Legalizing Torture?
Do you think that if a major world power legalizes torture that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints should speak out against such practises in General Conference?
Please support your arguments with logical, moral, reasons.
If you happen to know someone speaking in conference tomorrow, will you ask them to bring up the topic in their speech. I will be disappointed with the church if no one does.
Popularity: 7% [?]
[?]
Type in a relevant tag, and click the button, and help organize this blog's information.
[More Help]
[More Help]
Jeff, it’s much too late to ask someone speaking in conference tomorrow to change what he’s talking about. Those talks have been prepared well in advance.
29 Sep 2006 @ 12:09 | Permalink
I think that if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints speaks out against world powers legalising same gender marriage, then they should speak out regarding the legalisation of torture.
29 Sep 2006 @ 12:15 | Permalink
By the way, what indicates to you that a major world power is on the verge of “legalizing torture”? What’s your source on this?
29 Sep 2006 @ 12:21 | Permalink
I’m having a bit of frustration posting. I’ve written two rather long comments now and lost them both times to a mysterious error 404.
I should have copy/pasted a saved copy of the second try—I even meant to, but then forgot at the last second and hit post.
29 Sep 2006 @ 12:59 | Permalink
Jeff
Still some bugs to be worked out. Hopefully Kim can get it fixed.
Ok, maybe I can clueless, I thought I am well up on current events, torture is to be LEGALISED???????? Or is this hypothetical? I certainly hope no one is going to do that, what an abuse. Maybe I should join Amnesty again…
29 Sep 2006 @ 13:06 | Permalink
29 Sep 2006 @ 13:24 | Permalink
One of the other blogs on our server received 100 spam comments every minute over a 40 minute period. Normally, it wouldn’t have been a problem, but for that 40 minute period, posts and comments with HTML returned a 404. Basically, a DOS attack.
It should be fine now, Jeff.
29 Sep 2006 @ 17:28 | Permalink
#3 – another source:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856
29 Sep 2006 @ 18:28 | Permalink
This all depends on your definition of torture. Even in one of the cites above, the processes in question are called “bordering on torture.” Yet you seem to treat that question as if it didn’t exist—as if no reasonable person could ever disagree that the US is “legalizing torture.”
30 Sep 2006 @ 05:25 | Permalink
Maybe I’m not being right in terms of my priorities, but what I find even more alarming than the “torture” provisions is the denial of access to U.S. courts. The whole U.S. system of government is set up on the basis of checks and balances, but now one of the most important checks is explicitly being taken away.
30 Sep 2006 @ 07:53 | Permalink
It’s just semantics to try and argue that “sleep deprivation and induced hypothermia” are not torture. Please, how can you not be outraged?
30 Sep 2006 @ 11:11 | Permalink
No, Jeff, it isn’t just semantics. “Torture” has a meaning. Some things fall under that meaning and some don’t. The US isn’t trying to “legalize” anything. The Geneva Conventions outlaw “torture” without defining it. The President is encouraging the Congress to provide an official position of the US as to whether certain practices fall under that heading or not.
30 Sep 2006 @ 20:20 | Permalink
If a superpower wants to torture its prisoners, it’s pretty easy for them to say, “sleep deprivation and induced hypothermia” are not explicitely defined as torture therefore we are not legalizing torture.
However, for you to be so bold as to defend a country in its actions of actively pushing forward such a wicked law, then in my mind, as someone posting from (I assume) an LDS/religious perspective, that makes you hypocritical and immoral.
Please don’t be so obtuse as to pretend that sleep deprivation is not torture.
Please don’t tell me it’s not against the Geneva convention because it’s not “clear” whether induced hypothermia is torture.
I have never witnessed such atrocities being committed against anyone, but I can imagine that doing so would feel exactly like watching someone being tortured—don’t you think so too?
So in return to my question, let’s pretend for a moment that you have a conscience about a super power legitimizing the use of “torture” (leave the semantics out). Do you think it’s the church’s place to try and influence the law, or at least show public disapproval?
Also I’m pretty sad that very few people have commented on this topic. If you have morals that you care about, then it seems like this is an easy topic to weigh in on, you should at least say, “I don’t necessarily know what the church should do, but personally I know that it is wicked.”
Where have all the good people gone?
1 Oct 2006 @ 09:46 | Permalink
Sleep deprivation is torture. If you have never experienced it, you cannot judge it accurately. Induced hypothermia is also sick and cruel. I would define both of these as torture. To force someone to become ill, possibly die? Since you can die from hypothermia, yes, I would view that as torture. And to stop someone from sleeping for an extended period, that is one of the ultimate cruelties.
Jeff, sorry, I would have commented more, but you said to use logic and reasoning, and I am not very good at that right now, lol. I do think the Church should speak out about this, especially if they speak out about other important issues. Torture is wrong wrong wrong and extremely evil. It isn’t alright for some to use it and not alright for others.
On another note about that, the President of Iran had a point a few weeks ago when he said something to the effect of if some countries are banned from having nuclear weapons, shouldn’t all countries be stopped from having them? Why should ANY country have sucha a destructive weapon at their disposal, since nuclear weapons do not differentiate between the good and the bad. They kill everyone, maim and destroy the people, the earth, the water, etc etc without prejudice. We saw this very well in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Sorry for digressing, but it brought this to mind.
Back to the topic, torture is wrong on all scores.
1 Oct 2006 @ 11:13 | Permalink
Jeff, I’m sorry you dismiss everyone who disagrees with your assessment as being evil. Sleep deprivation is a highly effective method of breaking down the will, but which does not cause physical injury or pain, and has no permanent effects. In other words, it’s a great alternative to torture.
If you choose to define it as torture, you’re free to do so, but I hope you’ll stop pretending that yours is the only reasonable or rational belief, and that anyone who disagrees with you is only being purposefully obtuse.
2 Oct 2006 @ 05:33 | Permalink
According to Wikipedia, torture can be either physical or psychological and sleep deprivation is listed as one type of torture.
I am certain that if someone was depriving me of sleep, that I would consider it torture.
2 Oct 2006 @ 06:08 | Permalink
I’m afraid I don’t find appeals to Wikipedia very convincing as authority. Nor do I find appeals to your own personal opinion on sleep deprivation. If prisoner X considers something to be torture, that doesn’t make it torture. If that were true, then virtually every technique of investigatory questioning would fall under that heading.
2 Oct 2006 @ 07:03 | Permalink
What about The American Heritage dictionary? Two of its definitions include “excruciating physical or mental pain” and “something causing severe pain or anguish.”
If not, what would suffice as authority for you?
2 Oct 2006 @ 08:08 | Permalink
What if you, or prisoner X, believes that deprivation of a teddy bear casues excruciating physical or mental pain?
Do you reject out of hand everyone who holds the position that the hardship caused by sleep deprivation does not rise to the level described?
