Torture always wrong?

[stevegravy]

Well let’s see then if I can answer my own question.
What to expect if one is captured by Godless enemies:
Current history:
Captives taken in Iraq and throughout the Middle East by terrorist mostly journalist some contractors _____ pull up a terrorist web sites and watch throats being cut.
Recent history:
In the soviet sectors of Germany after WWII it has been estimated that the average post pubescent German female was raped five different times. I saw a documentary where some old Russian General was chuckling about how one indignant frau came in to complain about being gang raped in a barn. He though it humorous that the rapist choose a barn. Of course gang rape hardly compares to what the Germans did to the soviets, Jews, Poles Gypsies.
US past history:
In the book called, Forts in the Wilderness, forget who the author is, a story was reported on the fate of a group of surveyors around Cincinnati during the wars with the Miami tribes. It was reported that when the Indians caught these fellows, one was killed on the spot. Another escaped back to the stockade to warn the stockade of the war parties presents in the area. One poor chap was taken alive. Well the Indians didn’t like the idea of rushing the stockade all alarmed and bristling with loaded muskets. They came up with a better plan. Just outside of musket range, remember back in the 1800’s musket range was 75 yards more or less, they staked this surveyor to the ground. Stripped him and lit a fire on the guys belly. Obviously they wanted a rescue attempt by the people in the stockade. Well the stockade didn’t try a rescue. They waited for the soldiers from Camp Washington to show up. But sadly for the surveyor they didn’t arrive in the nick of time. Back at the turn of that particular century they hadn’t heard of Hollywood.

And there is no need to catalogue all the atrocities committed on the Indians by white folks moving west. It was a very ugly war of conquest. In many cases no quarter was given to anybody by both sides.

The point is from history and we could go on and on and on. past Tamerlane, to Rome and Carthage or Rome and Palestine it is the same old story.

Conclusion:
If I or any of my family members were captured by a hostile power I should have absolutely no expectations of ever being treated with any thing resembling humanity. That is why I said earlier that I would do anything to prevent that from happening.

So how far do we go in roughing up somebody that may have information that will save innocent lives? It is a question that is near impossible to answer once you get beyond the obvious things like mutilation, drug therapies cattle prods. It is an ugly harsh world. It doesn’t have to be except for the fact some people prefer it that way. And they are the people we have to be afraid of.

I want to add this, regarding the US military and government behavior. Through out our history many, many things were done that would not be praiseworthy or moral. But, on the whole we have done a better job of dealing justly with our enemies, owning up to our mistakes and tried more often than not to do the right thing. Were we perfect, of course not. Will we be better in the future probably not. But for what we ask teenagers, young men and woman to do and the fact they do it so well so often has to count for something. Regardless of who sits in the White House.

Finally comparing Hitler’s atrocities to Bush is degrading to everyone who suffered at the hands of the Nazis and fought to stop them. And it is insulting to everyone in Iraq trying to straighten out the mess there now. We might have invaded Iraq for all the wrong reasons and you can hold Bush’s accountable for it but, the US and British governments are trying to leave something better behind for the Iraqis then they ever had a chance of obtaining on their own. Will the Iraqis succeed, don’t know and yes it has cost too much in blood and money but to compare it to what was going on in the world during the thirties and forties shows a painful lack of history or just plain stupidity.

 

[bobzills]

And there is no need to catalogue all the atrocities committed on the Indians by white folks moving west. It was a very ugly war of conquest. In many cases no quarter was given to anybody by both sides…

Should America then, be given back to the American Indians? Is it right for the immingrant people to rape and kill and plunder the native American Indians and their property and to continue to hold on to territories which really don’t belong to them at all, but historically were the land and property of the American Indian. I would not agree with the torture of these defenseless and peaceful native American Indians and the plunder of their property.

 

[bobzills]

And the point is.?

The point is to avoid torture, as is recommended by the Vatican spokesman and the American Catholic bishops. Catholics should always follow their Church in matters of faith and morals.

 

[estesbob]

The point is to avoid torture, as is recommended by the Vatican spokesman and the American Catholic bishops. Catholics should always follow their Church in matters of faith and morals.

First we need to define what torture is. From reading this thread it appears that torture is anything other than raising one’s voice to a terrorist. Of course this definition changes depending on who’s in the White House.

 

[bobzills]

First we need to define what torture is. From reading this thread it appears that torture is anything other than raising one’s voice to a terrorist. Of course this definition changes depending on who’s in the White House.

Here is the Torture Convention’s definition of “torture”: “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.”
The USA is trying to redefine the meaning of torture, so that it has a very narrow interpretation and thereby cannot be applied to American soldiers who are torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib or US bases or to those detainees who are rendered to other countries to be tortured such as Saudi Arabia.
writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20040824_leavitt.html

 

[estesbob]

Here is the Torture Convention’s definition of “torture”: “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.”
The USA is trying to redefine the meaning of torture, so that it has a very narrow interpretation and thereby cannot be applied to American soldiers who are torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib or US bases or to those detainees who are rendered to other countries to be tortured such as Saudi Arabia.
writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20040824_leavitt.html

Why should we accept their definition of torture? The small number of guards who harrasssed a small group of prisioners were all punished as were their superiors.

