 PM
Saul is NOT the example that I as a Christian follow. Christ is!!

1Sa 18:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Sa/1Sa018.html#10) And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul's hand.
1Sa 18:11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Sa/1Sa018.html#11) And Saul cast the javelin; for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it. And David avoided out of his presence twice.


Are you suggesting that Saul has more authority than Christ and His teachings?


Please show us where Christ says it's OK to torture people?

GOD Himself directly commanded King Saul to conduct his campaigns in this manner. Have your read the account? Saul did not make up the battle rules. He was delivered them by the prophet of God. God was actually enraged that Saul spared life and did not totally destroy the enemy. God and Jesus Christ are one. God commanded the tactics. A re-read might be beneficial.

IPet2_9
Sep 30th 2008, 11:56 PM
No, we should take more care and make sure we do have the right people. Since you're so fond of mentioning bad intelligence, what sort of intelligence takes a SWAT team to the wrong house?


Politically-motivated intelligence sure as heck does.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/07/mayor.warrant/index.html

How about this SWAT team break-in? Someone mails the Maryland mayor drugs--and then the next day a SWAT team raids his house looking for drugs. Nope, not politically motivated at all. I'm sure the SWAT team raiding Paula Jones' house when she was threatening to sue Bill Clinton wasn't politically motivated at all, either.

Slug1
Oct 1st 2008, 01:35 PM
Not really wearing my Admin hat but lets not spiral away from the topic of the OP to much.

One thing that I'm interested in is if the Bible specifically supports torture. Lots of good input in some posts but nothing consolidated IMO.

So lets stay on topic and as we can see in the poll results.. 76% say it's never justifiable... WHY?

Only 1% say it's often justifiable... WHY?

And 21% say it's Somtimes justifiable... WHY? This is is big one for me as an interested "participant" in this discussion. I've been to war, killed our enemy who want's us all dead but personally I could never torture for info. In my opinion based on the protection I received and for the authority I held over the enemy as I killed them, I was under God's hand. If intelligence is gathered proactively then torturing the info from people isn't needed.

Heck, if we all did it the way God wanted us to kill the enemy, we'd just ask our prophets to ask and let God tell us what to do as when He was handing them over to us... but we know the government has separated Church from State and lets face it... many Christian's don't believe that there are prophets today anyway.

Anyway, to me 21% for "Sometimes" using torture is OK... means these people are like a wave on the ocean... it's either OK, or it isn't OK. White and Black. Right or Wrong. Yes or No. You either "always" support it, or you never support it cause when you swing either way then things are really dangerous. It's ok when it "suits" you, I guess.


Anyway, back to our regularly sceduled thread but lets stay on target... ;)

Reynolds357
Oct 1st 2008, 04:50 PM
Anyway, to me 21% for "Sometimes" using torture is OK... means these people are like a wave on the ocean... it's either OK, or it isn't OK. White and Black. Right or Wrong. Yes or No. You either "always" support it, or you never support it cause when you swing either way then things are really dangerous. It's ok when it "suits" you, I guess.


;)

I am one who says that sometimes it is Ok and sometimes it is not. I am not tossed as a wave on the sea, but I recognize different circumstances warrant different tactics. Is it Ok to torture someone to make them tell you where they stashed the shaving cream they just shoplifted from Wal Mart? Is it Ok to torture someone to make them tell you where they stashed the suitcase nuclear device that is about to be detonated in New York City? The two circumstances are drastically different and warrant different actions be taken.

lendtay
Oct 2nd 2008, 03:02 AM
Perhaps these southern evangelicals may consider torture "okay" because a Republican president condones it. If a Democratic president ordered torture, would it still be okay with them ? I have to wonder.

