Can you imagine Jesus coming to this country and preaching that torture is OK, as long as the other side's torture is worse, and it may lead to actual information (as opposed to the ever present possibility that the terrorist says anything to make it stop, true or not)? In this regard, it is similar to embryonic stem-cell research- why support something that may not produce efficient results and has tremendous ethical questions attached to it?

I contend that "interrogation" and "torture" are two different things, motivated by two very different sets of morals and standards.

 

Even so, I do seem to recall hearing something about satan and his followers being cast into a lake of fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Punishment? Torture? The fruit of one's labors? Do semantics really matter here? The point is, the treatment of God's children and those who are-by choice-not God's children are two very different things.

 

If Jesus has no problem with it, I certainly do not.

Do any of you guys have any problem with bombing abortion clinics?

 

Both are "effective and accurate" at preventing abortions.

 

What about murder? Any problems with murder?

You're in running now with ace for my apples to oranges award. :lol:

wonder if anyone of them were waterboarded?

 

We have lost some moral ascendancy.

 

I know...waterboarding is just as bad as what those people had done to them.

Oh, but one most certainly can. One that's engaging in battle without wearing a military uniform gets what he deserves, just that simple. How you and a few others can even begin to compare waterboarding to what these bottom feeders did is totally beyond me.

 

There's a world of difference between interrogating known evil perpetrators, and cruelly torturing, maiming and killing innocent victims. Asserting they are one and the same is beyond comprehension along a path of reasoning littered with logical and ethical faux pas.

 

So, you would both agree with this stance on abortion: I am against abortion in all cases except if my girlfriend becomes pregnant. Asserting that this stance is a ridiculous proposition would be an apples to oranges comparison? Acceptable because they are guided by completely different moral standards?

 

I'll gladly make my supposed logical missteps if they result in preventing evil men from harming innocent victims. You and others are welcome to "judge" the outcome, and agree or disagree. You may parse and equivocate all you want, I am resolute in my belief that innocents must be protected from evil doers, and it is the duty of good men to do so.

 

I wonder how you would be able to look the wife and children of a NYC firefighter killed doing his job 9/11/2001 in their eyes and "educate" them on the evils of non-lethal, non-crippling, interrogation that could have saved their husband or father.

 

I’d be interested to hear how you would explain to them how depriving a known terrorist of his sleep, playing loud music and pouring water over his face is the same as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi sawing the head off of Nick Berg on video for the world to see… or the many atrocities committed against prisoners of war by the Nazis and Japanese during WWII… or having to make the choice to leap to your death from the 102nd floor of the World Trade Center or be burned alive… or having a 110 story building come crashing down upon you as you attempted to rescue others trapped inside.

 

So if the U.S. Constitution and international law signed by the United States were amended to allow torture prior to September 11, 2001 terrorists would not have successfully flown into the towers? Continuing with torture now is worth undermining and subverting our own laws? It's providing effective, actionable information? You can't answer "yes" to any of those questions, which is why you have to rely on the ridiculous proposition that forcefully stopping a rapist is anything remotely like torturing, illegally, detainees.

 

You know, if you halfway tried, I really believe you could sound truly condescending in your next post... :lol:

 

Do you read your posts?

I said interrogation methods. Anyone who's willing to negotiate with terrorists should be treated like terrorists IMO.

Why are interrogation methods like torture OK but bribery is not?

Can we not have opinions on political issues without bring religion into just once?

I can't (because my religion is a big part of me), but I am not talking about religion. I am talking about morality and ethics. They are not necessarily related.

 

The US government is not a theocracy but that does not mean that it is amoral or above morality. I have personally seen your argument that the "government has no right to take the money of the rich to give to the poor." Where is the basis of that statement?

I contend that "interrogation" and "torture" are two different things, motivated by two very different sets of morals and standards.

 

Even so, I do seem to recall hearing something about satan and his followers being cast into a lake of fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Punishment? Torture? The fruit of one's labors? Do semantics really matter here? The point is, the treatment of God's children and those who are-by choice-not God's children are two very different things.

 

If Jesus has no problem with it, I certainly do not.

God is the only one who can decide who deserves eternal torture and who does not. However, you believe that it is your right to choose who's life is worth respecting and who's is not.

 

Say theoretically that these terrorists were Christians only torturing American atheists. Would you throw your support behind those terrorists? I mean, atheists are not "God's children" therefore, it is no big deal, right?

You're in running now with ace for my apples to oranges award. :lol:

Sometimes the way to expose a logical misstep is to use hyperbole. Of course, I recognize the difference between killing abortion doctors and torture. Maybe I misinterpreted your post, maybe I am slow tonight.

 

You said that if it is "effective and accurate". How is blowing up abortion clinics not effective and accurate? Certainly it is immoral (as torture is) but it is effective and accurate.