I have seen much more outrage from the left about the isolated incidents at Abu Ghabi than i have about the beheading of Daniel pearl. Perhpas we should start a thread about selective outrage…

 

[bobzills]

Why should we accept their definition of torture? The small number of guards who harrasssed a small group of prisioners were all punished as were their superiors.

I have seen much more outrage from the left about the isolated incidents at Abu Ghabi than i have about the beheading of Daniel pearl. Perhpas we should start a thread about selective outrage…

There was a multi-million dollar movie made about Daniel Pearl, wasn’t there? Of course, these are terrible atrocities committed by others in foreign countries. But we are here in America and are concerned about the image of America around the world today.
Before the present administration, the image of America was represented by the Statue of Liberty. Now, under the current administration, we see people around the world displaying horrible pictures of Abu Ghraib as the new icon of America, the present day image of America.

 

[Contarini]

It seems to me that the heart of the question is can we safely treat these monsters, those engaged in terrorist activities, who have sworn oaths to murder indiscriminately, like another criminal defendant. Are these creatures even human anymore, with their rabid hate of all that they oppose?

If you say that they are not, then you are compromising your own humanity. It’s as simple as that. When you dehumanize those you believe to be monsters, you risk becoming a monster yourself.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

A lot of misinformation in that article but then when CBS depends on Amnesty International-as a source it is not a surprise

Yes–God forbid that news organizations should get their information from organizations dedicated to protecting human dignity, rather than from governments trying to defend or cover up their self-interested actions. I mean, we know that governments are always moral and idealistic, but those vile human rights workers–liars to a man

Edwin

 

[Ridgerunner]

Before the present administration, the image of America was represented by the Statue of Liberty. Now, under the current administration, we see people around the world displaying horrible pictures of Abu Ghraib as the new icon of America, the present day image of America.

You must be younger than I am. I clearly remember anti-Americanism clear back to the Eisenhower adminisatration. During the Vietnam war, and the Cold War, it was intense. What we’re seeing now is tame by comparison with the condemnation hurled at the U.S. even for deploying updated missiles in Europe during the Reagan administration and for even saying “missile defense”.

In the past, of course, the Islamic states were either friendly or violently anti-American, depending on whether they were Soviet clients or not. Today, some are friendly and some aren’t.

And today, there are friendly governments in all of the truly democratic states. That doesn’t mean they agree with us in all things, but they mostly do. Unfortunately, when the Cold War ended, all of the leftists were still there and many didn’t change their minds. Outside the Islamic world, and outside China, which is just coldly calculating, pretty much all of the anti-Americanism is leftist in origin. The lefties are older now, but they’re still around, and just never got over it that their cherished Soviet Union failed.

And, controlling most media outlets here and abroad, they create a false image about what their people really think. If everybody was so anti-American, even in France, Sarkozy would never have been elected.

 

[estesbob]

Yes–God forbid that news organizations should get their information from organizations dedicated to protecting human dignity, rather than from governments trying to defend or cover up their self-interested actions. I mean, we know that governments are always moral and idealistic, but those vile human rights workers–liars to a man

Edwin

Amnest internationl is a far left wing special interest group. They have long since lost amny credibilty they had expecially when they decided a womans right to kill her child was a basic human right. Besides the fact, as i documented, their assertions to CBS were highly biased if not downright incorrect

 

[estesbob]

There was a multi-million dollar movie made about Daniel Pearl, wasn’t there? Of course, these are terrible atrocities committed by others in foreign countries. But we are here in America and are concerned about the image of America around the world today.
Before the present administration, the image of America was represented by the Statue of Liberty. Now, under the current administration, we see people around the world displaying horrible pictures of Abu Ghraib as the new icon of America, the present day image of America.

How old are you? What I have bolded above is compleete and utter nonsnese. Were you alive during the cold war?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

How old are you? What I have bolded above is compleete and utter nonsnese. Were you alive during the cold war?

It is certainly true atrocities occurred in the past however in those societies many simply did not know or only heard 60th hand stories. So they had little for accurate assessments. Today information flies across the world at extreme pace, reaching large percentages of the population. Thus the “great moral majority” is awaken to these immoral actions and cries for a stop.

 

[bobzills]

How old are you? What I have bolded above is compleete and utter nonsnese. Were you alive during the cold war?

I don;t think that it is complete and utter nonsense that people looked to the USA and the Statue of Liberty before the present administration. Now they have replaced the wonderful icon of America by the Abu Ghraib pictures. What a terrible image fo America and Americans that the present administration is presenting to the world today.

 

[estesbob]

It is certainly true atrocities occurred in the past however in those societies many simply did not know or only heard 60th hand stories. So they had little for accurate assessments. Today information flies across the world at extreme pace, reaching large percentages of the population. Thus the “great moral majority” is awaken to these immoral actions and cries for a stop.

