# End Torture Now



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

President Bush gave a good speech at the UN - too bad he's lost moral authority bc he has permitted the US to employ torture. One would hope he would see that despite his motives, such a policy is a mistake. Sadly such a hope seems misplaced. No matter what your political persuasion I would hope that all of you only support candidates that will not support the use of torture.

But The Economist says is better than I can:

https://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9833041&CFID=20696024&CFTOKEN=21467789

"....Take torture, arguably the hardest case (and the subject of the first article in our series). A famous thought experiment asks what you would do with a terrorist who knew the location of a ticking nuclear bomb. Logic says you would torture one man to save hundreds of thousands of lives, and so you would. But this a fictional dilemma. In the real world, policemen are seldom sure whether the many (not one) suspects they want to torture know of any plot, or how many lives might be at stake. All that is certain is that the logic of the ticking bomb leads down a slippery slope where the state is licensed in the name of the greater good to trample on the hard-won rights of any one and therefore all of its citizens.

Human rights are part of what it means to be civilised. Locking up suspected terrorists-and why not potential murderers, rapists and paedophiles, too?-before they commit crimes would probably make society safer. Dozens of plots may have been foiled and thousands of lives saved as a result of some of the unsavoury practices now being employed in the name of fighting terrorism. Dropping such practices in order to preserve freedom may cost many lives. So be it. "


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl:

Such a complicated topic. A topic where I do not even begin to have the answers...but I do have questions. For instance, do you think the author would be stating, "so be it" if it was his/her entire family that would get wiped out in the name of his principle? On the flip side, does anyone that backs torture think they would have a different opinion if it was they or a loved one that was wrongly tortured? 

It is a very tough topic.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Relevant?

https://www.jackbauertorturereport.com/


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

What if Bin Ladin were caught? He may know relevant information or he may may be out of the loop. I guess you would say we should not use torture on him either, correct?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

"When you fight dragons to long you turn into a dragon." - irish proverb


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

A lot depends on how you define "torture".

Is sleep deprivation or lights left on in a person's cell torture? How about annoying music or taunting? 

I have less of a problem with this than I do with physical abuse of any kind. If you hurt people physically, they will MAKE THINGS UP to get you to stop. It would not seem that torture would have much value anyway in this situation.

In the case of terrorists, I'm not sure physical torture would produce much of value anyway, if people are willing to die themselves in a hypothetical explosion in order to kill Americans.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

VS said:


> A lot depends on how you define "torture".
> 
> Is sleep deprivation or lights left on in a person's cell torture? How about annoying music or taunting?
> 
> ...


This has been the response of many in the military and in the intelligence fields; information obtained through torture is highly unreliable. To me the moral issue is unassailable: if we behave like them, we have become them, then what's the point of fighting them.

I believe, hopeless idealist that I am, that being an American, like being a Christian, carries with it certain requirements of behavior, and some risks. Maybe we will be a little less secure, maybe we'll have to take a hit now and then, large or small, but we'll survive with our national virtue intact, which isn't what's happening now. I long for the day, when traveling abroad, I am once again proud to be thought an American.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I don't have anything against torture for somethings. 

And then what is torture? The flip side is if you have somebody who knows where a n-bomb is in NYC and he won't tell unless he is broke down with tortured and you don't torture that person because it is not nice, then are you would torture all the people that become nuked? Not everybody is going to die immediately and what you do to one person, or a few, is not going to hurt nearly as much as millions being tortured by a n-bomb by some wack or terrorist.

Karl I think you mean well, but is as liberal as "Its not the criminals fault. It's societies fault the criminals do crimmal things."

Is real torture used too many times? Yes! Totally banded? No! It is to bad that it is neccesary. And if you talked to John McCain he might tell you things for some types of torture you don't know he believes in. Is John McCain totally against torture? Or, mostly against it, but not entirely?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

rkipperman said:


> What if Bin Ladin were caught? He may know relevant information or he may may be out of the loop. I guess you would say we should not use torture on him either, correct?


Oh G_d, please - I hope he's never captured alive; I couldn't bear the trial and the the appeals process; the whining about civil liberties, due process, the Geneva Convention, his abusive father and emotionally ungenerous mother, etc. Hopefully some nice, brave special forces individual will do us all a favor and put a bullet in OBL's brain on sight.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Oh G_d, please - I hope he's never captured alive; I couldn't bear the trial and the the appeals process; the whining about civil liberties, due process, the Geneva Convention, his abusive father and emotionally ungenerous mother, etc. Hopefully some nice, brave special forces individual will do us all a favor and put a bullet in OBL's brain on sight.


Last I checked bin Laden was not a U.S. citizen, so most of the things in your list don't apply to him.

Also, if Bush wanted to capture bin Laden he could do so.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02​


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

WA said:


> I don't have anything against torture for somethings.
> 
> And then what is torture? The flip side is if you have somebody who knows where a n-bomb is in NYC and he won't tell unless he is broke down with tortured and you don't torture that person because it is not nice, then are you would torture all the people that become nuked? Not everybody is going to die immediately and what you do to one person, or a few, is not going to hurt nearly as much as millions being tortured by a n-bomb by some wack or terrorist.
> 
> ...


I'm still surprised when someone just simply doesn't know how to read, and then leaps to stupid conclusions such as the above. I guess it's the (right)wingnut in your brain that's just a few turns short of tight. The very last thing you can justifiably accuse Karl of is being a liberal. That's just laughable!

It's been so frequently established that someone who is not only willing, but eager to blow him/herself up isn't going to have too much of a problem with a few fingernails being torn out, or an eyeball jabbed with a knife or being "sexually humliated", although I think the latter is usually done for the sexual gratification of the torturer.

The only people who seem to condone torture are the cowboys like Bush and Cheney and the assorted sadists who do their bidding. By and large, the military doesn't, knowing that it not only doesn't produce believable results, but puts our soldiers at greater risk of being tortured if they are captured. Should you question that, here are the names of just a few military men, some 40 of whom are at the rank of General or Admiral, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shalikashvili, and former head of the CIA, Admiral Stansfield Turner.