Slug1
Oct 2nd 2008, 03:44 AM
I am one who says that sometimes it is Ok and sometimes it is not. I am not tossed as a wave on the sea, but I recognize different circumstances warrant different tactics. Is it Ok to torture someone to make them tell you where they stashed the shaving cream they just shoplifted from Wal Mart? Is it Ok to torture someone to make them tell you where they stashed the suitcase nuclear device that is about to be detonated in New York City? The two circumstances are drastically different and warrant different actions be taken.Yet we can't confirm torture through scripture... specific scripture that says torture is OK. We can find plenty of scripture where God kills and orders man to kill so that's why we continue to do it today as Ministers of God... but torture? If we can't find it in scripture... specific, then to say this situation is not OK to do torture compared to that situation deems torture... we're doing it on our own. Because opinion is the standard then... OK, if over 500,000 will die then torture is OK but if 499,999 or less are gonna die... can't torture. So what's a good standard? If your family is gonna die then no torture but if my family is gonna die... here's the hammer and let me get in a few whacks... who sets the standard?

Anyway, that's my views cause I'm not led to torture. Don't get me wrong, I'm the first to jump in and defend a person in a fight as God has prepared me to do this all my life and professionally as a soldier... someone has to defend us on a national level while poilce do the civil level of protecting citizens... but about torture, I'm just not led to even see it's use and Yes, part of this is because I cannot find scripture that says... It's OK.

Fenris
Oct 2nd 2008, 11:25 AM
Perhaps these southern evangelicals may consider torture "okay" because a Republican president condones it. If a Democratic president ordered torture, would it still be okay with them ? I have to wonder.
If it followed the guidelines I laid out, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Reynolds357
Oct 2nd 2008, 05:43 PM
Yet we can't confirm torture through scripture... specific scripture that says torture is OK. We can find plenty of scripture where God kills and orders man to kill so that's why we continue to do it today as Ministers of God... but torture? If we can't find it in scripture... specific, then to say this situation is not OK to do torture compared to that situation deems torture... we're doing it on our own. Because opinion is the standard then... OK, if over 500,000 will die then torture is OK but if 499,999 or less are gonna die... can't torture. So what's a good standard? If your family is gonna die then no torture but if my family is gonna die... here's the hammer and let me get in a few whacks... who sets the standard?

Anyway, that's my views cause I'm not led to torture. Don't get me wrong, I'm the first to jump in and defend a person in a fight as God has prepared me to do this all my life and professionally as a soldier... someone has to defend us on a national level while poilce do the civil level of protecting citizens... but about torture, I'm just not led to even see it's use and Yes, part of this is because I cannot find scripture that says... It's OK.

Common sense is the standard. If it is Ok to kill the unrighteous why is not ok to torture them. These evil doers are going to suffer in hell until judgment then they are going to burn in the Lake of Fire for eternity. The most agonizing torture that we as men could deliver can not even compare to the agony they will experience in eternal damnation. If killing the evildoer and sending them to eternal torture is Ok, I fail to comprehend why a litle torture to the evil doer on this earth is not acceptable.

Reynolds357
Oct 2nd 2008, 05:44 PM
Perhaps these southern evangelicals may consider torture "okay" because a Republican president condones it. If a Democratic president ordered torture, would it still be okay with them ? I have to wonder.

We wish that the democrats condoned it also. It is a common sense issue, not a Republican vs. Democrat issue.

Slug1
Oct 2nd 2008, 06:51 PM
Common sense is the standard. If it is Ok to kill the unrighteous why is not ok to torture them. These evil doers are going to suffer in hell until judgment then they are going to burn in the Lake of Fire for eternity. The most agonizing torture that we as men could deliver can not even compare to the agony they will experience in eternal damnation. If killing the evildoer and sending them to eternal torture is Ok, I fail to comprehend why a litle torture to the evil doer on this earth is not acceptable.So then... why when we read in the Bible of God ordering man to kill, He never orders man to torture?

My common sense says never torture ;)

Reynolds357
Oct 2nd 2008, 07:19 PM
So then... why when we read in the Bible of God ordering man to kill, He never orders man to torture?

My common sense says never torture ;)

God was and is all knowing. He did not need to extract information from the enemy. He already knew the information. He had no need to use torture to extract vital intelligence. If your "common sense" says do not torture one man to save the lives of 500,000 innocent men, women, and children; then I would argue as to whether that was truly common sense.

Slug1
Oct 2nd 2008, 07:39 PM
God was and is all knowing. He did not need to extract information from the enemy. He already knew the information. He had no need to use torture to extract vital intelligence. If your "common sense" says do not torture one man to save the lives of 500,000 innocent men, women, and children; then I would argue as to whether that was truly common sense.
That is exactly why I said in an earlier post about God handing the enemy over to us. If we were to utilize prophets today and fight and kill only those we're directed to... no need to torture.