2 Oct 2006 @ 08:11 | Permalink
Almost all new military recruits are kept awake for long periods with little or no sleep. This is deliberate. It’s a technique intended to break down the recruit, leaving him more vulnerable and helpless. It is intended to induce stress, both psychological and physical. The “breaking down” is the first step in the military training process–break them down, then build them back up in a new image. Nearly every country practices this. Without first-hand knowledge of the Canadian Defence Forces, I would even hazard to say that Canada does this. I don’t think the recruits are being “tortured” or that their treatment is prohibited under international law.
2 Oct 2006 @ 10:08 | Permalink
“I don’t think the recruits are being “tortured” or that their treatment is prohibited under international law.”
Only, I would submit, because the recruits volunteer for the treatment as part of a larger programme.
The use of an identical technique on a non-willing subject is certainly a form of mental abuse bordering on torture.
2 Oct 2006 @ 11:49 | Permalink
Again, rick describes this practice as “bordering on” torture. The President of the United States is asking his government to take a stand on whether it does just what rick says—BORDER on torture—or whether it crosses that border and IS torture.
Of course, SOME military recruits volunteer and some do not—most notably, when they are conscripted in a draft. Even volunteer recruits may suffer severe, long-lasting legal penalties if their conduct during initial training is insubordinate.
2 Oct 2006 @ 12:05 | Permalink
The bill that was just passed by the U.S. Senate makes torture illegal. Not only that, but if you are found guilty of torturing a detainee, the bill allows the U.S. government to execute the offender.
I’m not sure how people are reading that as to be the legalization of it.
3 Oct 2006 @ 10:16 | Permalink
Does this new bill only apply to service men? What about police? Does it spell out what torture is or is not?
4 Oct 2006 @ 09:40 | Permalink
I think everybody who has been excessivly sleep deprived or cold would agree this is torture, yet very few would agree that withholding a teddy bear is torture. Is there really anybody out there who doesn’t mind extreme sleep deprivation or hypothermia? Probably no more so than there are people who don’t mind being stabbed or beaten. I agree that if the church is going to be outspoken about some political matters it should be outspoken about this and other disturbing matters.
4 Oct 2006 @ 21:54 | Permalink
Nermal, the measure of whether a thing is defined as “torture” under international law is not whether the person receiving it thinks it’s bad.
5 Oct 2006 @ 03:53 | Permalink
Washington Post has an article about this issue today.
5 Oct 2006 @ 19:30 | Permalink
Where is the rational thinking process here?
What in the world would you have them do? Sit down over a cup of tea and politely ask them to give over their plans to murder and terrorize us?
What would your response be if the large number of planned terrorist attacks that have been foiled by using these techniques had been successful?
This is not a theocratic government. It is one that must do whatever it can to protect it’s citizens and those of it’s allies.
Perhaps they should adapt the humane treatment used by the terrorists and simply behead them.
Let’s get real folks. This isn’t a pretty war, but at least these terrorists are treated far more humanely once their information is given over than our people can ever expect from them given the reverse.
Even those in the Baghdad prison that was recently turned over to the Iraqis pleaded for the Americans to remain in control, because they knew what lay ahead for them. And this after the Americans had used their “torture” techniques on them.
As for using the American justice system to prosecute these thugs – what a joke.
If you want to sit down and have a tea with these wonderful people, then go ahead. If your family disappears one day in a suicide bomb experience, because these terrific people forgot to give you the details of their activities, well that is a small price to pay to make sure we don’t “torture” them.
7 Oct 2006 @ 20:05 | Permalink
There’s a reason we have a thing called the Law of Armed Conflict. The civilized nations of the world figured out a long time ago that even though war would continue to exist, we could help to mitigate its most heinous consequences by following a few “rules.” Some of those rules have to do with the way we treat prisoners. They are based, in part, on the hope that other nations will reciprocate—that if we don’t cross certain lines with our prisoners, they won’t cross those lines when our own people become their prisoners.
In the case of Al Qaida and the others we are fighting now, that hope is misplaced. We already know they’re going to torture and murder any prisoners they take, whether those prisoners be military or civilian, male or female, adult or child. But there is still reason for us to keep ourselves above such behavior. In fact, there are at least two important reasons:
First, there are other nations watching. Those nations, unlike non-state terrorists such as Al Qaida, may be willing to reciprocate with humane treatment in future conflicts.
Second, we just ought to do what’s right. There really are good guys and bad guys in the world. The only way to tell them apart is how they behave. If we behave like the other side, we cease to have any claim to the moral high ground or any hope of invoking the aid of Heaven.
I do partly agree with Larry, however, that we musn’t turn our concepts of humane treatment into a suicide pact. How great a price are we willing to pay for the decision not to mistreat a prisoner? How many World Trade Centers? This is a complex and difficult question. That’s why I don’t like it when people treat it a simplistic one, and accuse all who disagree with them of lacking a conscience.
8 Oct 2006 @ 12:57 | Permalink
“There really are good guys and bad guys in the world.”
And therein lies the greatest problem – distinguishing one from the other.
10 Oct 2006 @ 08:55 | Permalink
…which is what I just said.
10 Oct 2006 @ 09:00 | Permalink
…and I sustained.
10 Oct 2006 @ 09:08 | Permalink
The bill passed by the U.S. Congress defines torture as:
>an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind
S.3930
10 Oct 2006 @ 11:22 | Permalink
Hope I didn’t seem snippy, rick. Having you “sustain” me is such an unusual occurrence I was thrown. :)
10 Oct 2006 @ 12:12 | Permalink
Larry, you bring up a new debate regarding what circumstances torture could be morally justifiable. The following questions come to my mind. If utilizing torture MIGHT save thousands of other lives, is torture then morally justifiable? Who has the right to decide that? Is the moral correctiness of an act always measured solely by the amount of people’s lives that are saved by that act? And what other situations could one justify torture? I’m curious about other peoples’ thoughts here.
Meanwhile, we have been trying to establish what the definition of torture is. I have reconsidered ltbugaff’s teddy bear example and have decided that, even if torture is in the eye of the victom, if the tormenter is well aware of the degree of suffering they are deliberatly causing, then regardless of the act, they are a torturer. Therefore there may be unique circumstances where witholding a teddy bear could indeed be considered an act of torture. Yes, ltbugaff, I will agree that it’s not all about the opinion of the person receiving the torture. It’s also about the awareness of the people who are inflicting the torture. If you are aware that what you are doing is inflicting extreme suffering, and deliberatly do it anyway, you would be a torturer. It doesn’t matter what the act is. Now, whether or not torture is justifiable in a given situation is another debate, but it doesn’t change the fact that torture is torture. Also, even if international law were to disagree with me, does that prove I am wrong? Should I always rely on government and international law as my moral compass?
As for the church’s role here, I have been re-thinking this as well. It seems they tend to speak up politically in matters that could fall into a grey area in modern society. However, perhaps most other matters are a little more black and white (or at least becomes black and white after a little research). The church already teaches us to be politically involved in things of importance, and perhaps they needn’t have to dictate what everyone’s political opinions should be in most situations, where there is already ample resources with which to discern between right and wrong.