GENERAL JOHN SHALIKASHVILI, USA (RET.) 
GENERAL JOSEPH HOAR, USMC (RET.)
ADMIRAL GREGORY G. JOHNSON, USN (RET.)
ADMIRAL JAY L. JOHNSON, USN (RET.)
GENERAL PAUL J. KERN, USA (RET.)
ADMIRAL CHARLES R. LARSON, USN (RET.)
GENERAL DAVID M. MADDOX, USA (RET.) 
GENERAL MERRILL A. MCPEAK, USAF (RET.)
ADMIRAL STANSFIELD TURNER, USN (RET.)
GENERAL WILLIAM G. T. TUTTLE JR., USA (RET.)
GENERAL ANTHONY ZINNI, USMC (RET.)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL DANIEL W. CHRISTMAN, USA (RET.)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL PAUL E. FUNK, USA (RET.) 
LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT G. GARD JR., USA (RET.)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAY M. GARNER, USA (RET.)
VICE ADMIRAL LEE F. GUNN, USN (RET.)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL ARLEN D. JAMESON, USAF (RET.)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL CLAUDIA J. KENNEDY, USA (RET.)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL DONALD L. KERRICK, USA (RET.)
VICE ADMIRAL ALBERT H. KONETZNI JR., USN (RET.)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES OTSTOTT, USA (RET.)
VICE ADMIRAL JACK SHANAHAN, USN (RET.)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL HARRY E. SOYSTER, USA (RET.)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL PAUL K. VAN RIPER, USMC (RET.)
MAJOR GENERAL JOHN BATISTE, USA (RET.)
MAJOR GENERAL EUGENE FOX, USA (RET.)
MAJOR GENERAL JOHN L. FUGH, USA (RET.)
REAR ADMIRAL DON GUTER, USN (RET.)
MAJOR GENERAL FRED E. HAYNES, USMC (RET.)
REAR ADMIRAL JOHN D. HUTSON, USN (RET.)
MAJOR GENERAL MELVYN MONTANO, ANG (RET.)
MAJOR GENERAL GERALD T. SAJER, USA (RET.)
MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL J. SCOTTI JR., USA (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID M. BRAHMS, USMC (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES P. CULLEN, USA (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL EVELYN P. FOOTE, USA (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID R. IRVINE, USA (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN H. JOHNS, USA (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL RICHARD O'MEARA, USA (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL MURRAY G. SAGSVEEN, USA (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN K. SCHMITT, USA (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL ANTHONY VERRENGIA, USAF (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL STEPHEN N. XENAKIS, USA (RET.)
AMBASSADOR PETE PETERSON, USAF (RET.)
COLONEL LAWRENCE B. WILKERSON, USA (RET.)
HONORABLE RICHARD DANZIG
HONORABLE WALTER B. SLOCOMBE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. TAFT IV
FRANK KENDALL III, ESQ.

These men and women wrote a compelling letter arguing against the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

I presume you set your intelligence and knowledge as superior to these people.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Last I checked bin Laden was not a U.S. citizen, so most of the things in your list don't apply to him.


Please, that won't stop their assertion in a court.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Last I checked bin Laden was not a U.S. citizen, so most of the things in your list don't apply to him.


Which items on the list only apply to US citizens?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Odd. I'm not a US citizen and I still get due process and my civil rights in the US. 

And Yachtie...OUCH! I have been in the OR more than once to see one of those in action.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Its a simple issue for me - how can we lecture other countries to stop torturing when we ourselves do it or turn a blind eye to proxies doing it on our behalf? 

One can understand the motivation behind those who support torture in the war against terror but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and when we make the violation of human dignity an official policy then one has to ask the hard question of whether how we fight is corrupting what we fight for.

Not providing 5 star accomodations to terrorists is not torture but water boarding and constant sleep deprivation (a tactic perfected by the KGB I might add) are. I think many of those who support the use of torture are decent people (and I have friends who are actively involved in the war on terror who are on both sides of the issue) who desperately want to save innocent lives but I also believe that they are misguided in their support of something indecent - torture.

Either human beings have fundamental dignity or they do not (given the human propensity towards cruely you could make a compelling case that we do not have any fundamental dignity.) Torture denies that human dignity just the same as terrorism does. I realize that a war cannot be fought by Marquis of Queensbury Rules but I fear that we have become too savage and too inhumane when we institutionalize torture. 

I think we have made a mistake and should correct it, decency requires no less.

Karl


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Its a simple issue for me - how can we lecture other countries to stop torturing when we ourselves do it or turn a blind eye to proxies doing it on our behalf?
> 
> ...


Karl speaks more rationally than I do sometimes. I feel that those who support torture in any form are barbaric in the extreme, deserving of no place in civilized discourse.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

rkipperman said:


> Which items on the list only apply to US citizens?


Which items on the list applied e.g. to Saddam Hussein? He spent two years in prison without any charges being filed against him, was given less than 30 days after charges were officially brought to prepare a defense, and was tried, sentenced to death and hung by a kangaroo court which was run according to George W. Bush's rules.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

rkipperman said:


> What if Bin Ladin were caught? He may know relevant information or he may may be out of the loop. I guess you would say we should not use torture on him either, correct?


Why does Osama tape himself and tell The U.S. that there will be another war?

Where does he get this information?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> Karl speaks more rationally than I do sometimes. * I feel that those who support torture in any form are barbaric in the extreme, deserving of no place in civilized discourse.*




There is the key difference between Karl's stance and yours. He says he can see where people of good intent can differ on this whereas you marginalize them. I guess I am not so arrogant as to think I have all the answers and I agree with Karl. I also think people might well change their position on torture depending on their personal history, i.e. I am sure I would be categorically against it if I or a loved one was tortured. I am also confident I might be less ambivalent about it if I had lost a loved one in a terrorist attack or had to watch a video tape of a loved one have their head sliced off.

This is one topic I am just going admit I am totally ambivalent about.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Which items on the list applied e.g. to Saddam Hussein? He spent two years in prison without any charges being filed against him, was given less than 30 days after charges were officially brought to prepare a defense, and was tried, sentenced to death and hung by a kangaroo court which was run according to George W. Bush's rules.


Yeah, but you miss the point, Frank... no one except our citizens, and then only those who haven't fallen afoul of Dubya's wrath and been declared an "enemy combatant" are deserving of American Justice, whatever that has been determined to be by the aforementioned Dubya. I'm sure you're aware of the concept of flexible reality.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Last I checked bin Laden was not a U.S. citizen, so most of the things in your list don't apply to him.
> 
> Also, if Bush wanted to capture bin Laden he could do so.
> 
> ...


But he should care.Who's going to capture him?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

I think after 9-11 we went a bit too far and that is understandable. And I know that if my family or friends were killed by terrorists that I would be indifferent to torture but that wouldn't make my indifference right. And I think that is how many good people justify torture - that we are either getting payback for 9-11 or that the ends justify the means and that we are saving lives by employing torture. 

In either case revenge can't be the long term strategy of the United States and it is very dubious as to whether torture is effective in gathering intelligence. But at the end of the day I want the US to affirm human dignity and not deny it and I suppose there might be a cost in doing so. But in life the right thing to do is usually the hardest thing to do.

If I come across as preachy or holier than though then I apologize bc its not my intention. I don't condemn those who honestly believe that the use of torture is necessary but I do think they are wrong about an issue that is vital to who we are as a nation.

Karl


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

rkipperman said:


> What if Bin Ladin were caught? He may know relevant information or he may may be out of the loop. I guess you would say we should not use torture on him either, correct?


Gee whiz-and who let him escape from Tora Bora?


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Which items on the list applied e.g. to Saddam Hussein? He spent two years in prison without any charges being filed against him, was given less than 30 days after charges were officially brought to prepare a defense, and was tried, sentenced to death and hung by a kangaroo court which was run according to George W. Bush's rules.


We are talking about a *U.S.* court. You've got to find a better example.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

rkipperman said:


> We are talking about a *U.S.* court.


No, we're talking about a military tribunal. As an enemy combatant, bin Laden has and would have no right to trial in U.S. civil courts, due process or any other constitutional protection, etc.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It wasn't Judge judy who convicted Lt Calley for the Me Lai massacre. bin laden has made it abundantly clear he despises our freedoms and seeks to end them. He has accomplished just that with the onerous Patriot Act. Should we capture the cripple he fully deserves a military tribunal and no less. Individuals who enter our armed forces are under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This list of articles is verbally read in full to all new inductees. Military tribunals and law are as much a reflection on miltary society as are civilian. osama is an enemy combatant. He is not a architectural consultant.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> It wasn't Judge judy who convicted Lt Calley for the Me Lai massacre. bin laden has made it abundantly clear he despises our freedoms and seeks to end them. He has accomplished just that with the onerous Patriot Act.