500,000 people isn't even a blip on God's radar... when He returns He'll be slaughtering billions. So for us to justify torture to "save" 500,000... why? To make "us" feel better? Let's do 1 thing wrong to make a big right and the wrong won't matter?

tango
Oct 2nd 2008, 08:01 PM
God was and is all knowing. He did not need to extract information from the enemy. He already knew the information. He had no need to use torture to extract vital intelligence. If your "common sense" says do not torture one man to save the lives of 500,000 innocent men, women, and children; then I would argue as to whether that was truly common sense.

So taking the previous example of the device hidden in Manhatten. Let's also assume you can be 100% sure that you've got the man who knows where it's hidden (practically speaking even that's unlikely, but for now we'll assume you've managed it).

So you torture your man to reveal where it is. What's to say he's going to give you the right information anyway? Say he directs the ground crews to Grand Central so you start the search there. After a couple of hours the device in the Empire State Building wipes out the whole of Manhatten. If he's gone to the trouble of getting such a device into place at all he's not going to roll over and say precisely where it is at first, he's most likely more than willing (and possibly actively desiring) to die for the cause in the process.

How exactly has torture helped you here?

Reynolds357
Oct 2nd 2008, 08:31 PM
So taking the previous example of the device hidden in Manhatten. Let's also assume you can be 100% sure that you've got the man who knows where it's hidden (practically speaking even that's unlikely, but for now we'll assume you've managed it).

So you torture your man to reveal where it is. What's to say he's going to give you the right information anyway? Say he directs the ground crews to Grand Central so you start the search there. After a couple of hours the device in the Empire State Building wipes out the whole of Manhatten. If he's gone to the trouble of getting such a device into place at all he's not going to roll over and say precisely where it is at first, he's most likely more than willing (and possibly actively desiring) to die for the cause in the process.

How exactly has torture helped you here?

This example proves that you do not understand the fundamentals of torture. The consequences for misinformation are to be so extreme that the person does not dare give wrong information. However, in the example you cited, you merely send one team to the location that was givne to you by the suspect. You do not cease your other areas of investigation and rely solely on the information provided you by this one person. However, this person is now an extra avenue of information.

Did water boarding work? Yes, it did. We obtained much useful information using this tactic. Was it torture? That is debatable. However, the ones who oppose the use of torture do say that water boarding is torture. Waterboarding has given us vast amounts of RELIABLE information. Waterboarding is a kinder version of a torture used in Central America for 50+ years now. It is highly effective. The dosage of pain and fear can be applied slowly and in a controlled manner. The person is quite aware of the low level of pain and fear that they are experiencing in the early interrogation. They are also very much aware that this agony can be increased a thousand fold if they dare give wrong information. What is so beneficial about this tactic is that it can be used to inflict massive pain for extremely long periods of time with no real danger of killing the person. The person from a military in Central America who informed me of this technique says it is 100% effective to date. He said there is not one person it has failed to break.

I think the I.D.F. has a much better success rate of obtaining information during their "interrogations" than we do. You might call what they do "torture." The liberal Democrats would call it torture anyway.

Reynolds357
Oct 2nd 2008, 08:38 PM
That is exactly why I said in an earlier post about God handing the enemy over to us. If we were to utilize prophets today and fight and kill only those we're directed to... no need to torture.

500,000 people isn't even a blip on God's radar... when He returns He'll be slaughtering billions. So for us to justify torture to "save" 500,000... why? To make "us" feel better? Let's do 1 thing wrong to make a big right and the wrong won't matter?

The 500,000 people are our 500,000 people. There lies the difference. In my opinion, the agonizing death of one terrorist is justified to save the lives of 500,000 innocent people. The massive slaughter that will happen during our Savior's return is of the people waging war agains His chosen people. Islamic terrorists are waging war against the Jew, His chosen people. If Jesus will make the blood flow to the horses bridle to protect His chosen people(kill hundreds of millions), then surely we can torture one or two if need be to save the lives of the innocent and indirectly protect Israel, His chosen people.