10 Oct 2006 @ 23:31 | Permalink
>Also, even if international law were to disagree with me, does that prove I am wrong? Should I always rely on government and international law as my moral compass?
Well, since the law defines torture then your opinion to the contrary would make you wrong. I see your point, though. It is that your moral judgment does not always comport with the law’s moral judgment.
But that’s going to be true almost always with someone in any given state because people do not always agree (hence the laws mirror the morality of the majority of the people, theoretically).
This is no different than examples of statutory rape. In some states, statutory rape is sexual contact with someone under 18. In other states, it only includes such contact with people under 14. So the people in one state set a different moral judgment for rape than people in another state.
So be it.
11 Oct 2006 @ 05:18 | Permalink
Tortdog said, “hence the laws mirror the morality of the majority of the people, theoretically.”
This issue is addressed in the Book of Mormon a few times as well.
“Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right…And if the time comes that the voice of the people choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments fo God will come upon you..” (Mosiah 29:26–27)
There are more scriptures to be found along these lines.
My point to ltbugaf was that laws shouldn’t dictate morality, but morality should dictate laws.
Of course there is disagreement on what is moral. That is why the LDS are told to be politically concerned and active about defending what they believe is right, in order to shift the balance in that direction and have influence on the laws.
So I think this is what Jeff is getting at.
My point to Jeff is that the BOM is full of advice regarding politics and the voice of the people. Perhaps you may say there is not enough awareness on the subject and not enough LDS who pay attention to world issues. But given the frequent council regarding government and laws in the BOM, and the frequent council we are given to read the BOM, is it really the Church’s responsibility to prod people into activism on every single issue, or is it the responsibility of the individual?
11 Oct 2006 @ 15:34 | Permalink
“But given the frequent council regarding government and laws in the BOM, and the frequent council we are given to read the BOM, is it really the Church’s responsibility to prod people into activism on every single issue, or is it the responsibility of the individual?”
I don’t think it is the Church’s responsibility to do this. I think we need to use our own initiative. And of course there are some issues where even members will disagree on issues (obviously, or hopefully not on issues of morality and righteousness, but on some more minor issues) and the Church doesn’t dictate to us on these matters. Nor should it. I do believe we need to stand for what is right, be activists.
11 Oct 2006 @ 15:50 | Permalink
May I also suggest that using the Book of Mormon as the basis for making decisions about how the gov’t conducts itself is a poor argument.
Our gov’t’s in no way resemble that of the Book of Mormon.
We agree on the statements and the actions made by the prophets, and wish that their culture could in some measure be ours.
However, when we are dealing with those who glorify death and want a martyrs death, there is very little in the way of niceties that a gov’t can extend to them in order to prevent them from slaughtering its citizens.
Let’s get down from our rameumptons and face the real world, and not the ideal that we seek.
If you think that I am making assumptions about thousands of attacks being thwarted by using “torture”, then you are not doing your homework and are living in fantasyland.
It’s okay to have ideals to seek for, but don’t let your feelings rule. Satan just loves those who would say please while his minions blow us up and destroy our freedoms.
11 Oct 2006 @ 16:50 | Permalink
However Larry, there are some things we need to stand up for that are supported by the Book of Mormon and yes, that is Freedom. Freedom to live without fear, to practice our religion, to hold our beliefs. I agree that those who try to stop us in these beliefs need to be stopped but that doesn’t make modern governments perfect in their decision making. We still need discernment.
11 Oct 2006 @ 17:59 | Permalink
Larry said: “Satan just loves those who would say please while his minions blow us up and destroy our freedoms.”
Did you mean to imply that the Muslims who try to kill us are follows of Satan?
11 Oct 2006 @ 19:22 | Permalink
Anyone, Muslim or otherwise, who commits such acts of terrorism is following Satan. If you doubt this in the least, I recommend reading about the terrorists in the Book of Mormon—also known as the Gadianton Robbers.
11 Oct 2006 @ 20:15 | Permalink
hey guys, it’s been a while since i’ve posted here.
The church has actually come out and spoken against torture. This is the statement from church spokesman:
Seems to me there is no loophole for suspected terrorists. Inhumane treatment should cover all torture and “aggressive alternative set of procedures.”
12 Oct 2006 @ 10:56 | Permalink
If we define torture as anything that someone doesn’t like having done to them then FHE would qualify for many children.
When we speak of torture, we are not speaking of techniques used by our enemies in WWII or extremist Muslims, or even those by many nations in the world today.
The “torture” engaged in by the U.S. and it’s allies is specifically designed to elicit information w/o causing long term injury or suffering.
So, if we are going to speak out against torture of any kind, then some Fast and Testimony meetings might qualify, some visits by the High Council might qualify, and some Home Teachers might qualify.
In other words, review the timing of the Church’s statement. I’m not convinced that they would deny us the right to uncover plots to attack us or our allies if no other remedy is available.
12 Oct 2006 @ 19:37 | Permalink
Larry, I wasn’t saying we should set up our government exactly like Book of Mormon governments. My BOM quote simply refers to the “voice of the people” which would be referred to as voting, raising awareness and political activisim in our modern society. I think the same warning in BOM would apply regarding the majority vote choosing evil laws in this day and age.
Also Larry, I didn’t mean to imply that I don’t believe that thousands of people’s lives are at risk. I apologize for not clarifying that very well. What I meant to suggest was that we may not know in advance if a particular prisoner has the information needed to save those lives.
Nevertheless, the question of what justifies torture remains. Perhaps I shall rephrase the question. Let’s say, hypothetically that we KNOW that a particular prisoner possesses information that could save thousands of lives, but refuses to reveal it. Once again, is the moral correctness of an act measured by how many lives are saved by that act? Ethically speaking, how do we determine if the end really justifies the means? Is saving lives always the most important priority?
Now don’t get me wrong. I think I would have no problem torturing someone who kidnapped my children and knew where I could find them. I’m not trying to be indignant here, I’m just trying to explore the issue of torture from a strictly ethical point of view.
12 Oct 2006 @ 20:38 | Permalink
Also, I will agree that subjecting somebody to something they do not like is not always torture. But c’mon, there is a difference between not liking something or experienceing “excruciating physical or mental pain” as defined in the dictionary (see #21).
Which brings me back to the means justying the end question? It’s always based on a means/ends ratio.
12 Oct 2006 @ 20:54 | Permalink
I also wouldn’t call FHE or a sacrament talk (no matter the speaker) as inhumane in any sense of the word.
12 Oct 2006 @ 22:05 | Permalink
nermalcat,
If we were to define ethics as knowing the right thing to do, and morality as doing the right thing, then where do we draw the line.
For example, “Thou shalt not kill” appears to be a straightforward commandment.
However, what do we do when the Lord says, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen. 9:6,).
At what point do we decide that someone is dangerous and is a threat to us and those around us. For example: if someone were to walk into a school with a gun, are we prepared to do whatever is necessary to eliminate the apparent threat, or do we wait until they do something before we act?