Bin Laden, as far as I'm aware has never said a word about "our freedoms".

Now Ahmadinejad, he's a different story. Just pathetic. How many times did he say, "I officially declare" today in his UN speech? I don't think I've ever done a 180 so fast about someone as I did today. This guy really needs to be shown the door.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl, I agree with you 100%. We're the United States and we're in the toilet if we start comparing ourselves to North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or any of those people.

One of the things I've never understood about torture is that the police know that torturing people gets them to make false confessions, so when they beat a false confession out of somebody they know that they're letting the real culprit get off. How does that make sense from a law enforcement perspective?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> I think after 9-11 we went a bit too far and that is understandable. And I know that if my family or friends were killed by terrorists that I would be indifferent to torture but that wouldn't make my indifference right. And I think that is how many good people justify torture - that we are either getting payback for 9-11 or that the ends justify the means and that we are saving lives by employing torture.
> 
> ...


+1. I'm in Karl's Korner on this one.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> .
> 
> And Yachtie...OUCH! I have been in the OR more than once to see one of those in action.


I pulled it- not suitable for younger or more sensitive viewers.:devil:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> I pulled it- not suitable for younger or more sensitive viewers.:devil:


Oh man, them electric cheese slicers really eat a person up. The only thing worse is those combo meat grinder/pasta rolling machines that then make a pastry matrix out of the slice.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The UK held national field exercises of military and police forces. First up was a SAS unit with instructions to bring back a rabbit. The two men slithered off in ghilly suits and after a few hours a single shot was heard, followed by their return with one headshot rabbit. Next up were the Paras. With much shouting and screaming they laid down a mortor and machinegun barrage, fired off star shells and charged screaming into the field. They returned in 15 minutes with the utterly shot up and bloodied ear of a rabbit. Then the RUC stepped forward, paced off an equal distance between officers and slowly began walking forward. They returned just before sundown with a badly beaten fox; one eye closed, broken jaw and cigarette burns on his paws. The judges commented they brought in the wrong animal. The seargent holding one forepaw gave it an unobserved twist. " I confess! I'm a rabbit!" A little gallows humour, but the same observation.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

rip said:


> Karl speaks more rationally than I do sometimes. I feel that those who support torture in any form are barbaric in the extreme, deserving of no place in civilized discourse.


Real nice. Do you think killing isn't a form of torture?

About Karl; I never said he is a liberal. What I said is a part of him is liberal.

And where did I say use torture without a second thought. What I said is count the human cost and use it when neccesary. If it works once to save half a million people is it not worth it? I wouldn't doubt everyone you list will say that it works once in awhile. It seems you read in more than what I said or believe. The fact that I said it might save a large group of people means rarely used, though I'm not sure what a fair limit is. About torture not working- what about the terrorist and the airline pilots on 9-11? You still going to say torture does not work? Another thing I didn't say is what is the limit to torture. In training even our own soldiers are put through waterboarding and some people call that torture.

Karl you say we be as bad as our enemy if we use their tactics- What about God sending people to hell? Is he just as bad? If you spank your child does that make you bad? Again, count the cost which is more immoral half a million good people dead with fake morality thinking or a little torture. Sometimes being kind to your enemies works but they are few and far between. If you let a million people die I think your conscious will tell you what real moral is by having a guilty conscious- then it is kinda to late. Though I probably agree with you in a large part about torture I still believe there are times when the exception is needed. I tend to believe most of the torture since 9-11, perhaps more than 95% should never have happened and shouldn't even have been thought of. Maiming or mutilation I think would be immoral.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

WA said:


> Real nice. Do you think killing isn't a form of torture?
> 
> About Karl; I never said he is a liberal. What I said is a part of him is liberal.
> 
> ...


Your logic (I'm stretching the term) totally escapes me; are you equating God sending people to hell or parents disciplining their children with acts of torture? And please tell us which 5% of the torture since 9/11 you would have chosen to use? No, killing is not a form of torture. And just where in the letter written by the men I listed do they say that torture works some of the time? Or did you bother to read the letter? But the issue isn't whether torture works, but that it is wrong, it is morally reprehensible and any nation that chooses to use torture as a policy has removed themselves from the company of civilized states. It's as simple as that. BTW, God doesn't send anyone to Hell; we make that choice.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Karl,

I do appreciate your stance for human rights but I would suggest that there is a difference between a forceful interrogation and torture. Where does torture really begin? Is the denial of a cigarette torture? Stripping someone down to his underwear? Constant light in his cell? It is a thin line and from my point of view, there are two questions to be answered:

a) Does the interrogation method I choose imply that I intrude too much into the subject's personal sphere, fundamentally violating his human dignity?

and,

b) _If_ a method does indeed violate his human dignity, what is the marginal utility of using it?

I think point a) should be clear. Deciding upon b) would require that the information to be extracted justifies exceptional methods. The example of an islamists having deployed a bomb and not releasing its location is a good example. It constitutes an *outer law emergency* (i.e. an emergency that is not regulated by law). In such a case, torturing should still be _illegal_, but anyone who does it should not be prosecuted (subject to court decision).

What do you think about that? It would keep torture illegal, but would de-facto permit it in extreme cases of outer law emergencies. The situation would then be examined by a court and, if the court finds it indeed to have been an outer law emergency, the offending officer would not be prosecuted. I think that's a fair compromise that guarantees sufficient control.

Cheers,
A.



Karl89 said:


> Not providing 5 star accomodations to terrorists is not torture but water boarding and constant sleep deprivation (a tactic perfected by the KGB I might add) are. I think many of those who support the use of torture are decent people (and I have friends who are actively involved in the war on terror who are on both sides of the issue) who desperately want to save innocent lives but I also believe that they are misguided in their support of something indecent - torture.
> 
> (...)
> 
> I think we have made a mistake and should correct it, decency requires no less.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> No, we're talking about a military tribunal. As an enemy combatant, bin Laden has and would have no right to trial in U.S. civil courts, due process or any other constitutional protection, etc.


I would have a slightly stronger view on that. He is a terrorist, and therefore an unlawful enemy combatant at best. See also Hague Conventions on Law of War. Hence, I wouldn't even put him in front of a military tribunal. A court martial should be sufficient.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Maybe they should bring Osama here to The U.S.just like Mahmood Armedinejad to have him speak in front of millions of people in a University.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Albert said:


> Deciding upon b) would require that the information to be extracted justifies exceptional methods. The example of an islamists having deployed a bomb and not releasing its location is a good example. It constitutes an *outer law emergency* (i.e. an emergency that is not regulated by law). In such a case, torturing should still be _illegal_, but anyone who does it should not be prosecuted (subject to court decision).
> 
> What do you think about that? It would keep torture illegal, but would de-facto permit it in extreme cases of outer law emergencies. The situation would then be examined by a court and, if the court finds it indeed to have been an outer law emergency, the offending officer would not be prosecuted. I think that's a fair compromise that guarantees sufficient control.
> 
> ...


In today's climate of governmental disinformation, deceit and outright lying, anyone would be fair game for torture. As it stands in the US right now, the president can declare anyone to be an enemy combatant without recourse to the courts, an attorney, etc, and can, under your rule of "outer law emergency" be subjected to torture without any consequence to the torturer. Not only that, but the information derived under that torture can be used in court against him, and, apparently, even if the torturer lies about what he might have said, the "enemy combatant" can't challenge, or even see that information. I would think this alone would render your "outer law emergency" just another tool to be used to justify all sorts of egregious acts.


