quote:

---

Fine. I just don't like any analogy comparing the Taliban or North Vietnamese to our fine service folks who have had nothing to do with torture.

---

No one here is grouping in any service member who isn't actively committing acts of torture with those who do. The discussion is entirely focused on those on our side who do engage in these acts. The fact that almost all of our armed forces aren't engaged in this behavior doesn't shield those who are engaging in it from being compared to other people who do nasty things to people.

quote:

---

Fine. I just don't like any analogy comparing the Taliban or North Vietnamese to our fine service folks who have had nothing to do with torture.

---

I understand you don't like the analogy. It's a very uncomfortable analogy, as it points out the flaws of using "saving lives" as justification to torture human beings. Both sides can say they are doing it to save lives, and both believe their actions are just. I clearly wasn't saying Pvt. Snuffy = OBL. I'm saying the justifications we use to excuse evil acts are likely the same justifications used by the "other side" to commit evil acts against us.

If AQ had a US soldier strapped to a table and waterboarded him for information they believed would save AQ lives, Americans would lose their minds.

That being said, no torture is reconcilable with Christ's teachings, which was the point of this thread. I understand the world's rationalizations for it, but for those that follow Christ and strive to be Christ-like, none of those rationalizations matter. What matters is the standard set by Christ.

**Edit**
I'm not saying being opposed to torture is something only for Christians. There are ample reasons to be fundamentally opposed to it, whether religious or secular.

quote:

---

Fine. I just don't like any analogy comparing the Taliban or North Vietnamese to our fine service folks who have had nothing to do with torture.

---

The heart of the matter is that the actions involved in the torture are objectively evil. Period. The identity and the intentions of the perpetrator are irrelevant. I share your discomfort with the comparison of the CIA/US Military to noted nefarious regimes/groups because the report states that we have stooped to the level of the Viet Cong, Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc... rather than holding ourselves to a higher standard of conduct.

I agree with what beer baron said.

I think that retired Ag refuses to say that the vast majority of our service folk who have nothing to do with torture are at least somewhat equivalent to the Taliban/North Vietnamese maybe I am reading you wrong?

Not sure why you need him to say anything. I think it's pretty clear. He never made any sweeping generalizations you have your feathers ruffled about.

I don't think it's clear at all.

quote:

---

I agree with what beer baron said.

I think that retired Ag refuses to say that the vast majority of our service folk who have nothing to do with torture are at least somewhat equivalent to the Taliban/North Vietnamese maybe I am reading you wrong?

---

Huh? I think my point was clear. I wasn't saying US soldiers = Taliban. I know many that are still in. They are good men. I was trying to point out a flaw in rationalizing torture as a means to extract "life-saving information". If one is going to rationalize American torture because the supposed intent is to save lives, then one must be willing to accept the torture of Americans by others if the intent is to save lives.

Would you be outraged if an American soldier were being waterboarded for information that Taliban commanders thought could save lives of their fellow Taliban members?

Okay we were just mis communicating.

Sorry, posted at same time as your above post.

But, I would be interested in your response to this: Would you be outraged if an American soldier were being waterboarded for information that Taliban commanders thought could save lives of their fellow Taliban members or others in their community?

quote:

---

quote:

---

On the contrary you oversimplify, as have most with regards to torture in this thread. The purpose of said techniques is paramount to this discussion. Imminent threats or danger, or potential situations where massacres or the murder of other human beings is being plotted would seem to merit consideration or disucussion of it. To separate the two is futile.

---

Consequentialism. You've all but said the ends justify the means. Problem is, they don't. Doing evil to prevent evil is a poor justification. And with regards to the report itself, it is terribly ineffective. It's the same logic in justifying the bombing of an abortion clinic by an (allegedly) prolife individual.

---

Doing evil to prevent evil is bad, but allowing evil to occur instead of attempting to prevent it is good? If the means are good but the ends are evil is that really so different? Sounds like two ****ty choices with no right answer. Now that we've arrived at the anticipated stalemate perhaps you can get down off your high horse and help retiredag do the same.

I'm sure a partisan report that didn't interview people involved is probably a great barometer of truth in the matter anyways.

quote:

---

I think aggiegamecock may be a data point supporting my hypothesis.

---

I am not scared. Your hypothesis is pretentious but that most likely reflects on you, not it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

On the contrary you oversimplify, as have most with regards to torture in this thread. The purpose of said techniques is paramount to this discussion. Imminent threats or danger, or potential situations where massacres or the murder of other human beings is being plotted would seem to merit consideration or disucussion of it. To separate the two is futile.