IPet2_9
Oct 2nd 2008, 08:57 PM
Islamic terrorists are waging war against the Jew, His chosen people.Nopers. Christians are God's chosen people.

I Peter 2:9 But YOU are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.[/quote]


It's interesting how support for torture stems from a belief that Jews are God's chosen people, though. Neither belief has any Scriptural support, but it's interesting.

tango
Oct 2nd 2008, 09:02 PM
This example proves that you do not understand the fundamentals of torture. The consequences for misinformation are to be so extreme that the person does not dare give wrong information. However, in the example you cited, you merely send one team to the location that was givne to you by the suspect. You do not cease your other areas of investigation and rely solely on the information provided you by this one person. However, this person is now an extra avenue of information.

So our man takes the precaution of a cyanide pill before planting his device? If someone is willing to die for their cause they probably expect it to hurt along the way, and if someone has gone to the trouble of planning the destruction of an entire city they would probably also go to the trouble of implementing their own Plan B in case they were captured.

You're also assuming you have the luxury of lots of time. If you had that kind of time you could send in teams with Geiger counters. Not only that but given the threat of multiple attacks you can't even be sure you've taken your suspect somewhere safe to torture him in the first place.

Fenris
Oct 2nd 2008, 09:02 PM
Nopers. Christians are God's chosen people.

The point here is the sanctity of all human life.

tango
Oct 2nd 2008, 09:03 PM
The point here is the sanctity of all human life.

Except for the guy being tortured, presumably :rolleyes:

IPet2_9
Oct 2nd 2008, 09:16 PM
Except for the guy being tortured, presumably :rolleyes:At first glance, it does. But really, it's the whole people-group not being respected. That's why I pointed out that R's belief in torture stems from his belief in Jews as God's chosen people ... vs. the "Islamic terrorists". It shows an underlying lack of sanctity for human life, in the case of Muslims. That's a good way to send us all into WW3. This is not to single out R at all; this is a prevailing attitude among many American conservatives.

Fenris
Oct 2nd 2008, 09:23 PM
Except for the guy being tortured, presumably :rolleyes:
#1 He isn't being killed
#2 He is trying to kill others

To say the comfort of a murderer takes precedence over the lives of his victims is in my opinion inverted morality.

Fenris
Oct 2nd 2008, 09:24 PM
At first glance, it does. But really, it's the whole people-group not being respected.
No, it isn't. I don't care if the terrorist is Muslim or Christian or Jewish or atheist.

tango
Oct 2nd 2008, 09:31 PM
#1 He isn't being killed
#2 He is trying to kill others

To say the comfort of a murderer takes precedence over the lives of his victims is in my opinion inverted morality.

Don't forget we're talking about a suspect, and also their future psychological well-being. Or does a lifetime of PTSD not count if we mistakenly thought someone was actually someone else?

Fenris
Oct 2nd 2008, 09:40 PM
Don't forget we're talking about a suspect
As I've said many times, I would expect a pretty high level of proof. Not just someone who's a suspect.

Reynolds357
Oct 3rd 2008, 03:36 PM
Nopers. Christians are God's chosen people.

I Peter 2:9 But YOU are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.


It's interesting how support for torture stems from a belief that Jews are God's chosen people, though. Neither belief has any Scriptural support, but it's interesting.[/quote]

NOPERS. Read the Book of Revelation. God's redemption plan for His Chosen people begins. He raises witnesses from the 12 tribes of Israel to preach to His people the message of Salvation. God extended His covenant to the Church, but the church NEVER REPLACED THE JEWISH people. Replacement theology as John Hagee so eloquently put it is a "doctrine of devils."

Reynolds357
Oct 3rd 2008, 03:39 PM
So our man takes the precaution of a cyanide pill before planting his device? If someone is willing to die for their cause they probably expect it to hurt along the way, and if someone has gone to the trouble of planning the destruction of an entire city they would probably also go to the trouble of implementing their own Plan B in case they were captured.

You're also assuming you have the luxury of lots of time. If you had that kind of time you could send in teams with Geiger counters. Not only that but given the threat of multiple attacks you can't even be sure you've taken your suspect somewhere safe to torture him in the first place.