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

rip said:


> *It's been so frequently established that someone who is not only willing, but eager to blow him/herself up isn't going to have too much of a problem with a few fingernails being torn out, or an eyeball jabbed with a knife* or being "sexually humliated", although I think the latter is usually done for the sexual gratification of the torturer.


I don't condone the use of torture, but neither do I agree with this statement. A suicide bomber must realize there will be no pain involved in the act of blowing one's self up. But having one's fingernails torn out HURTS, and it is instinctual to avoid such pain. So if confessing to a plot - whether true or not - works to stop the pain, that's what will happen. Even though I am against it, I think torture must work from time to time. The problem is, how do you distinguish when it is working from when it is not?

T3G


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

rip,

In my scenario, I am naturally assuming that the judicial system is governed by the rule of law. My knowledge of the current U.S. legislation with regards to anti-terror laws is not sufficient to comment on this particular case.

By the way: due to its nature, the outer law emergency can't be drafted into law. That's why it's "outer law": it effectively removes the particular emergency situation from the ordinary rule of law and puts it above it. If it becomes part of the regular legal system, it would be a legalisation of torture again...

Cheers,
A.



rip said:


> In today's climate of governmental disinformation, deceit and outright lying, anyone would be fair game for torture. As it stands in the US right now, the president can declare anyone to be an enemy combatant without recourse to the courts, an attorney, etc, and can, under your rule of "outer law emergency" be subjected to torture without any consequence to the torturer. Not only that, but the information derived under that torture can be used in court against him, and, apparently, even if the torturer lies about what he might have said, the "enemy combatant" can't challenge, or even see that information. I would think this alone would render your "outer law emergency" just another tool to be used to justify all sorts of egregious acts.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Title III Guy said:


> I don't condone the use of torture, but neither do I agree with this statement. A suicide bomber must realize there will be no pain involved in the act of blowing one's self up. But having one's fingernails torn out HURTS, and it is instinctual to avoid such pain. So if confessing to a plot - whether true or not - works to stop the pain, that's what will happen. Even though I am against it, I think torture must work from time to time. The problem is, how do you distinguish when it is working from when it is not?
> 
> T3G


Agree. Wasn't the location of Sadam's sons hiding place derived from torture?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Albert,

While I am sympathetic to your proposal I think once we take a wink and a nod attitude towards toture we have de facto legitimized it. I don't think a hard smack or two during an interrogation or denying a prisoner a cigarette or even the Koran constitues torture but water boarding, constant sleep deprivation (please note I say constant), and the like does IMO. 

I suppose if I was faced with the dilema of torturing someone bc it would gain information that might save tens of thousands of lives I might reluctantly support torture in that instance but such a situation is hypothetical and just bc torture might be useful in one out of a million times doesn't mean we should legitimize it, bc to employ a cliche such a policy starts us down a very slippery slope. 

Perhaps I am wrong in my steadfast opposition to torture but I hope I am not.

Karl


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Karl,

I fully agree. My proposal should not result in a "wink-and-nod" attitude. Every instance would be investigated by a court under charges against the officer having conducted the torture; if they _don't_ find an instance of an outer law emergency, the officer would be charged with grievous bodily harm or manslaughter or any other appropriate charges (as the torture had been conducted under regular law and was therefore illegal).

I think this should be a sufficient deterrent for an officer to use torture lighthandedly. Don't you think so?

Cheers,
A.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Albert,

What you write can make a compelling case but I just can't go there. Perhaps I am naive or too idealistic but I don't want the state to institutionalize torture in any sense, even under strict guidelines. When government legitimizes something, even in the smallest sense, it usually expans that something, whether it be socialized medicine or in this case torture.

You however would be easy to interrogate, Albert - a few hours of the greatest hits of Phil Collins and you'd confess to anything!

Karl


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> You however would be easy to interrogate, Albert - a few hours of the greatest hits of Phil Collins and you'd confess to anything!


Hehe, not sure whether I would be able to articulate myself at all after such a treatment...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Albert,
> 
> What you write can make a compelling case but I just can't go there. Perhaps I am naive or too idealistic but I don't want the state to institutionalize torture in any sense, even under strict guidelines. When government legitimizes something, even in the smallest sense, it usually expans that something, whether it be socialized medicine or in this case torture.
> 
> ...


For Islamic terrorist suspects, I'd opt for Hannity-Colmes episodes piped into their cells 24/7. Or maybe Nancy Grace.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Seriously: isn't that actually what you chaps are doing in Guantanamo?



FrankDC said:


> For Islamic terrorist suspects, I'd opt for Hannity-Colmes episodes piped into their cells 24/7. Or maybe Nancy Grace.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Albert said:


> Seriously: isn't that actually what you chaps are doing in Guantanamo?


I think it's prohibited by the Geneva Convention.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Albert,
> 
> What you write can make a compelling case but I just can't go there. Perhaps I am naive or too idealistic but I don't want the state to institutionalize torture in any sense, even under strict guidelines. When government legitimizes something, even in the smallest sense, it usually expans that something, whether it be socialized medicine or in this case torture.
> 
> ...


My breaking point is just a few minutes of Kenny G


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Albert,
> 
> What you write can make a compelling case but I just can't go there. Perhaps I am naive or too idealistic but I don't want the state to institutionalize torture in any sense, even under strict guidelines. Karl


I agree that the only legitimate position is no way, not ever. Otherwise you step right on the slippery slope:

If we know that torturing this person will save the lives of 10,000, how can we justify not torturing him if it will save 500? Are you saying that he is worth more than 500 innocent people? And, suppose we don't know for sure that it will save the lives? If a 100% chance of saving 1000 people justifies torture, what about a 50% chance of saving 2000? Or a 10% chance of saving 10,000?


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I think it's prohibited by the Geneva Convention.


See or ABC News. Not that I would mind...


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I agree that the only legitimate position is no way, not ever. Otherwise you step right on the slippery slope:
> 
> If we know that torturing this person will save the lives of 10,000, how can we justify not torturing him if it will save 500? Are you saying that he is worth more than 500 innocent people? And, suppose we don't know for sure that it will save the lives? If a 100% chance of saving 1000 people justifies torture, what about a 50% chance of saving 2000? Or a 10% chance of saving 10,000?


Jack,

In such cases, you always have to operate under uncertainty or ambiguity as you can never be _100% sure_. It's a judgement question open to review. If a policeman uses his gun in perceived self-protection, he also has to apply judgement as he can't be _100% sure_ that the offender aims to kill him.

Cheers,
A.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, precisely WHICH God of WHICH sect are you talking about? God is both near yet far from humanity and a mystery. 'Hell' in christian theology is not so much Dante's Inferno but continued seperation from God, and it is a seperation of OUR choosing, not Gods.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

True enough, but the proponents of the ticking time bomb scenario act as though you can be certain that the torture will save the innocent lives. What I'm saying is that even granting that certainty isn't enough to justify it.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> True enough, but the proponents of the ticking time bomb scenario act as though you can be certain that the torture will save the innocent lives. What I'm saying is that even granting that certainty isn't enough to justify it.