 

The US government is not a theocracy but that does not mean that it is amoral or above morality. I have personally seen your argument that the "government has no right to take the money of the rich to give to the poor." Where is the basis of that statement?

 

 

 

Not in religion or anything to do with morality or ethics. It's pretty simple. You work hard and make money, it's not the governments job to tell you how to spend it.

So, you would both agree with this stance on abortion: I am against abortion in all cases except if my girlfriend becomes pregnant. Asserting that this stance is a ridiculous proposition would be an apples to oranges comparison? Acceptable because they are guided by completely different moral standards?

 

So if the U.S. Constitution and international law signed by the United States were amended to allow torture prior to September 11, 2001 terrorists would not have successfully flown into the towers? Continuing with torture now is worth undermining and subverting our own laws? It's providing effective, actionable information? You can't answer "yes" to any of those questions, which is why you have to rely on the ridiculous proposition that forcefully stopping a rapist is anything remotely like torturing, illegally, detainees.

 

Do you read your posts?

Show me the law you assert we're breaking by interrogating high ranking terrorist leaders by depriving them of sleep, playing music for them at a level they can easily hear and pouring water over their faces with no actual danger of harming them physically, and I'll consider your point.

Show me the law you assert we're breaking by interrogating high ranking terrorist leaders by depriving them of sleep, playing music for them at a level they can easily hear and pouring water over their faces with no actual danger of harming them physically, and I'll consider your point.

 

Don't you think we have probably tortured some innocent people as well? Everyone we have "interrogated" hasn't been guilty. :lol:

Don't you think we have probably tortured some innocent people as well? Everyone we have "interrogated" hasn't been guilty. :lol:

I don't think we've tortured anyone in a long time.

 

Everyone we've interrogated is still alive... or at least alive following their interrogation. Their lives were never in jeopardy during their interrogation.

 

The whole notion of, "Let's not interrogate anyone because we might interrogate an innocent person" is silly and weak. It's this kind of thinking that places my family and yours at greater risk than they should ever have to face in their homeland. Maybe you're okay with that. I am not. My wife and kids deserve better than to live in constant fear some wackos are going to do something stupid and harm them.

 

What is your point?

Show me the law you assert we're breaking by interrogating high ranking terrorist leaders by depriving them of sleep, playing music for them at a level they can easily hear and pouring water over their faces with no actual danger of harming them physically, and I'll consider your point.

 

The United States is party to the "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment"

 

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

 

The United States is party to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

 

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

 

You may read the rest of it, it sounds a lot like our Declaration of Independence (), but I’m certain that is of no concern to you.

 

The United Sates is party to "Common Article III" of the Geneva Convention

 

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.

 

I’m quite certain I can predict your response to these treaties, so perhaps you should also revisit Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and the United States Constitution.

 

I don't think we've tortured anyone in a long time.?

 

So, torture, according to you, is what, exactly? The common definition (as evidenced above) is “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.”

I don't think we've tortured anyone in a long time.

 

Everyone we've interrogated is still alive... or at least alive following their interrogation. Their lives were never in jeopardy during their interrogation.

 

The whole notion of, "Let's not interrogate anyone because we might interrogate an innocent person" is silly and weak. It's this kind of thinking that places my family and yours at greater risk than they should ever have to face in their homeland. Maybe you're okay with that. I am not. My wife and kids deserve better than to live in constant fear some wackos are going to do something stupid and harm them.

 

What is your point?

 

I guess torture is in the eye of the beholder? Or do you only torture someone when you kill them?

The United States is party to the "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment"

 

 

 

The United States is party to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

 

 

 

You may read the rest of it, it sounds a lot like our Declaration of Independence (), but I’m certain that is of no concern to you.

 

The United Sates is party to "Common Article III" of the Geneva Convention

 

 

 

I’m quite certain I can predict your response to these treaties, so perhaps you should also revisit Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and the United States Constitution.

 

 

 

So, torture, according to you, is what, exactly? The common definition (as evidenced above) is “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.”

 

Actually I'm pretty sure we're only partially part of the Declaration of Human Rights...I don't think we recognize the social aspect of it. I'll see if I can find my notes on it to clarify.

 

FWIW, the UN is a joke, and the US would be better served to cut all ties with them IMO.

Actually I'm pretty sure we're only partially part of the Declaration of Human Rights...I don't think we recognize the social aspect of it. I'll see if I can find my notes on it to clarify.

 

FWIW, the UN is a joke, and the US would be better served to cut all ties with them IMO.

 

You're probably thinking of the "International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights", which the United States is not party to. And regardless of your opinion on the UN, the US signed and ratified the treaty. Even without factoring in treaties, US domestic law prohibits torture as well.

Regardless of whether it's a law or not, I have no problem with the U.S. or any other country using methods of torture on prisoners or suspected terrorists.