---

Consequentialism. You've all but said the ends justify the means. Problem is, they don't. Doing evil to prevent evil is a poor justification. And with regards to the report itself, it is terribly ineffective. It's the same logic in justifying the bombing of an abortion clinic by an (allegedly) prolife individual.

---

Doing evil to prevent evil is bad, but allowing evil to occur instead of attempting to prevent it is good? If the means are good but the ends are evil is that really so different? Sounds like two ****ty choices with no right answer. Now that we've arrived at the anticipated stalemate perhaps you can get down off your high horse and help retiredag do the same.

I'm sure a partisan report that didn't interview people involved is probably a great barometer of truth in the matter anyways.

---

Once again, nobody is saying that we should stand by and do nothing. What we are saying is that torture is not an acceptable means of addressing the evil. You are answering evil with evil. What we are saying that if you claim to be a follower of Christ, then you can't just ignore what Christ actually said about how we are to treat others and respond to evil. It's not a high horse. It's having a moral opposition to the use of torture, which is a practice that is impossible to reconcile with Christ's teachings.

I understand that you don't view the Senate report as credible. Attacking the source doesn't change the fundamental issue raised in the OP. These tactics are incompatible with Christ-like behavior. The ends do not justify the means, no matter how much you claim they do. You seem to be looking at this through the lens of the world, and not the lens of the cross.

gamecock,
When KSM was waterboarded for intel on a suspected plot that the CIA later conceded was not real, was that evil? Or is torture okay as long as you think it may possibly produce reliable intel, whether or not such intel actually exists?

Or what about the 26 detainees that were released after being held in error? Was the torture of them wrong? This is the problem with your rationalizations of torture. You are assuming that the one being tortured actually has the information you are looking for. If he doesn't give it to you, then you torture him more as you claim he's just still withholding the information. You want to torture human beings because they might have information that might save lives at some point in the future.

And of course, it is entirely incompatible with the faith you claim.

Were the 26 tortured? Or just wrongfully detained?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

On the contrary you oversimplify, as have most with regards to torture in this thread. The purpose of said techniques is paramount to this discussion. Imminent threats or danger, or potential situations where massacres or the murder of other human beings is being plotted would seem to merit consideration or disucussion of it. To separate the two is futile.

---

Consequentialism. You've all but said the ends justify the means. Problem is, they don't. Doing evil to prevent evil is a poor justification. And with regards to the report itself, it is terribly ineffective. It's the same logic in justifying the bombing of an abortion clinic by an (allegedly) prolife individual.

---

Doing evil to prevent evil is bad, but allowing evil to occur instead of attempting to prevent it is good? If the means are good but the ends are evil is that really so different? Sounds like two ****ty choices with no right answer. Now that we've arrived at the anticipated stalemate perhaps you can get down off your high horse and help retiredag do the same.

I'm sure a partisan report that didn't interview people involved is probably a great barometer of truth in the matter anyways.

---

Once again, nobody is saying that we should stand by and do nothing. What we are saying is that torture is not an acceptable means of addressing the evil. You are answering evil with evil. What we are saying that if you claim to be a follower of Christ, then you can't just ignore what Christ actually said about how we are to treat others and respond to evil. It's not a high horse. It's having a moral opposition to the use of torture, which is a practice that is impossible to reconcile with Christ's teachings.

I understand that you don't view the Senate report as credible. Attacking the source doesn't change the fundamental issue raised in the OP. These tactics are incompatible with Christ-like behavior. The ends do not justify the means, no matter how much you claim they do. You seem to be looking at this through the lens of the world, and not the lens of the cross.

---

So I'm arguing from the perspective of having no other option and torture being a last resort. At that point in time, you are choosing inaction. I'm not endorsing torture in any other scenario and I guess that just wasn't clear to you (forgive me). You (and others) seem to be under the impression that I support it in any situation but that. In that sense you would certainly seem to be no less evil, content to watch others die with the potential to still be able to see them.

You do not have a monopoly on doctrine or Christlike behavior, despite what you think. Until we stand before him you are no more of a moral authority than I. You attribute motives and thoughts to actions haphazardly to support your ideas.