Interesting. So if a detainee were to admit (before use or threat of torture) that he placed a bomb on board a flight that is taking off soon, you still would not use torture to get the info from him, correct?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

rip said:


> parents disciplining their children with acts of torture? And please tell us which 5% of the torture since 9/11 you would have chosen to use? No, killing is not a form of torture. And just where in the letter written by the men I listed do they say that torture works some of the time? Or did you bother to read the letter? But the issue isn't whether torture works, but that it is wrong, it is morally reprehensible and any nation that chooses to use torture as a policy has removed themselves from the company of civilized states. It's as simple as that. BTW, God doesn't send anyone to Hell; we make that choice.


Maybe I think of forceful interrogation as torture. I think somebody who lets half a million people be killed and maimed should be remove from civilized states.

Some people consider spanking as torture.

Which 5% is your misunderstanding- what I meant is that probably 95% of the people that were tortured shouldn't have been.

Killing is worse than torture, because they are dead, and you like that more?

If the list of people that you listed all say that torture never works then they are lying.

You are right about people making the choice to go to hell, but why does hell have to be a lake of fire- there is not much worse in this world than burn.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> WA, precisely WHICH God of WHICH sect are you talking about? God is both near yet far from humanity and a mystery. 'Hell' in christian theology is not so much Dante's Inferno but continued seperation from God, and it is a seperation of OUR choosing, not Gods.


Is your religion Humanist?

I think the Catholic religion has pervert Christianity so much to get control of people, including you, that you are still strung out. I really don't care what "Great Minds" have said about religion because their motives are not always honest.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

WA,

You are rabidly anti-Catholic, can't spell or properly construct a sentence and are engaged in a losing battle with logic and reason. What do you think you add to the discussion if I might ask? Are you even aware of your ignorance or do you really think you have a handle on the key issues of the day? 

I await in spellbound anticipation for your elegant and graceful reply.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> Is your religion Humanist?
> 
> I think the Catholic religion has pervert Christianity so much to get control of people, including you, that you are still strung out. I really don't care what "Great Minds" have said about religion because their motives are not always honest.


Perverted might be too harsh a term, but not by much IMO. I wouldn't say the RCC perverted Christianity, they simply fell victim to the inevitable: converting Christianity from the true religion _of_ Jesus to a fake religion _about_ him. By the time the Nicene Creed was adopted it was all over, Christianity was gutted and rendered powerless (in a religious/spiritual sense), and was essentially converted from a religion to a political party.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Perverted might be too harsh a term, but not by much IMO. I wouldn't say the RCC perverted Christianity, they simply fell victim to the inevitable: converting Christianity from the true religion _of_ Jesus to a fake religion _about_ him. By the time the Nicene Creed was adopted it was all over, Christianity was gutted and rendered powerless (in a religious/spiritual sense), and was essentially converted from a religion to a political party.


We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. 
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. 
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

We say basically this same creed every Sunday in my Lutheran church. How does this gut and render Christianity powerless?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, I am Eastern Orthodox by crismation and hardly humanist. For your edification, Orthodoxy is Catholic and hopes the schism with Rome be healed. Orthodoxy also recognizes there is grace in the Protestant churches. I believe finding commonality more productive than differences. So please, reveal to us your sect, it's history and leadership. And as for being 'strung out' I challenge you to tell the forum the origins of crucifixion. Fascinating parallels for those who look with this thread's issue.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I agree that the only legitimate position is no way, not ever. Otherwise you step right on the slippery slope:
> 
> If we know that torturing this person will save the lives of 10,000, how can we justify not torturing him if it will save 500? Are you saying that he is worth more than 500 innocent people? And, suppose we don't know for sure that it will save the lives? If a 100% chance of saving 1000 people justifies torture, what about a 50% chance of saving 2000? Or a 10% chance of saving 10,000?


Or what if the police think a pedophile has kidnapped and stashed a child who needs medication immediately?

Of course, police can't torture suspects, but what if it works?

Slippery slope, yes.

The Geneva Convention restrictions are a weird case, because though we have a "War on Terror", the enemy is indeterminate. We can't pick up a suspected Al Qaeda member plotting against the US and tell this from his uniform. Terrorists also target noncombatants/civilians, so they don't obey the "rules of war".


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I agree that the only legitimate position is no way, not ever. Otherwise you step right on the slippery slope:
> 
> If we know that torturing this person will save the lives of 10,000, how can we justify not torturing him if it will save 500? Are you saying that he is worth more than 500 innocent people? And, suppose we don't know for sure that it will save the lives? If a 100% chance of saving 1000 people justifies torture, what about a 50% chance of saving 2000? Or a 10% chance of saving 10,000?


I don't think it's a slippery slope; more like a precipitous drop.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Kav said:


> WA, precisely WHICH God of WHICH sect are you talking about? God is both near yet far from humanity and a mystery. 'Hell' in christian theology is not so much Dante's Inferno but continued seperation from God, and it is a seperation of OUR choosing, not Gods.


God quite clearly says, "Don't go there!" If we then choose to go there in spite of the warnings, we have abandoned God, not the other way around. Such it is with free will.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

VS said:


> Or what if the police think a pedophile has kidnapped and stashed a child who needs medication immediately?
> 
> Of course, police can't torture suspects, but what if it works?
> 
> ...


The overwhelming expert opinion is that it doesn't work, and before you grant that kind of authority to the police, I suggest you read a little bit about the will to power. Over and again, we have seen that the police need more, not less restrictions. Radical Islamists are not the only ones who hate the freedoms we have.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

As a fan of "24", I say employ torture as needed to get information out of terrorists.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

WA said:


> Maybe I think of forceful interrogation as torture. I think somebody who lets half a million people be killed and maimed should be remove from civilized states.
> 
> Some people consider spanking as torture.
> 
> ...


You have this penchant for making up figures out of whole cloth. What half million? What 95%? And once again you have set your half-baked opinion over against the statements of men such as 43 generals and admirals, including former chiefs of the joint chiefs of staff, head of the CIA, etc. And you are smarter and better informed than any of them, right? This would be laughable if it, and you weren't so pathetic.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Note how much of the Creed is devoted to the Father, relative to the other two. There's your answer.
> 
> The Creed officially made Jesus a being equal to God in status, equally worthy of worship -- an error which Jesus himself repeatedly had to correct, even during his own ministry, i.e.
> 
> ...


Let's see...I have a couple of quibbles with this spin on history. How do I state these without seeming to support the Nicene creed? Let's give it a try. First, the council didn't so much "officially make Jesus an equal to God in status" as it did to recognize what had been the Christian orthodox position for 250-300 years. Writings of the early church fathers prove this beyond doubt. While Trinitarian doctrine isn't given full voice until later, its seeds are found as early as the apostle Paul and, arguably, in the words of Jesus himself.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=10&verse=22&version=31&context=verse

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=28&verse=19&version=31&context=verse

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1-5;&version=31;

Second the Nicene creed must be placed into its historical context. It says very little about God the Father because most of what the church believed about God the Father was not in dispute. The principal historical dispute about God the Father was whether or not he was the creator, a fact which the gnostics disputed as they attempted to distinguish the "creator" of the Hebrew scriptures (an evil figure in their construct) from "God". Most of the disputes that Nicea was called to resolve were christological in nature therefore it is not unusual that most of the document would be christological in nature.