If someone trains with a terrorist group, is caught with a terrorist group in battle, do we simply sit down and have tea with them, hoping they will tell us their plans or do we do what is necessary.
The method adapted by the liberal left (particularly the elite) is to ignore the real problem, redefine it as a form of resistance, and try to make the rest of us feel guilty if we try to preserve that which we hold dear – freedom.
That is why I hate a discussion on ethics. Kofi Anan and his minions love to discuss ethics. That is why they never do anything. The one person in this world who should be really concerned about what is happening in Darfur is Kofi Anan. And what do we see from him – absolutely nothing.
However, he will condemn Israel for responding to Katusha rockets being fired on them from behind the skirts of women and little children. Ethics you know.
Notice that the ethical discussion is never done with respect to the enemy. They are never part of the discussion.
“We must be held to a higher standard.” We are. We don’t behead, shove bamboo up the finger nails, whip, or perform other debilitating forms of torture.
Defining what is aceptable forms of torture (which is what Bush is attempting to do in order to protect the rights of his soldiers) is miles ahead of what any other nation is doing. Everyone else has carte blanche. The charges are only laid in retrospect – and then omnly if they don’t like the nation the soldier represents.
How many U.N. soldiers do you know that were (and are) prosecuted for the rapes and murders that they perpetrate against women and girls in Africa – those they were charged to protect.
Anyway, I for one do not oppose what the Americans are trying to do, though it may be hard to discern that. :>)
Therefore the discussion on the ethical thing to do is not necessarily the precursor to the moral thing to do.
13 Oct 2006 @ 07:53 | Permalink
Boy did that post ever get screwed up. The last statement was meant to be further up the post. Oh well… put it down to having to rush off.
13 Oct 2006 @ 07:57 | Permalink
Indeed.
And while it may not be practical today to have the same government systems as in the BOM civilizations, I think some of the same priciples and values apply. Why would the BOM prophets waste so much Of their time engraving about government and warfare if we were supposed to just ignore it?
Certainly the BOM supports defense against direct aggression, and certainly they took prisoners of war as leverage for trading prisoners with the other side. Yes, sometimes they killed aggressive and dangerous prisoners. While there is not much said regarding the treatment of prisoners, I see nothing condoning torture or any other methods to drag information out of them (they seemed to prefer using spies and covert operations). While I’m sure they weren’t always nice and sweet towards prisoners, I really don’t see Moroni or Helaman using sleep deprivation and hypothermia methods.
Also you may laugh at the teddy bear example, but consider Tom Hanks’ character when he lost “Wilson” the soccor ball in the Castaway movie. Just a soccor ball you say? It all depends on the persons state of mind at the time. A torturer only needs to find out what buttons to push, and of course some thing are pretty much universally excruciating to all humans.
Also, just wanted to clarify that I don’t believe torturing a kidnapper is morally right. It was just a confession.
13 Oct 2006 @ 07:58 | Permalink
“Certainly the BOM supports defense against direct aggression…”
For that matter the BoM supports murdering people as they sleep – take Coriantumr’s actions with Shiz.
13 Oct 2006 @ 11:50 | Permalink
Shiz wasn’t sleeping. He passed out because of massive blood loss. He was unconscious.
13 Oct 2006 @ 12:39 | Permalink
Yes, it was in the middle of battle. And neither of them were terribly righteous examples of men. However, that whole war was a very good example of what can happen to a nation when corruption takes a firm foothold. That passage of scripture is very sobering.
And I wouldn’t quite say the Book of Mormon supports it, only records it. After all, the Book of Mormon is a witness and a warning.
13 Oct 2006 @ 12:54 | Permalink
If you want to discuss execution of a sleeping man, carried out in the name of righteousness, don’t go to Ether; just read 1 Nephi.
13 Oct 2006 @ 13:48 | Permalink
Yes, that must be the one Rick was thinking of.
13 Oct 2006 @ 14:22 | Permalink
Refresh my memory… what happens in 1 Nephi that involves the execution of a sleeping man?
13 Oct 2006 @ 14:24 | Permalink
Sleeping, drunk, what’s the difference.
13 Oct 2006 @ 14:29 | Permalink
Ok, I’m sorry I was trolling. My bad.
13 Oct 2006 @ 14:31 | Permalink
nermalcat,
It’s not only not practical, it is impossible today to have the same form of gov’t today as that which they had in Book of Mormon times.
The Book of Mormon people never faced conditions that we face today. We have an enemy that glorifies death, because of the promised rewards for being a “martyr”. Even moreso if he can take some infidels down as well.
We are in a unique time and set of circumstances. The problems we face are monumental, and so diverse, that to try and simplify them with a few quotes from earlier times does them an injustice.
If we could exist in an ideal world, then the course of action that requires “torture” now, would not be required in that world.
However, we are not there.
I regret that we have to resort to this treatment to extract information, but given the alternative of watching the senseless slaughter of innocent lives, I will take what we have.
13 Oct 2006 @ 14:44 | Permalink
Jeff,
I was being a little tongue in cheek. Nice to have you trolling.
13 Oct 2006 @ 14:46 | Permalink
Ok, just to be clear, I’m not trying to get anyone going; I’m being serious here.
Larry wrote in post sixty-two:
“However, we are not there”
I would question what evidence can you provide that indicates we are in a world that “requires” torture?
I hope you aren’t saying that after reading the story of Maher Arar (see post eight).
What do you have to say about the fact that #1 torture doesn’t work and #2 that when you allow for torture to happen then as a consequence innocents like Maher are going to be tortured as well as the guilty.
13 Oct 2006 @ 14:52 | Permalink
Jeff,
Are you aware of the training and ideology of the terrorists?
Maher Arar’s case is not one that I have studied to any great extent so I won’t comment on it just yet.
The fact is that torture does work.
What perfect world are you imagining where innocents don’t get caught in a web?
13 Oct 2006 @ 15:16 | Permalink
Jeff
When Nephi killed Laban (constrained by the Spirit).
But there is also the case, during war, when Teancum killed Amalickiah. Of course that was an act of war and due to the extreme evilness of Amalikiah it was necessary to stop the slaughter of so many, to stop the war.
Jeff, you weren’t trolling :) I don’t think it is possible to do so on your own post is it?
13 Oct 2006 @ 16:24 | Permalink
re: 65
The training and ideology of “the terrorists” is not what really relevant to the point. The degree to which terrorists are or are not evil should be irrelevant to whether we as civilized societies succumb to being evil ourselves.
Torture is evil—even if it did work (which from the research I’ve done, I’ve come to the conclusion that it does not).
13 Oct 2006 @ 16:34 | Permalink
re: 66
I knew what happened in 1 Nephi; I was trying to put someone (anyone) on the defensive and I apologize. It was rude of me.
13 Oct 2006 @ 16:35 | Permalink
lol, ok. Oh I wouldn’t go on the defensive. I am just glad I wasn’t in Nephi’s place because I sure wouldn’t want to kill anyone.
13 Oct 2006 @ 16:39 | Permalink
Yeah.
