US 'should not rule out torture' ---Tom Ridge

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhiteDove
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
WhiteDove:
You know, I wonder what we’re coming to??? 😦 :confused: 😦
Are we now stooping to compromising our Constitution? Have we let our enemy degrade our values of justice for all, a right to a trial by jury, and other constitutional rights? This makes me very sad. 😦

BBC article…The former head of the US Department of Homeland Security has said torture may be used in certain cases in order to prevent a major loss of life.
Click to expand...
The statement in the headline makes sense.
 
40.png
WhiteDove:
You know, I wonder what we’re coming to??? 😦 :confused: 😦
Are we now stooping to compromising our Constitution? Have we let our enemy degrade our values of justice for all, a right to a trial by jury, and other constitutional rights? This makes me very sad. 😦

BBC article…The former head of the US Department of Homeland Security has said torture may be used in certain cases in order to prevent a major loss of life.
Click to expand...
White Dove, you know full well that the constitution applies to citizens of the United States. The Geneva convention applies to prisoners of war. Neither applies to terrorists and the protections, such as they are, that have been extended to them are a gift, not something to which they are entitled. Question: Did you read the enitre article or just the headline?
 
geezerbob said:
Question: Did you read the enitre article or just the headline?
Click to expand...

I like this part: "A report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) criticised the US over the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal in Iraq and the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. "

HRW is a Soros backed organization that refuses to say anything about the UN negligence and raping in the Congo.
 
Mr Ridge told BBC News 24’s HARDtalk: “By and large, as a matter of policy we need to state over and over again: we do not condone the use of torture to extract information from terrorists.”

But he said it was “human nature” that torture might be employed in certain exceptional cases when time was very limited.

In the event of something like a nuclear bomb threat “you would try to exhaust every means you could to extract the information to save hundreds and thousands of people”, he said.

’When not if’

But he admitted there was “a real question” whether using torture on terrorists would actually gain the information required “given the nature of the enemy”.

He said the US did not have the luxury of knowing where and when a terrorist attack might happen.

“I don’t think it is ‘if’. I think it’s a matter of ‘when’. We operate that way,” he said.

“On a day-to-day basis, not just the United States but many allies around the world, do whatever we can to share information about terrorists, share information about the kind of attacks.”

Thursday’s HRW report called for the Bush administration to set up a fully independent commission to investigate allegations of torture during interrogations at Abu Ghraib.

It said abuses committed by the US had significantly weakened the world’s ability to protect human rights because it had undermined international laws. Mr Ridge argued the HRW report reflected a “foreign perception” that the US was using different methods to those employed before the 11 September 2001 attacks.
 
If I knew that someone knew where a nuke was planted in NYC and I didn’t do everything in my power to get the location from that person, and the bomb went off killing millions, then I would probably be committing a grave offense of omission.

In such a case, I wouldn’t see any problem tying someone up for 24 hours and I really don’t care what Soros’ HRW thinks about it.
 
Since I have the right to kill to defend life when I am certain I must do so, it follows if I am certain that a catastrope will occur which will kill thousands and more,

I certainly can torture to obtain iformation to prevent it, even threaten with death and make it appear imminent.

It is a lousy option but is justified under the circumstances. The problem lies in discerning the information and the morality of those doing the discerning.

I think Ridge shows character.
 
40.png
formercatholic:
It is a lousy option but is justified under the circumstances. The problem lies in discerning the information and the morality of those doing the discerning.

.
Click to expand...
precisely 👍
 
You torture someone they’ll tell you whatever you want to here just to get you to stop, whether it’s the truth or not.

You’re right that the Constitution only applies to US citizens and the Geneva Conventions are a grey area, but there are plenty of treaties we’ve agreed to that are against torture.
 
40.png
gilliam:
If I knew that someone knew where a nuke was planted in NYC and I didn’t do everything in my power to get the location from that person, and the bomb went off killing millions, then I would probably be committing a grave offense of omission.
Click to expand...
Imagine a terrorist plants a nuclear bomb, but is fatally injured. Before he dies, he goes to confession. I suppose you would be all in favor of torturing the priest in order to get him to violate the seal of the confessional?
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Imagine a terrorist plants a nuclear bomb, but is fatally injured. Before he dies, he goes to confession. I suppose you would be all in favor of torturing the priest in order to get him to violate the seal of the confessional?
Click to expand...
How many of the known terrorists have been Catholic? How often do Muslims go to a priest for confession? Get real!!!
 
We cannot allow evil in order to do good. This life is not the end point. Our duty to God Who is Good must come first and that means no doing evil.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Imagine a terrorist plants a nuclear bomb, but is fatally injured. Before he dies, he goes to confession. I suppose you would be all in favor of torturing the priest in order to get him to violate the seal of the confessional?
Click to expand...
It is the priest’s obligation to tell where the bomb is. He does not have to divulge where he got the information.
 
40.png
MichaelTDoyle:
We cannot allow evil in order to do good. This life is not the end point. Our duty to God Who is Good must come first and that means no doing evil.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense at all. Under whose morality are you allowing 5 million people in NYC to die?
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Imagine a terrorist plants a nuclear bomb, but is fatally injured. Before he dies, he goes to confession. I suppose you would be all in favor of torturing the priest in order to get him to violate the seal of the confessional?
Click to expand...
I would not use torture on the Priest but I would use accepted methods of interrogation. Maybe just harsh language would elicit the desired result without going any further?
 
Kevin Walker:
I would not use torture on the Priest but I would use accepted methods of interrogation. Maybe just harsh language would elicit the desired result without going any further?
Click to expand...
Again the priest has no shield in telling where the bomb is, if he knows. If he refuses, he is to be treated like any terrorist. Just because he wears a Roman Collar doesn’t give him special terrorist rights to murder 5 million people in NYC.
 
40.png
gilliam:
It is the priest’s obligation to tell where the bomb is. He does not have to divulge where he got the information.
Click to expand...
The priest would be automatically excommunicated if he were to divulge where the bomb is.

MichaelTDoyle has it right. Catholic moral teachings are clear in this matter, even if the Bush supporters among us refuse to accept them.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
The priest would be automatically excommunicated if he were to divulge where the bomb is.

.
Click to expand...
Where did you get that idea? It is not true. The ‘seal of the confessional’ does not exempt a priest from his Christian duty to save lives. If he knows where the bomb is, he must divulge it. He can do so without letting know where he got the information.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
The priest would be automatically excommunicated if he were to divulge where the bomb is.
Click to expand...
Fine, he is excommunicated. He is still saved because he must save human life. If he sits by and lets 5 million people die, he is no better than a machine or worse, a terrorist himself.

Better yet, he should find a way of saving the 5 million people without violating the confidentiality of the penitant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top