That said, the Nicean council did effectively institutionalize the church, creating a centralized hierarchy, in a way that hadn't been done as effectively before and which eventually would lead to the modern structures. Prior to Nicea and to a certain degree afterward, authority was regional at most. Nicea put the church on a path to a unified earthly authority with imperial sponsorship. That, IMHO, was the major impact of Nicea.

The trinitarian theology was well established as orthodox well before Nicea. I would equate it to Marbury vs. Madison where the issuing of the opinion itself was more significant than what the opinion actually said.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> Let's see...I have a couple of quibbles with this spin on history. How do I state these without seeming to support the Nicene creed? Let's give it a try. First, the council didn't so much "officially make Jesus an equal to God in status" as it did to recognize what had been the Christian orthodox position for 250-300 years. Writings of the early church fathers prove this beyond doubt.


Huh? The first known use of the word "trinity" with regard to Christianity was in 180 A.D. -- a hundred and eighty years after Jesus' death. The concept has no scriptural foundation whatsoever, except for a single, ridiculously extrapolated line at the end of one gospel -- a line which, incidentally, made no claim of equality between the three entities mentioned, and which according to most Biblical scholars was almost certainly written by someone other than the author of the rest of the gospel.



Mark from Plano said:


> While Trinitarian doctrine isn't given full voice until later, its seeds are found as early as the apostle Paul and, arguably, in the words of Jesus himself.
> 
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=10&verse=22&version=31&context=verse
> 
> ...


"The son" refers simply to an intermediary to God, not equality to God.



Mark from Plano said:


> Second the Nicene creed must be placed into its historical context. It says very little about God the Father because most of what the church believed about God the Father was not in dispute. The principal historical dispute about God the Father was whether or not he was the creator, a fact which the gnostics disputed as they attempted to distinguish the "creator" of the Hebrew scriptures (an evil figure in their construct) from "God". Most of the disputes that Nicea was called to resolve were christological in nature therefore it is not unusual that most of the document would be christological in nature.
> 
> That said, the Nicean council did effectively institutionalize the church, creating a centralized hierarchy, in a way that hadn't been done as effectively before and which eventually would lead to the modern structures. Prior to Nicea and to a certain degree afterward, authority was regional at most. Nicea put the church on a path to a unified earthly authority with imperial sponsorship. That, IMHO, was the major impact of Nicea.
> 
> The trinitarian theology was well established as orthodox well before Nicea. I would equate it to Marbury vs. Madison where the issuing of the opinion itself was more significant than what the opinion actually said.


That's simply not true. Trinitarianism was not a part of Christian orthodoxy until the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. In my view the concept is ridiculous even at face value: if it was God's true nature, wouldn't Jesus have spent at least a single parable or teaching on it? Just one?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Artisan Fan said:


> As a fan of "24", I say employ torture as needed to get information out of terrorists.


Just remember, Jack Baur is really a Canadian. We're ruthless


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

rip said:


> You have this penchant for making up figures out of whole cloth. What half million? What 95%? And once again you have set your half-baked opinion over against the statements of men such as 43 generals and admirals, including former chiefs of the joint chiefs of staff, head of the CIA, etc. And you are smarter and better informed than any of them, right? This would be laughable if it, and you weren't so pathetic.


Rip you didn't answer any of my questions. Cat got your toung.

And what about all the other generals, and on down, and other heads of the CIA, etc. According to you they don't count.

Do you still misunderstand the numbers? Or, can't you count?

As I have said before in the rare cases it is worth it. Do you understand what the word rare means?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, What sect of christianity are you? Who are it's current leaders? Who started your sect? I seem to have asked this question more than once. If you cannot answer this straightforward question one can only assume there is no answer, ergo you lack any context for your comments.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> WA, I am Eastern Orthodox by crismation and hardly humanist. For your edification, Orthodoxy is Catholic and hopes the schism with Rome be healed. Orthodoxy also recognizes there is grace in the Protestant churches. I believe finding commonality more productive than differences. So please, reveal to us your sect, it's history and leadership. And as for being 'strung out' I challenge you to tell the forum the origins of crucifixion. Fascinating parallels for those who look with this thread's issue.


Can an agnostic be a Christian? I thought you said you are an agnostic. Humanism love evolution and not the six day creation.

Do you mean the Old Testament Prophecies? Or, thousands of years later the Roman origins of crucifixion? Or, God on the cross? Or a combination?

As far as commonalities it is nice to know the differences, otherwise it leaves a boring debate.

Many stories in the Bible show men, boys, women turning to God Himself for answers and leadership. I don't see God instructing us to turn to "Great Minds" among men for the answers. Reading what "Great Minds" have written is fine, but in the end God says to thow it all out and turn only to God. Church back ground I like is Pentecostal.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Meanwhile the thug generals of BURMA have again cracked down on peacefull protest by shooting demonstrators including buddhist monks. World famed Aung San Suu Kyi has been taken from her house arrest to the infamous state prison. In Peru Alberto Fujimori has been extradited home from Chile to face charges of corruption and civil rights abuses ( FREE LORI BERENSON!) Fidel is seemingly on his last cigar but brother is poised to step in as leader. There is a lot of work to do, a lot of work.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> WA,
> 
> You are rabidly anti-Catholic, can't spell or properly construct a sentence and are engaged in a losing battle with logic and reason. What do you think you add to the discussion if I might ask? Are you even aware of your ignorance or do you really think you have a handle on the key issues of the day?
> 
> ...


Karl you need to be thicker skinned.

While I don't agree with the RC much it still does not mean I don't recognize their contributions to this world.

Your argument about spelling and properly constructing a sentence is Childish. Because, if you are right you could beat me in everything, unforntunatly for you your reasoning and logic don't hold water, because I can cream you in a number of things.

Your belief in the RC has nothing to do with logic and reason. So, what is your point?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I challenge you to quote me saying I was ever an agnostic. I challenge you to quote me saying I am a humanist. I support the scientific theory( and it is a theory needing further empirical research to answer some interesting questions ) of evolution, an earthly tool for answering earthly questions that may be used to illuminate the gift of creation. The practise of crucifixion came from ancient Persia and was embraced by Rome as much for the public demonstration of suffering to those who would endanger the stability of empire as it's protracted cruelty. You have finally answered my question. Pentecostalism, ah yes; Aimee Semple Mac Phearson over the Theotokos and pass the collection plate. Say hallelula brother. My lord and savior Jesus Christ will guide me in all things- zip pull string- my lord and savior Jesus Christ will guide me in all things-zip pull string.... Dismissing 'great minds' with the belief small minds can skip all of human acchievment and stand on it's constructions is the philosophy and hubris of a pigeon atop a building. And we all know what pigeons are good for.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

WA said:


> Rip you didn't answer any of my questions. Cat got your toung.
> 
> And what about all the other generals, and on down, and other heads of the CIA, etc. According to you they don't count.
> 
> ...