13 Oct 2006 @ 16:40 | Permalink
Jeff,
To use an analogy, what would your response be if you knew that someone was out to kill your children, and this was known by another individual who refuses to divulge the cuprit, and was involved in the planning? In this case you do not know who the person is that is going to perform this evil act.
As well you do not have the option of fleeing or hiding the children.
How would you thwart the actions of the killer?
13 Oct 2006 @ 17:44 | Permalink
May I suggest that some might want to read this:
http://www.markpeters.ca/2006/10/so-now-im-child-abuser.htm and compare it to those that want to accuse the Americans of “torture” while letting the Muslim extremists go scot free.
This will illustrate what I mean by leftist-liberal elite thinking.
13 Oct 2006 @ 17:52 | Permalink
Larry re: 71
You analogy forces me to answer that yes, I would want to do anything in my power to coerce the individual into divulging the culprit. However, I don’t think it’s a fair analogy.
In your analogy the guilty parties are very clear cut and you eliminate the option of fleeing, hiding, or (I assume) [any other non-torture solution].
And I’m just thinking as I type here, but I propose a different analogy.
We’ll start it out the same, someone has been threatening your children. A friend of this someone has already killed your neighbours kids. You believe this someone will kill your children because his friends have killed in the past. One of X, Y, or Z might know who this someone is but all claim they don’t know.
This time you DO have the option of fleeing, hiding, or coming up with an alternate solution. Torturing X, Y, and Z is allowed. In fact, I’m feeling generous so you can even pick up W and torture him until he confesses.
How will you thwart what you believe will be the actions of the killer.
13 Oct 2006 @ 18:08 | Permalink
Larry re: 72
Beating your children is an unrighteous dominion of power.
I believe it was the Southern Baptists that came up with little gem of a saying and I also hope it answers the question as to whether or not parents should use corporeal punishment: “What would Jesus do?”
13 Oct 2006 @ 18:19 | Permalink
Jeff
re:74
You are right. What would Jesus do? It would be wise for all of us to follow that motto.
13 Oct 2006 @ 18:53 | Permalink
Jeff,
re: 73 Your example doesn’t work, because citizens of a nation can’t run and hide from terrorists. That is what the President is dealing with. That is what the defense forces are dealing with.
Why would you object to them trying to defend their citizens in the same manner as you would defend your children. That is the Presidents mandate.
re:74 You missed the whole point of the article. Any form of discipline is wrong.
13 Oct 2006 @ 18:56 | Permalink
I should point out that the U.N. is doing everything it can to destroy the concept of family.
Take that into consideration before defending their position.
This a multi-pronged attack on the family through the U.N.
Check out the backers of this proposition and see if you want to be found on their side.
13 Oct 2006 @ 19:12 | Permalink
As an afterthought, what are we Southern Alberta bloggers doing on a Friday night blogging, when we could be bonding playing RISK or whatever?
13 Oct 2006 @ 19:16 | Permalink
13 Oct 2006 @ 19:21 | Permalink
re: 77
I don’t understand what you are talking about, and I’m afraid even if I did, I don’t think I would understand how that is related to the topic at hand.
re: 78
I’m up for some entertainment. 327-3033.
13 Oct 2006 @ 19:29 | Permalink
Hey everybody. I see no one commented on my quoting of the church spokesman who said that the church condemns inhumane treatment of anyone under any circumstance.
Well, let’s go another direction, since that’s not good enough for those who back torture.
One of the justifications people use is the “protection of the innocent.” I’m going to skip over the ticking-time-bomb-scenario justification, as that is unrealistic.
But let’s go to the issue of “protecting the innocent.” What is the main priority of our lives? Is it to protect life? Or is it to follow the commandments of God? I offer up Alma chapter 14 as an example of this very question.
Alma and Amulek preached in the city of Ammonihah. The leaders were very wicked and by this point had decided to burn all the books and then throw into the pit of fire the innocent people who had listened to the voice of the prophet, Alma. Alma has a chance here to “protect the innocent,” to save the lives of those who would not need to die. What does he do? let’s read Alma 14: 10–11:
It seems from this passage that Alma (and the Lord) allowed innocent people to die for the greater cause: the punishment of the wicked at Judgment Day. Did Alma lower any of his principles or standards to “protect the innocent?”
Now, the other justification for the use of torture is that torture supposedly gives you information about the movement of the enemy. The evidence against this is very strong. Torture actually procures only what the detainee thinks his captors want to hear, so the pain will stop. It tends not to be very accurate. And, couple this with a “ticking-time-bomb” scenario, you don’t have much time to verify the accuracy of what a detainee has to say before the supposed bomb goes off.
Let’s play a scenario. You are a special-ops soldier sent ahead to scout the next target. You’ve sent the coordinates back to headquarters who have approved the attack. Suddenly you are captured by the enemy who take you to their torture chamber to extract the information out of you. They know an attack is imminent, but they want to know from you just when and how the attack will occur. Do you capitulate under duress? Or do you hold out, knowing that if you hold out, you get your enemy.
Now, let’s look at scripture to see what a man of God did when he needed information about the movement of the enemy. Let’s read Alma chapter 43: 23-24:
When Captain Moroni needed information about the movement of the enemy, he did not go capture an enemy and try and forcibly extract information out of him that might not be accurate. Instead, he went to inquire of the Lord, who is the source of all knowledge and wisdom. What a brilliant idea!
Who are you going to trust more, a terrorist or the God of all earth and heaven?
Torture is evil and must be shunned. It must never be used. It is not for any civilized nation, or the people of God.
13 Oct 2006 @ 19:42 | Permalink
Oh and I still think we ought to listen to what the spokesman of the church said.
13 Oct 2006 @ 19:47 | Permalink
Good article Dan (re: 46 and 82)
I like this quote:
“Several bloggers wondered why the LDS Church has never issued a formal statement condemning torture.”
And now that we’ve read their response when asked about their stance on torture, my question is, why didn’t they (and why don’t they) actually take a proactive role in denouncing torture instead of just responding to the question.
I just want to clarify that I’ve never been under the impression that the church supported torture.
In fact that is why I’ve been so surprised at the number of people commenting in a way that seems to support torture. I expected more outrage (and I want to apologize to ltbugaf for thinking that you were being hard to get along with—in re-reading your comments, I just think you weren’t outraged because you don’t think water boarding and sleep deprivation are dangerous—which I disagree with but at least I can see why you at first seemed to me to support the torture angle).
I think if the disparity between what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches and some of the responses here is a common problem church wide, then perhaps the church should consider addressing the issue at the next available opportunity. The Christmas speeches are just around the corner.
13 Oct 2006 @ 20:04 | Permalink
Dan,
Please explain the relevance of courts and jails using your example.
13 Oct 2006 @ 20:05 | Permalink
Jeff,
My Dad has called. I will call as soon as we get off the phone.
13 Oct 2006 @ 20:07 | Permalink
“Oh and in the meantime I would have lost my humanity; and that, my friend, is a far greater loss than anything the terrorists can do to me or my family.”