I ask again-how old are you? You arent aware of the anti-us demonstrations, for instance in Central America and south Americain the 60s and 70s? You claimed that dislike of the US started with the Bush admistration-an absurd assertion.

 

[estesbob]

I don;t think that it is complete and utter nonsense that people looked to the USA and the Statue of Liberty before the present administration. Now they have replaced the wonderful icon of America by the Abu Ghraib pictures. What a terrible image fo America and Americans that the present administration is presenting to the world today.

You know there has suddenly arose on this thread such a profound ignorance of History it almost takes your breath away. it is amazing what Bush hatred does to otherwise rational people.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I ask again-how old are you? You arent aware of the anti-us demonstrations, for instance in Central America and south Americain the 60s and 70s? You claimed that dislike of the US started with the Bush admistration-an absurd assertion.

Bob
This is disappointing. You are not asking again, you did not ask me before. I am about the same age as you we are close in age. Second, US hatred is not justification for torture, it is a sign we should leave, not kill. “I” did not claim anything started with Bush or his administration. I have said in the past and will repeat – The fact he and his people did not do the right thing and even went out publicly to defend their own immoral actions speaks more about them than any words could. Second, in a similar pattern if you wrote the policies and actions on paper and asked people to assess what type of administration would do this the answers would be extreme liberal administration, these actions are opposite republican beliefs, and an unbelievable pattern of failure.

 

[bobzills]

You know there has suddenly arose on this thread such a profound ignorance of History it almost takes your breath away. it is amazing what Bush hatred does to otherwise rational people.

Yes, hatred by the present administration of fairness and justice for all, as America once was, and to replace it by justice by the torture of Abu Ghraib, has caused a lot of concern and dismay around the world today. Especially since the present administration apparently approves of the use of waterboarding.
An irrefutable source that says Waterboarding is Torture is Malcolm Nance:

Malcolm W. Nance is a counter-terrorism and terrorism intelligence consultant for the U.S. government’s Special Operations, Homeland Security and Intelligence agencies. A 20-year veteran of the US intelligence community’s Combating Terrorism program and a six year veteran of the Global War on Terrorism he has extensive field and combat experience as an field intelligence collections operator, an Arabic speaking interrogator and a master Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) instructor.
smallwarsjournal.com/blog/authors/malcolm-nance/bio/

Here’s an article he wrote entitled "Waterboarding is Torture… Period "
smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

Also I found this in the comments section on Mark Shea’s blog. A good place to read about Torture and Church teaching:

Anybody who considers this practice to be “torture lite” or merely a “tough technique” might want to take a trip to Phnom Penh. The Khymer Rouge were adept at torture, and there was nothing “lite” about their methods. Incidentally, the waterboard in these photo wasn’t merely one among many torture devices highlighted at the prison museum. It was one of only two devices singled out for highlighting…

There was an outdoor device as well, one the Khymer Rouge didn’t have to construct: chin-up bars…These bars were used for “stress positions”-- another practice employed under current US guidelines.

At the Khymer Rouge prison, there is a tank of water next to the bars. It was used to revive prisoners for more torture when they passed out after being placed in stress positions

…the torture techniques of North Korea, North Vietnam, the Soviet Union and its proxies–the states where US military personnel might have faced torture–were NOT designed to elicit truthful information. These techniques were designed to elicit CONFESSIONS. That’s what the Khymer Rouge et al were after with their waterboarding, not truthful information.

Bottom line: Not only do waterboarding and the other types of torture currently being debated put us in company with the most vile regimes of the past half-century; they’re also designed specifically to generate a (usually false) confession, not to obtain genuinely actionable intel. This isn’t a matter of sacrificing moral values to keep us safe; it’s sacrificing moral values for no purpose whatsoever.
There have also been several cases of convictions of War Crimes for waterboarding.

robinrowland.com/garret/2005/11/waterboarding-is-war-crime.html

I hope this adds some clarity as to whether waterboarding is, in fact, torture.

 

[estesbob]

Bob
This is disappointing. You are not asking again, you did not ask me before. I am about the same age as you we are close in age. Second, US hatred is not justification for torture, it is a sign we should leave, not kill. “I” did not claim anything started with Bush or his administration. I have said in the past and will repeat – The fact he and his people did not do the right thing and even went out publicly to defend their own immoral actions speaks more about them than any words could. Second, in a similar pattern if you wrote the policies and actions on paper and asked people to assess what type of administration would do this the answers would be extreme liberal administration, these actions are opposite republican beliefs, and an unbelievable pattern of failure.

As I said there is no reason to continue this dicussion. Its like trying to have a discussion about world war II with someone who who claims the germans won. So i will bow out. Bye

 

[bobzills]

As I said there is no reason to continue this dicussion. Its like trying to have a discussion about world war II with someone who who claims the germans won. So i will bow out and you and bobzills can pat each other on the back and talk about how evil Bush is. You guys have made fools out if yourselves Bye

Yes it would be a good idea for you to bow out, since obviously you have no reasonable response to the post I have given which shows that waterboarding is torture.