For openers, you didn't ask any questions. As for all those other generals, etc., so far as I know, none of them have gone on record as supporting torture. If they have, please provide that proof, as I have provided the letter from the 43 I cited. The only number you have mentioned is this hypothetical 95% which, being hypothetical, isn't worth an answer even if there were a question involved. The problem is, you follow the pattern of so many who have feelings about something but absolutely no proof or support for their feelings; you just make things up. Because of this, I am hereinafter just going to ignore you.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

RIP, We are in an asymetric conversation no less than the troops in Iraq a war. At least we have the option of withdrawal. I'lll provide cover fire until your a few clicks away.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> I challenge you to quote me saying I was ever an agnostic. I challenge you to quote me saying I am a humanist. I support the scientific theory( and it is a theory needing further empirical research to answer some interesting questions ) of evolution, an earthly tool for answering earthly questions that may be used to illuminate the gift of creation. The practise of crucifixion came from ancient Persia and was embraced by Rome as much for the public demonstration of suffering to those who would endanger the stability of empire as it's protracted cruelty. You have finally answered my question. Pentecostalism, ah yes; Aimee Semple Mac Phearson over the Theotokos and pass the collection plate. Say hallelula brother. My lord and savior Jesus Christ will guide me in all things- zip pull string- my lord and savior Jesus Christ will guide me in all things-zip pull string.... Dismissing 'great minds' with the belief small minds can skip all of human acchievment and stand on it's constructions is the philosophy and hubris of a pigeon atop a building. And we all know what pigeons are good for.


Aimee Semple Mac Phearson certainly didn't start the Pentecostal movement! I didn't think you were the type of guy to take one person to throw dirt on all the others.

Human achievment is certainly not God trying to achieve something. My Christain background says all the glory goes to God not men. So what is human achievment? Men glorifing men?

Interesting history of crucifixions.

One last thing- we come from different worlds of thought. You have been directed toward men and what they say, while I have been directed toward God (somewhat like/of the Holiness Movement).


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

WA said:


> One last thing- we come from different worlds of thought. You have been directed toward men and what they say, while I have been directed toward God ...


1. Are you saying God talks to you? and, do you listen ?

2. who directed you "toward God", women?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Watching all you bible thumpers squable is certainly giving this hard core agnostic some chuckles


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

WA,



WA said:


> Your argument about spelling and properly constructing a sentence is Childish. Because, if you are right you could beat me in everything, unforntunatly for you your reasoning and logic don't hold water, because I can cream you in a number of things.


I concede that you are far superior in possum skinning, ignorance about Catholicism, creative spelling and grammar, and a general ignorance about the world that leads you to condemn things that confuse you.

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I don't thump my bible. Thumping damages the spine and cover boards. I read, and respect books. I'm almost through it too. I can't wait to find out the ending. I'll leave a offering of creme on the porch though for the good nieghbors and a request they misplace your chanter for a few days.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

I think that the biggest problem in the discussion of this subject is in identifying exactly what is torture. 

1. torture works. all of those saying that torture is innefective are incorrect. torture doens't work when you have idiots and sadists doing the torture. if a body is smart enough to put competent people doing the torture, it works fantastically. 

2. a lot of things that aren't really torture are considered torture today. playing loud noise, slapping a guy around, making him stand on one leg, are not torture. puling out his fingernails, tearing off his testicles, breaking his fingers, are. 

3. I like to figure that anything done by US forces in the years 1940-1950 are a good frame work for me - if US occupation forces in germany were willing to do it in 1947, then I consider it a fair way to shore up freedom and democracy. 

I have broken bread with people who have been tortured, and who have tortured, I have been in the room when people have been hostilly interigated, and this is where I have formed my opinions.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Kav said:


> I don't thump my bible. Thumping damages the spine and cover boards. I read, and respect books. I'm almost through it too. I can't wait to find out the ending. I'll leave a offering of creme on the porch though for the good nieghbors and a request they misplace your chanter for a few days.


As a youth, I was very impressed with the way several fire-and-brimstone evangelists were able to roll their bibles so that they could, quite literally, pound them into their other hand. I guess one could call them bible-thumpers. After searching around, I found that it required a bible printed on India paper and bound with Morroccan leather. After getting one, finally, and learning the trick of rolling it, I discovered, much to my dismay, that I had nothing to say and certainly nothing to pound my bible about.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Watching all you bible thumpers squable is certainly giving this hard core agnostic some chuckles


You're just envious that you don't have an equivalent book to thump


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

rip said:


> As a youth, I was very impressed with the way several fire-and-brimstone evangelists were able to roll their bibles so that they could, quite literally, pound them into their other hand. I guess one could call them bible-thumpers. After searching around, I found that it required a bible printed on India paper and bound with Morroccan leather. After getting one, finally, and learning the trick of rolling it, I discovered, much to my dismay, that I had nothing to say and certainly nothing to pound my bible about.


What's fascinating to me is the near perfect inverse relationship between academic knowledge of the Bible, and adherence to its spirit. The most genuinely Christian and moral people I've known over the years have all been agnostics, non-practicing Christians, even atheists etc, while every Bible thumper I've ever known has been a judgmental, hypocritical and often immoral wreck.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> What's fascinating to me is the near perfect inverse relationship between academic knowledge of the Bible, and adherence to its spirit. *The most genuinely Christian and moral people I've known over the years have all been agnostics, *non-practicing Christians, even atheists etc, while every Bible thumper I've ever known has been a judgmental, hypocritical and often immoral wreck.


Just like me. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Just like me. :icon_smile_big:


Wayfarer, are you saying that you are a judgmental, hypocritical and often immoral wreck?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> Wayfarer, are you saying that you are a judgmental, hypocritical and often immoral wreck?


I go to great lengths not to be hypocritical or inconsistent. When I just plain do not have a solid answer, I say so, just like the topic of this thread. I am sure I do not always 100% succeed in this, but I really try and have been told many times, by both foe and ally, that I am one of the most consistent people they know. I also think I contemplate morality much more than the average "religious" person as I do not feel I have some inside track on morality. I call my approach "morality sans hubris" meaning that I enter into things with the stance that I have yet to discover any moral categorical imperatives. I sit on two ethics boards at this time also.

Judgmental though? Proud of it, although I do not think of this word in quite the same way as most people. I feel that one of the main the functions of a rational mind is that of judgment, hence I am proud to be "judgmental".


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I go to great lengths not to be hypocritical or inconsistent. When I just plain do not have a solid answer, I say so, just like the topic of this thread. I am sure I do not always 100% succeed in this, but I really try and have been told many times, by both foe and ally, that I am one of the most consistent people they know. I also think I contemplate morality much more than the average "religious" person as I do not feel I have some inside track on morality. I call my approach "morality sans hubris" meaning that I enter into things with the stance that I have yet to discover any moral categorical imperatives. I sit on two ethics boards at this time also.
> 
> Judgmental though? Proud of it, although I do not think of this word in quite the same way as most people. I feel that one of the main the functions of a rational mind is that of judgment, hence I am proud to be "judgmental".


You took me far too seriously here. That's the reason I put the little winky at the end of the comment.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> You took me far too seriously here. That's the reason I put the little winky at the end of the comment.


Oh, I was aware you were joshing me in a friendly way. Given the turn the thread had taken though, thought I'd just reply with a friendly but serious post. Besides, I had nothing snappy to reply with


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

rip said:


> For openers, you didn't ask any questions. As for all those other generals, etc., so far as I know, none of them have gone on record as supporting torture. If they have, please provide that proof, as I have provided the letter from the 43 I cited. The only number you have mentioned is this hypothetical 95% which, being hypothetical, isn't worth an answer even if there were a question involved. The problem is, you follow the pattern of so many who have feelings about something but absolutely no proof or support for their feelings; you just make things up. Because of this, I am hereinafter just going to ignore you.