Jeff, this is a very true statement. Larry, I think you believe that if we are against torture it means we don’t see the need for terrorists to be punished. This isn’t the case. When Jeff offered the quote “What would Jesus do?” he brought up a very important thought. Jesus Christ is our exemplar. We are supposed to strive to be like him. When we torture another human being is this the path the Saviour would take? Is this how He would have us behave towards another human being? I honestly don’t believe so.
JAnd as was mentioned, Captain Moroni. I recall what Mormon said about Captain Moroni, that if all men were like him the very gates of hell would be shaken, or something to that effect, I can’t find the scripture right now. But that’s basically it. Captain Moroni was a good example to follow, how to be as a politician and a Christian. Now, of course the modern governments cannot be the same as in Book of Mormon times, but our characters should not be so distorted that we can’t take the the examples from the Book of Mormon, seriously and to try and emulate them. This would also go for modern politicians.
13 Oct 2006 @ 20:16 | Permalink
Just to note, it was NermalCat (re: 53) and Dan (re: 81) who both talked about Moroni—however, I do believe we should look to good examples and follow them.
13 Oct 2006 @ 20:21 | Permalink
Keep in mind that the Saviour had the power to make himself seemingly disappear in the midst of his enemies until such time came for Him to carry out the atonement.
I believe as much as you do in the principles that the Book of Mormon teaches.
There is, however, no example you can cite in scripture where the enemy used the tactics terrorists use today. They fought battles on the battlefield where you fought man to man, and victories were won or lost by men at war.
Today the enemy will do everything possible to disguise his appearance in order to kill innocent people. He doesn’t have the guts to fight like a man. He hides in women’s clothing if he has to.
Those who argue against the torture of these killers serve as a balance to ensure that the torture doesn’t go to electric shock treatment and other extreme measures.
Notice the effect of the problems these terrorists have created for the Church. Travel is greatly restricted now.
Just so you know, those who are quoting sources that say the tortured never give out the truth, are only telling part of the story. It is true that some will say anything to stop the torture, but as I stated before, many, many (the figure quoted is upwards of 2000), attacks have been thwarted through intelligence gained this way.
Mary, you are right regarding Captain Moroni.
13 Oct 2006 @ 20:58 | Permalink
I’ve got to remember to separate paragraphs.
13 Oct 2006 @ 21:00 | Permalink
oops, sorry, I tend to scan when I read. Missed that, sorry that was nermalcat and Dan. I will go change that now.
13 Oct 2006 @ 21:05 | Permalink
13 Oct 2006 @ 21:20 | Permalink
Nice article, but keep in mind the the Abu Ghraib (?) prison was turned over to the Iraqis, the prisoners there pled to have the Americans remain in control. This after they had been subjected to American “torture”.
I’m not the least worried about what an 18 year old would think. If he is not training as a terrorist then he knows that whatever the Americans do, it is far less severe than what his own countrymen would do.
13 Oct 2006 @ 22:14 | Permalink
“Seriously though, there are other methods for retrieving information.”
Are you suggesting that the first form of intelligence gathering that the Americans use is torture, and the niceties come later?
13 Oct 2006 @ 22:17 | Permalink
I’m not suggesting that at all. I suppose I felt that I had to write that because of the two or three times that you asked if instead of torture one should sit down and talk it out over tea—an obvious exageration, but I took it as though you wanted to pretend there are no other effective methods.
14 Oct 2006 @ 06:14 | Permalink
#53 was supposed to follow # 50 by the way.
14 Oct 2006 @ 12:43 | Permalink
Larry: Ok Ok, even though BOM government is now impossible (the word I should have used instead of impractical I guess) it’s the underlying values I am talking about.
Yes, our enemy is different than BOM times, but I disagree that those people weren’t interested in what the Lamanites or Gadianton robbers were planning to do next.
I think the point is that selling souls and abandoning morals is worse than the death of innocents, unless you think death is the worst thing that can happen to a person.
And I disagree that a discussion on ethics is not important, because ethics are all about what is morally right. Certainly this might make swift and decisive action a little more difficult, but why is wrong to make doing the right thing a priority before taking action?
14 Oct 2006 @ 13:13 | Permalink
Under todays rules you may not be around to take action.
It’s nice to talk about being nice, or being patient, or being anything else. The fact of the matter is the enemy is here. he may well have access to dirty bomb material, and he doesn’t want to negotiate.
(I find it difficult to understand the idea that being nice to killers is more important than the sanctity of life.
I suppose for some, abortion is abhorent, but once you are alive anything goes, including exercising the least amount of effort to keep people from being slaughtered carte blanche.)
He simply wants to kill and maim. If that’s your idea of a worthy opponent, then so be it. As for me, I want vermin removed from my neck of the woods and those of my friends, and whatever means that is required to ensure that is accomplished is fine with me, even to the stage of American “torture”.
As for ethics, it is simply rhetoric when applied to the world stage.
14 Oct 2006 @ 13:41 | Permalink
Jeff,
#83
The church rarely gets involved in political issues. Frankly I like the way they do it; they don’t instruct us in all things, letting us to make our choices based on what they’ve said in the past.
Larry
#84:
I’m not sure I understand what you are asking for.
#88:
Um, yes there are plenty of examples. Read Moroni 8. Read Ether. The Gadianton Robbers themselves used the tactic of hiding among civilians and killing innocents, yet the Nephites never employed torture on them.
I’m not sure why this is important. The church doesn’t complain about this, nor recommends we lower our standards to supposedly lower restrictions in travel.
Can you please show me that. I didn’t see it earlier in your posts. That figure is rather questionable.
14 Oct 2006 @ 13:52 | Permalink
Interestingly, the BOM message repeated over and over towards the people of the promised land is that if the nation is righteous, they will be protected by God and prosper and if they are evil they will not be protected. So, for those who believe in the BOM it would seem that seeking protection from God would be the best strategy. Therefore, deciding what is righteous is very important when deciding whether the end justifies the means.
Also, my dictionary defines ethics as a set of moral principals, so how is a discussion on ethics irrelevant to making a moral choice?
Of course saying please and having tea won’t help either. I’m not a passivist who will just roll over and die without defending myself or others. But I think defensive actions (including killings) are separate from inhumane actions.
14 Oct 2006 @ 14:11 | Permalink
Dan,
If you use the example of Alma and Amulek watching as an example of the proper behaviour in war, then you must be consistent when it comes to murderers etc.
Their victims will bear witness against them at the judgement, therefore we shouldn’t do anything to them here.
As for the rest of your questions to my responses, if your only point is to question w/o doing research, then I’ll leave you in ignorance.
Jeff,
Again, I repeat, ethical discussions are simply rhetoric. Moral behaviour is doing the right thing. Even though it appears that I am on the dark side, I believe in the sanctity of life. Therefore, when faced with an enemy determined to kill at any cost, w/o any concern for consequences, I whole heartedly approve the steps necessary to stop him in his tracks, by whatever means possible.