Someone mentioned some interesting things earlier about Jesus that I don't remember you addressing. In Matthew 8 / Luke 7 did Jesus tell the centurion to quit his job? Lay down his sword? Do you think torture occurred in roman times? Did he say don't torture anyone? It's really quite silent on that. Further if God is the same now as always then we know He gets angry. Hasn't he ordered the slaughter of everything down to livestock by the hands of His chosen people? How does this reconcile with your views? If God told someone to torture is it ok?

quote:

---

So I'm arguing from the perspective of having no other option and torture being a last resort. At that point in time, you are choosing inaction. I'm not endorsing torture in any other scenario and I guess that just wasn't clear to you (forgive me). You (and others) seem to be under the impression that I support it in any situation but that. In that sense you would certainly seem to be no less evil, content to watch others die with the potential to still be able to see them.

---

You are moving the goalposts. There are other options. There is a huge middle ground between torture and sitting on your hands doing nothing. Nobody has advocated doing nothing. You are saying evil is acceptable if your intent is good. That is not Christian.

quote:

---

You do not have a monopoly on doctrine or Christlike behavior, despite what you think. Until we stand before him you are no more of a moral authority than I. You attribute motives and thoughts to actions haphazardly to support your ideas.

---

I have His word. I have His teachings. Please show me where the use of torture is compatible w/ Christ's teachings. You continue to dodge this.

quote:

---

Someone mentioned some interesting things earlier about Jesus that I don't remember you addressing. In Matthew 8 / Luke 7 did Jesus tell the centurion to quit his job? Lay down his sword? Do you think torture occurred in roman times? Did he say don't torture anyone? It's really quite silent on that.

---

Wait! Your argument is that Jesus never said "don't torture"? Jesus did tell Peter that those that take up the sword will die by the sword. He did tell us to love our enemies. He did tell us to not return evil with evil. He did tell us to turn the other cheek and not resist an evil man. Jesus did tell soldiers not to extort money by threats or false accusations, which is far less than actual torture.

To say that Jesus was silent on how to treat others is absurd. He told us to pray for those that persecute us. He did say that if someone sues you for your shirt, then you should give him your coat as well. But yeah, He was copacetic with torture.

quote:

---

Further if God is the same now as always then we know He gets angry. Hasn't he ordered the slaughter of everything down to livestock by the hands of His chosen people? How does this reconcile with your views? If God told someone to torture is it ok?

---

Do you believe things changed w/ the cross? Do you believe that Jesus is Christ, and we should imitate Him? Christ gave us the perfect example with His actions and words. Please, which teaching of Christ are you using to justify the use of torture? I've referenced several of His actual statements, and you can read them if you want in Matthew 5-7. Do you believe that Christ was just kidding when He said "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you"?

quote:

---

Torture is wrong. But to equate the US armed forces with the Taliban and/or North Vietnamese is wrong also IMHO.

---

True, we killed 3 million Vietnamese - the vast majority of them civilians - in their own country. Burned them alive w napalm and such. And for what? The North Vietnamese never did anything remotely that evil to us. (Figures are according to Robert S McNamara.)

quote:

---

Did he say don't torture anyone?

---

Wow. Yes, He did say don't torture anyone. He said it when He told us to love our enemies. He said it when He told us to treat others as we want them to treat us. He told us when He told us to pray for those that persecute us. He told us when He said not to resist an evil person. He told us when He said "blessed are the merciful". He told us when He said "blessed are the peacemakers". He told us when He said that those that take up the sword will die by the sword.

To say that torture is compatible w/ Christ-like behavior is to say that Christ wasn't serious when He said all the above.

Were the 26 tortured or just wrongfully imprisoned?

quote:

---

Doing evil to prevent evil is bad, but allowing evil to occur instead of attempting to prevent it is good? If the means are good but the ends are evil is that really so different? Sounds like two awful [sic] choices with no right answer. Now that we've arrived at the anticipated stalemate perhaps you can get down off your high horse and help retiredag do the same.

---

[clop clop whinny]
KNIGHT: They're nervous, sire.
ARTHUR: Then we'd best leave them here and carry on on foot. Dis-mount!
TIM: Behold the cave of Kyre Banorg!

:-P

And now, for something completely different: assumed in your response is a straw-man (that not torturing the POW is the same as doing nothing to obtain intelligence). Until you grasp that about my position (as well as RetiredAg's and others), then I suppose that indeed we are at an impasse.

Hooray for evil.

quote:

---

I'm sure a partisan report that didn't interview people involved is probably a great barometer of truth in the matter anyways.

---

Tribalism.

quote:

---

Were the 26 tortured or just wrongfully imprisoned?

---

Not sure. Given they were held at black sites, I'm going to assume they likely were, especially considering that even after being cleared, they were held for months.

