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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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…
(I’m going to post this in pieces to try and figure out what part of my comment is preventing it from posting.)
First off, I think there is time to add a little something to a talk even if it’s just a comment that the Church is opposed to legalizing the use of torture.
Google news with the search term “torture” has lots of sources about the new law.
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2381222,00.html
“Human rights groups have expressed concern that harsh techniques that border on torture, such as sleep deprivation and induced hypothermia, can be used under the new law.”
As well, the story of Maher Arar http://www.maherarar.ca/index.php is relevant, I believe, because it shows that the USA is already farming out their torture to be done even on innocent Canadian citizens who are suspected of terrorist connections.
I also think the links within this Mefi post on torture http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/55106 are good sources.
I assume it’s not necessary to ask if you support the use of torture. I believe that any good LDS person—or any good person that knows much about torture at all—would be vehemently opposed to such heinous tactics. My real question is, should the church make a public statement against the legalization of such criminal behavior?
You should take a look at Slate’s Taxonomy of Torture http://www.slate.com/features/whatistorture/Taxonomy.html for a look at different kinds of torture in order to understand the magnitude of what is being legalized.
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.
#3 – another source:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856
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.”
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.
It’s just semantics to try and argue that “sleep deprivation and induced hypothermia” are not torture. Please, how can you not be outraged?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Does this new bill only apply to service men? What about police? Does it spell out what torture is or is not?
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.
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.
Washington Post has an article about this issue today.
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.
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.
“There really are good guys and bad guys in the world.”
And therein lies the greatest problem – distinguishing one from the other.
…which is what I just said.
…and I sustained.
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
Hope I didn’t seem snippy, rick. Having you “sustain” me is such an unusual occurrence I was thrown. :)
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.
>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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
I also wouldn’t call FHE or a sacrament talk (no matter the speaker) as inhumane in any sense of the word.
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.
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.
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.