14 Oct 2006 @ 15:23 | Permalink
Larry said: “I find it difficult to understand the idea that being nice to killers is more important than the sanctity of life.”
Agreed. We are authorized to kill in defense of life and liberty, IF that is the only option. Justified war involves much bloodshed. None of those things are what I would define as being “nice”.
The idea of evil guys getting away with evil stuff makes me angry too. But the existence of good and evil means there are rules to the game. Just because the enemy plays dirty doesn’t necessarily mean we should too, even if our actions are only just a wee bit evil compared to theirs.
We are dealing with unarmed prisoners in this discussion, who are generally unable to kill anyone themselves. Even if they are evil and privy to evil plans, so are prisoners who associate with mobs, gangs and drug dealers, which groups are responsible for countless murders every year. I would be more afraid of the murderer down the street than international terrorists.
In cases where no other strategy works (as you claim is the case with terrorists)would you also suggest that the local police torture each and every prisoner suspected to associate with mobs, gangs or drug rings to find out where the ringleader is and what they are planning?
14 Oct 2006 @ 15:37 | Permalink
Larry. Yes, moral behavior is doing the right thing. But if the definition of ethics is “a set of moral principals” than how is talk of ethics nothing but rhetoric?
14 Oct 2006 @ 15:43 | Permalink
re: 100
“I whole heartedly approve the steps necessary to stop him in his tracks, by whatever means possible.”
I hope you remember that it’s not just those that are guilty of terrorism/those related to terrorism that are going to be tortured because of this new law. Picking up a few “innocents” in their “web” (re: 65), to me is repulsive.
14 Oct 2006 @ 15:54 | Permalink
Larry,
#100:
You made the point that torture has yielded about 2000 attacks thwarted. Prove it. It is your point, not mine. I just browsed over this whole post and comments. You don’t mention anywhere any evidence to prove that torture has worked to stop attacks. So prove it. Show us the evidence. If you cannot, then your point fails.
14 Oct 2006 @ 17:18 | Permalink
Larry,
I’ve shown you an example of a prophet who did otherwise. Can you show me a prophet who tortured?
14 Oct 2006 @ 17:20 | Permalink
Jeff, you mention that there are alternatives to torture that are quite effective. I think those who are advocating the use of techniques such as sleep deprivation agree with you. They believe, for example, that sleep deprivation is an effective alternative to torture.
14 Oct 2006 @ 18:33 | Permalink
14 Oct 2006 @ 19:34 | Permalink
14 Oct 2006 @ 19:57 | Permalink
nermalcat,
re: “In cases where no other strategy works (as you claim is the case with terrorists)would you also suggest that the local police torture each and every prisoner suspected to associate with mobs, gangs or drug rings to find out where the ringleader is and what they are planning?”
You obviously have not visited your local jail recently. Sleep deprivation, and the cold treatment are standard operating procedures in cases you describe.
My comment on ethics had to do with discussion of ethics as it applies in the world today. The only countries held to that standard are the U.S. and it’s close allies, while everyone else has carte blanche. Don’t get sucked in to the argument that if they see you being nice that they are going to be nice.
Jeff,
As for the innocents you are talking about, he was tortured by the Syrians, not the Americans.
People are convicted of crimes they didn’t commit every day in our justice system. Should we throw it out too?
If your idea of the perfect world is that no one gets hurt, who is not guilty, you better live a long, long, long time.
Dan,
What in the world does a soldier at war have to do with a prophet? For goodness sakes get your head around what is happening today. If you want to walk around pretending you are like a prophet, that is your business, but war is dirty, it is ugly, and it soils everyone connected to it. Unless you are prepared to interrogate the prisoners over a cup of tea using your superior techniques, don’t go casting aspersions on those who have to get this intelligence in order to allow you to remain free enough to spout off in a self-righteous manner.
14 Oct 2006 @ 20:00 | Permalink
Larry,
in reality terrorists don’t take away my freedom. They do not have that ability. It is impossible for them to do that, unless of course they run my country. Frankly terrorists 1)do not scare me and 2) do not impress me. They are not the worst enemy we’ve ever faced. To defeat them does not require the full mobilization of the entire nation, like the Nazis did. In order to defeat the Nazis, all of America had to participate in some way. These terrorists are small fry in comparison to previous enemies. And in previous wars, we never had to resort to torture to win. Why now?
Sorry, but your justifications fall far short of proving the need for the use of torture.
14 Oct 2006 @ 20:07 | Permalink
oh and Larry, my question still stands. Show me a prophet of the Lord who advocated or used torture. These are the men we are to emulate, no?
14 Oct 2006 @ 20:08 | Permalink
[...] Over on Our Thoughts, a Canadian blog, one of their writers asks about legalizing torture. The commenters debated whether sleep deprivation is indeed torture. I offer evidence that it is indeed torture. A blogger at Noli Irritare Leones links to the following citations that describe the effects of sleep deprivation on human beings: [...]
14 Oct 2006 @ 20:51 | Permalink
Dan,
Okay, since you refuse to do the research, I’ll give you one reference – please note that the interviewee is ABC reporter. They are not noted for being conservative, just so you know.
Henceforth, I will give you no more leads. There is tons of information on this argument.
If you want to argue your point that is fine, but at least give me some credit for getting the whole story and not falling for all the left-wing babble out there.
As for #110, you are so naive on this question as to defy logic. You don’t know your history. You clearly seem not to have studied the terrorist threat at all, and I doubt that you really understand what happened during the 2nd World War.
As for #111, I am not going to respond to that because it smacks of self-righteous bigotry. I’ll bet I could talk to any number of your friends and family who would be willing to point out your sins of omission and commission. Not very prophet-like of you is it.
14 Oct 2006 @ 21:09 | Permalink
Oops – forgot to put the reference in. http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/
14 Oct 2006 @ 21:11 | Permalink
re: #112
Whoever said sleep deprivation wasn’t torture?
I simply approve of it as a legitimate way to get information from a knowledgeable source who refuses to give it any other way. We aren’t playing footsies here guys. We are dealing with very dangerous people.
14 Oct 2006 @ 21:18 | Permalink
“he was tortured by the Syrians, not the Americans”
Yes but he was extradited illegally by the Americans so that he could be “questioned” by the Syrians—which I believe they knew he would be tortured, but of course there is no evidence of that.
And so my point still stands that when you practise torture, you inevitably torture innocent people.
How can a person consider themselves Christlike when they support a government that supports torture? Maybe you think it’s no longer so important.
I guess I shouldn’t lash out like that, but frankly I feel that I have exhausted myself trying to get my point across and feel like I’m not really getting through.
For the couple of you out there that seem to think torture is ok, at what point do we arrive at where it’s safe to say a government supporting torture has gone too far?
15 Oct 2006 @ 01:54 | Permalink
Larry,
Hmmm, I’ve asked you to provide evidence of your claim that torture has stopped up to 2000 attacks, and you give me a reference to a blog that discusses an O’Reilly episode, with no hard evidence. Where are the numbers?