I am assuming we do not have much time at all. That is the reason quick detection is vital. Assuming the person does commit suicide, then they are dead. Assuming they do not, then they are a valuable intelligence tool.

tango
Oct 3rd 2008, 04:18 PM
I am assuming we do not have much time at all. That is the reason quick detection is vital. Assuming the person does commit suicide, then they are dead. Assuming they do not, then they are a valuable intelligence tool.

If you don't have much time your man can afford to play for time, knowing that if he sends the search team on a wild goose chase the device will detonate before they find it.

Someone wanting to wipe out an entire city is probably willing to deal with pain before death, if it means taking down the city as part of the deal. Also if you're talking about an organised enemy there are probably many devices in many cities, with no one individual knowing about more than one of them.

Reynolds357
Oct 3rd 2008, 06:43 PM
If you don't have much time your man can afford to play for time, knowing that if he sends the search team on a wild goose chase the device will detonate before they find it.

Someone wanting to wipe out an entire city is probably willing to deal with pain before death, if it means taking down the city as part of the deal. Also if you're talking about an organised enemy there are probably many devices in many cities, with no one individual knowing about more than one of them.

You are assuming hypotheticals that merely try to distract from the issue.

tango
Oct 3rd 2008, 09:05 PM
You are assuming hypotheticals that merely try to distract from the issue.

Not at all, I'm simply assuming that a group determined enough to try and wipe out an entire Western city would have undertaken some kind of planning. The kind of device you'd need to do that isn't something you buy at the local drugstore on a whim and leave lying around somewhere, after all.

If you're talking about the angry teenager with a chemistry textbook you probably wouldn't need to torture them to find their plans, if you're talking a serious organisation you'd expect them to have considered what happens if one or more of their group is captured.

Slug1
Oct 3rd 2008, 10:56 PM
I have a question... define interrogation vs. torture?

This is to anyone who wants to answer.

IPet2_9
Oct 3rd 2008, 11:02 PM
I have a question... define interrogation vs. torture?

VERY good question. It deserves its own thread.

Slug1
Oct 3rd 2008, 11:05 PM
VERY good question. It deserves its own thread.
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_2_112.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=_undefined)

This is the thread to discuss this :rolleyes:

Clavicula_Nox
Oct 4th 2008, 03:08 PM
I have a question... define interrogation vs. torture?

This is to anyone who wants to answer.

Interrogation is closer to "interviewing," but with pressure that is carefully controlled, but must be presented in such a manner so that the subject earnestly believes he will be in mortal danger, without actually being so. It's absolutely effective where torture is not.

Stress positions, sleep deprivation, seclusion, withholding food and drink (not starvation), and a few other things are certainly more acceptable than waterboarding and physical damage. Under no circumstances should the interrogator be forced to physically and directly harm the subject. The psychological advantage held by the interrogator is significantly reduced the moment his threats become actualized, this is simply because the subject now has a baseline from which to gauge their resistance. So long as the threat is psychological, attacks the conscious state, and reduce's the subject's ability to mentally toughen themselves, the interrogation will be ultimately successful.

When there are time constraints, the subject has the psychological advantage, which as mentioned above, is amplified upon the breakdown in the interrogator's conduct into physical torture.

lendtay
Oct 4th 2008, 05:16 PM
Is torturing a suspected terrorist justifiable?

I think the real danger of the United States torturing suspected war criminals is this: if we commit torture, other countries will be more inclined to torture our own people in war time. The U.S. gets upset and cries "foul" and that's a "human rights violation" - but we are doing it too. This is hypocrisy.

Our own people are far more likely to be tortured with impunity - no holds barred- in the future, because we have broken this taboo.

RabbiKnife
Oct 6th 2008, 06:05 PM
I have two brothers in the military. Both are officers.

Neither have a problem with torture, if that meant saving the lives of their men or civilians.

Neither is worried about being captured and tortured. They expect to be tortured if captured, so the "if we do it to them they will do it to us" argument doesn't fly.

"They" already torture.

Fenris
Oct 6th 2008, 08:05 PM
I think the real danger of the United States torturing suspected war criminals is this: if we commit torture, other countries will be more inclined to torture our own people in war time.
They already torture their captives. And when they're done, they behead them.