So when you said "Was torture of them wrong?" That was based on your assumption and not facts?

quote:

---

The ends don't justify the means. Ever

---

1) I don't think you can say that until you know the Ends. Example- School Shooter has taken kids hostage- I believe, as does the Catholic church, that you are allowed to defend yourself and protect others. The ends are justified because of the situation- by killing the school shooter and protecting innocent lives. I think the same can be said for using various torture techniques (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, loud music, ect). in order to get the necessary information to save lives.

2) You can expand this conversation to dropping the A bomb on Japan- it killed hundreds of thousands but actually saved lives on both sides by promptly ending the War.

quote:

---

So when you said "Was torture of them wrong?" That was based on your assumption and not facts?

---

Yes. That has no bearing on the morality of torture though. If the assumption offended you, my apologies. Btw, do you have any evidence that the CIA's torture actually saved any lives? Considering "life-saving" Intel has been the primary rationalization for torture, I would think it's vital to actually show that it worked.

Also, can someone please provide me the teaching of Jesus that allows for torture?

So you embellished the truth?

Is that a sin?

And there sure is a lot of craw fishing in your last post.

quote:

---

So you embellished the truth?

Is that a sin?

---

Is operating under a logical assumption sinful? If so, I'll seek forgiveness for it. Is this the type of nitpicking you're going to engage in to avoid having to reconcile the use of torture with Christ's teachings?

quote:

---

And there sure is a lot of craw fishing in your last post.

---

How so? I'm not the one claiming torturing human beings saves lives. If that's the justification for it, you may want to provide support for that rationalization?

quote:

---

quote:

---

The ends don't justify the means. Ever

---

1) I don't think you can say that until you know the Ends. Example- School Shooter has taken kids hostage- I believe, as does the Catholic church, that you are allowed to defend yourself and protect others. The ends are justified because of the situation- by killing the school shooter and protecting innocent lives. I think the same can be said for using various torture techniques (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, loud music, ect). in order to get the necessary information to save lives.

2) You can expand this conversation to dropping the A bomb on Japan- it killed hundreds of thousands but actually saved lives on both sides by promptly ending the War.

---

Machavellianism is not something you want to be arguing for. If saving lives is all that is required to justify an action, then you set yourself up to justify all kinds of evil actions.

No, just tired of holier than thou attitudes. Especially when based on embellishments.

You are my brother in Christ and for that I love you. I do not think this is as cut and dried as you are trying to make it.

quote:

---

No, just tired of holier than thou attitudes. Especially when based on embellishments.

You are my brother in Christ and for that I love you. I do not think this i as cut and dried as you are trying to make it.

---

I've provided teaching after teaching from Christ that would not allow for the torture of another human being. I've asked that you, and gamecock, to do the same. I don't think that's too much to ask. Based on what I've read in Christ's teachings, it is cut and dried. It's not "holier than thou" to refuse to be open to a practice that is incompatible with Christ's teachings.

Embellishments? Plural? Other than my one statement on the 5-page thread that was admittedly based on a logical assumption, what other embellishments have there been?

I said I was against torture. You are holding a very legalistic stance so I will also.

I don't think the Americans who did this were evil. I think they only did it because they were only trying to save innocent lives.

quote:

---

I said I was against torture. You are holding a very legalistic stance so I will also.

I don't think the Americans who did this were evil. I think they only did it because they were only trying to save innocent lives.

---

So were any lives actually saved? I also didn't realize you were an "ends justify the means" person.

That brings me back to my other question that was never answered as far as I can recall. Would you think it wrong for Taliban commanders to torture, or use"enhanced interrogation" on, American soldiers in order to possibly save taliban lives? You know, if they were trying to save lives, right? What about the North Vietnamese? Surely you wouldn't think they were evil for torturing American soldiers in order to save Vietnamese lives, right?

Oh, and can you reconcile these tactics with Christ's teachings?

You know what? Just disregard the previous questions and my request for reconciling with what Christ said. I've stated my position on this and have given the teachings that torture, or whatever you want to label it, clearly violates. There's really no point in continuing, as the conversation is devolving at this point.

quote:

---

Machavellianism is not something you want to be arguing for. If saving lives is all that is required to justify an action, then you set yourself up to justify all kinds of evil actions.

---

Human nature does not change- you will and have always had people who are good, ok and bad. We will defintiely have some bad people exploiting the situation and also some good people will try and make things better (save and protect lives).

There is a difference between killing someone and murdering someone. Murder is taking of an innocent life. In the school shooter example the shooter is no longer innocent (there are consequences for our actions) and if the Ends mean he needs to be killed to save lives, then that is not Murder.