Moreover, instead of keeping this debate civil, you go attacking me with partisan sniping. To this point, have I attacked you? If not, then why the need to get personal?
As to evidence that torture doesn’t work, I have plenty. I have to get to church right now, but will get back to you on this. In the meantime I suggest you lay off the personal attacks and give me real evidence of the effectiveness of torture.
15 Oct 2006 @ 04:00 | Permalink
So torture never works, e.g., does not prevent attacks.
Using “water boarding” to cause a terrorist to believe that he was drowining (though he wasn’t) has resulted in information that has prevented attacks on high rises in the United States.
Since “water boarding” helped to prevent attacks on U.S. soil, we know that water boarding is not torture.
Right?
16 Oct 2006 @ 07:59 | Permalink
tortdog,
that’s an interesting logical fallacy.
The success rate of a method is not what is the deciding factor on whether or not it is torture, but the application itself.
16 Oct 2006 @ 09:11 | Permalink
If someone believes that “water boarding” is torture, they cannot logically hold the same belief that torture never works.
Pick one. Can’t have it both ways.
16 Oct 2006 @ 12:57 | Permalink
Sure they can. It is torture and it doesn’t work. If you feel it does work, that still doesn’t change the fact that it is torture. And furthermore, you’ve gotta prove that it has worked. KSM is not an example of waterboarding providing accurate intelligence.
16 Oct 2006 @ 13:08 | Permalink
It has already been widely reported that the CIA used water boarding to obtain information useful in preventing terrorist attacks.
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/09/bombshell_abc_i_2.php
The question is not whether tough tactics work. It’s whether they should be used in spite of their effectiveness.
Since the U.S. government uses water boarding on its own troops, I don’t think that it amounts to torture (not as torture is defined). It’s not a back rub, but it’s not torture.
16 Oct 2006 @ 13:21 | Permalink
16 Oct 2006 @ 13:32 | Permalink
“Since the U.S. government uses water boarding on its own troops, I don’t think that it amounts to torture (not as torture is defined).”
See #24
16 Oct 2006 @ 13:43 | Permalink
First, let’s not get sidetracked. The assumptions presented are:
* water boarding is torture, and
* torture is not effective.
So if water boarding brought forward useful information to prevent attacks, then either (a) water boarding is not torture or (b) torture is effective.
Your point is a side issue that you mentioned long ago. I don’t agree with it, however, because torture is a crime in the United States and one cannot give consent so as to avoid the application of the law. Just as one cannot consent to murder, one cannot consent to being tortured.
Or do you have evidence to the contrary, e.g., the law stating that the infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering on someone who consents is exempt.
16 Oct 2006 @ 14:03 | Permalink
16 Oct 2006 @ 15:00 | Permalink
The report did NOT confirm that al Libbi lied. Rather, it said:
>al Libbi does not appear to have sought to intentionally misinform investigators (emphasis added)
It further adds that “Al Libbi sought to please his investigators, not lead them down a false path.”
So Al Libbi did not create something out of thin air, but gave what he thought was true to the investigators and that would stop the punishment.
Further, the sources for this ABC report state:
>the techniques, while progressively aggressive, are not deemed torture, and the debate among intelligence officers as to whether they are effective should not be underestimated. There are many who feel these techniques, properly supervised, are both valid and necessary, the sources said.
So even the ones who did NOT think that these techniques were effective agreed that this did not constitute torture.
16 Oct 2006 @ 15:14 | Permalink
Oh, by the way, as to another captive it’s been reported that only after the CIA used these interrogation methods that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided critical information on al Qaeda and confessed to the beheading of WSJ reporter David Pearle.
http://tailrank.com/670492/Time-exclusive-Khaled-Sheikh-Mohammed-beheaded-Daniel-Pearl
16 Oct 2006 @ 15:22 | Permalink
tortdog,
you also forget to cherrypick this:
I can’t help you though, tortdog. You wish to torture people. Have at it. When it comes back to haunt you, don’t forget that I told you so. How sad our society has become.
16 Oct 2006 @ 15:31 | Permalink
Let’s cut to the chase. The sources quoted by ABC state that these techniques are NOT torture.
So are these guys that YOU quote lying or not about this?
16 Oct 2006 @ 15:37 | Permalink
It doesn’t matter. You’ll keep trying to find some way to justify it. The only thing I can offer you is the following from the Church:
I would think that even you would consider waterboarding “inhumane.”
Until my earlier post is approved (still under moderation), I’m done here. Some people just can’t see out of the cave.
16 Oct 2006 @ 15:44 | Permalink
Well, you first argue that water boarding does not work. But the article you cite has contradictory information, some saying it DOES result in good information while others point out that we get some bad information from it. I bring forward an additional article showing that it has worked with others as well.
You then conclude that water boarding isn’t torture. But the article that YOU bring says that water boarding is NOT torture.
If you are going to make an argument, wouldn’t it be good to cite to authorities that support your ideas, as opposed to the opposite?
You and I disagree that it is inhumane to use water boarding. CIA agents in your article also seem to disagree with you. Great Britain’s Foreign Office has opined that water boarding is NOT torture.
So be it.
16 Oct 2006 @ 15:50 | Permalink
How can we agree with religion being the fulcrum of our political views. Logically we would be neglecting scale for which the balance might shift were we to exchange our fulcrum with one of a different religion. Truly i beleive that religious views and matters of state be kept mutually exclusive.
6 Mar 2007 @ 20:51 | Permalink
I don’t think this is an issue of separation of church and state. What makes you make that connection?
It’s a matter of morals. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (as pointed out in 43) “condemns inhumane treatment of any person under any circumstances”.
I think the church does tend to speak up politically in matters that could fall into a grey area in modern society, and I think it’s appropriate for them to do so, not so much as a political statement, but as a moral one.
6 Mar 2007 @ 22:41 | Permalink
I know what sleep deprivation and mental torture does to people. I suffered from sleep deprivation for 35 years as a result of a physical disorder. That and the physical and mental abuse I suffered at home, at the hands of my father and older brothers, was devastating. My mental state persisted, and I suffered bullyism at college, when I was still suffering from extreme sleep deprivation. After 2 1/2 years, I was threatened. I was antagonized to the point at which I threatened back. I was charged with uttering threats (criminal harassment). I was then threatened with prison, without a lawyer, unless I accepted their plea offer, in large part because I FELT guilty. Later, when I had time to think and was sleeping better, I realized that I had been conned.
15 Apr 2007 @ 10:43 | Permalink
i have not only found that torture has been legalized, but that the church actually endorses it; it’s called graduation ceremonies.
25 Jun 2007 @ 12:14 | Permalink
We have another form called “Teaching for our Times” lesson in EQ.
25 Jun 2007 @ 12:37 | Permalink
I think every F&T meeting I’ve ever attended would also qualify…
25 Jun 2007 @ 12:46 | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ7lSPA9g8s
23 Apr 2008 @ 16:12 | Permalink
I should have put a warning on that link above, it’s pretty graphic.
23 Apr 2008 @ 16:14 | Permalink