Well I went and read some of that link, until I got pulled away from the computer. I'm not in disagreement with maybe all of it (since I didn't read it all I can't say). I think war treaties like that are important. Why hurt people unneccesarily?

So, here comes Osama bin Laden who has threatened the US with N-Bomb or some other terrorist mass murder. The threat has been NYC. Will he ever get a N-Bomb? I hope he never does. But he did get two huge buildings to come crashing down with jets. So, who knows what's next. Maybe it will be an N-Bomb. Pakistan has them and Pakistan is unstable. So, if Osama bin Laden got one in NYC and the FBI catch one of the terrorist before it goes off are you saying that a million people should die from that bomb so that you don't torture a mass murder who might right at the beginning of torture tell all so nobody would die?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

tabasco said:


> 1. Are you saying God talks to you? and, do you listen ?


Why would anybody even believe in God if God hadn't spoken to them?

In the Bible there is story after story of God talking to people. God talked to Prophets, to the common people, and even a witch. If God never talked to you why would you believe that Book or in God? If God never spoke to you why go to Church? If the Book is a book of lies why go to Church or believe in God? Why hang around with a group of people that promote lying? If you go to church and God has never spoken to you at church or home or on the road or anywhere else maybe you are going to the wrong church? If God had never talked to me I would certainly be an agnostic.

Do I listen? Yes. His Words have always been correct, whether about theology or the future.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> WA,
> I concede that you are far superior in possum skinning, ignorance about Catholicism, creative spelling and grammar, and a general ignorance about the world that leads you to condemn things that confuse you.
> 
> Karl


Never skinned a possum. But a raccoon or three. One of them turned into a nice hat.

I thought my spelling was extra creative. I think my spelling teachers favorite letter was F, and at that in bright red, too.

About religion. Do ever read what people say about what I believe or what they precieve I believe? Mockery, scoffing etc. They are full of it. Like anything new to them they don't know what to think when it sound strange and odd to them. Struggling to understand and sometimes they think they do, but so often in one glance I see they don't understand. And even if they do understand it seems all wrong to them because they have been taught different and it might be years of thinking about it before they acept it as ok.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

WA said:


> Well I went and read some of that link, until I got pulled away from the computer. I'm not in disagreement with maybe all of it (since I didn't read it all I can't say). I think war treaties like that are important. Why hurt people unneccesarily?
> 
> So, here comes Osama bin Laden who has threatened the US with N-Bomb or some other terrorist mass murder. The threat has been NYC. Will he ever get a N-Bomb? I hope he never does. But he did get two huge buildings to come crashing down with jets. So, who knows what's next. Maybe it will be an N-Bomb. Pakistan has them and Pakistan is unstable. So, if Osama bin Laden got one in NYC and the FBI catch one of the terrorist before it goes off are you saying that a million people should die from that bomb so that you don't torture a mass murder who might right at the beginning of torture tell all so nobody would die?


But we had Bin Laden trapped at Tora Bora, and let him escape.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rsmeyer,

Yes, we LET bin Laden escape. And if I am not mistaken Bush offered him a cabinet position about this time as well. You can criticize the operation but stop being dishonest by writing that we LET him escape.

And do you really think that had we captured bin Laden we would not still be dealing with Islamic extremists in rural Pakistan?

Perhaps you should stop patting yourself on the back for what you judge to be your insightful analysis and take a good, hard look at the facts.

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Bin Laden escaped, not once from Tora Bora, but possibly twice from a recent report. While we are foolishly comparing this conflict with Vietnam and our last 'good war' of WW 2 a real lesson goes ignored out in the Arizona Desert. The US Army struggled against the great american patriot Geronimo for years with slow moving units. They finally got smart and employed Apache vs Apache, modern ( for then) rapid communications and faster moving forces. This was written about before, during Vietnam in a book called Geronimo is Alive and Well in Vietnam. I am desperately trying to find my old copy and the author's name. We don't need torture to capture the cripple. We need to move fast, hit hard and get a little lucky.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Rsmeyer,
> 
> Yes, we LET bin Laden escape. And if I am not mistaken Bush offered him a cabinet position about this time as well. You can criticize the operation but stop being dishonest by writing that we LET him escape.
> 
> ...


This might be splitting semantic hairs. We've apparently had him in our crosshairs more than once and for reasons that still seem to remain classified, chose not to pursue him at those times (I would never suggest that our government needs to have a boogyman out there). I don't know whether that's letting him go, or his escaping, and I don't know that it makes a difference what we call it. The fact remains that he's still out there and, no, I don't believe it would make a fig's worth of difference to the Jihadists in Pakistan or anywhere alse whether or not we had caught him. The idea of a martyr is frequently more powerful than that person alive.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

tabasco said:


> 1. Are you saying God talks to you? and, do you listen ?
> 
> 2. who directed you "toward God", women?


I talk to God before I head off to sleep,I pray for a good day.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Howard said:


> I talk to God before I head off to sleep,I pray for a good day.


Do not pray; become prayer!

"_It begins as oral prayer or prayer of the lips, a simple recitation, prayers' "verbal expression and shape." Although very important, this level of prayer is still external to us and thus only the first step, for "the essence or soul of prayer is within a man's mind and heart." 
As we enter more deeply into prayer, we reach a level at which we begin to pray without distraction. At this point, "the mind is focused upon the words" of the Prayer, "speaking them as if they were our own." 
The third and final level is prayer of the heart. At this stage prayer is no longer something we do *but who we are*. Such prayer, which is a gift of the Spirit, is to return to the Father as did the prodigal son (Luke 15:32). The prayer of the heart is the prayer of adoption, when "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit that cries 'Abba, Father!'" _(Gal. 4:6). from Theophan the Recluse, 19th Century Russian Orthodox Monk, speaking of the Jesus Prayer, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on Me, a Sinner


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

rip said:


> Do not pray; become prayer!
> 
> "_It begins as oral prayer or prayer of the lips, a simple recitation, prayers' "verbal expression and shape." Although very important, this level of prayer is still external to us and thus only the first step, for "the essence or soul of prayer is within a man's mind and heart."
> As we enter more deeply into prayer, we reach a level at which we begin to pray without distraction. At this point, "the mind is focused upon the words" of the Prayer, "speaking them as if they were our own."
> The third and final level is prayer of the heart. At this stage prayer is no longer something we do *but who we are*. Such prayer, which is a gift of the Spirit, is to return to the Father as did the prodigal son (Luke 15:32). The prayer of the heart is the prayer of adoption, when "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit that cries 'Abba, Father!'" _(Gal. 4:6). from Theophan the Recluse, 19th Century Russian Orthodox Monk, speaking of the Jesus Prayer, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on Me, a Sinner


Wow Rip,Where do you get all that information?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Speaking of torturing, have you guys ever heard of The McKamey Manor? If you don't know what it is I will let you know that it's a place where guys will physically and mentally torture you for up 10 hours or if you can't survive the full 10 then you can quit and leave and if you DO survive you'll receive $20,000 as a prize, What they do to you is quite disturbing on here so I will let you find out for yourself. Sarge and Eagle, it's not for the queasy.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Howard said:


> Speaking of torturing...


Howard, *no one* was speaking of torturing. That was *fifteen years* ago. Go watch TV or something.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Peak and Pine said:


> Howard, *no one* was speaking of torturing. That was *fifteen years* ago. Go watch TV or something.


Sorry Peak My bad I thought that this was about torturing in general, I apologize.


----------

