The National Association of Evangelicals endorse statement condemning torture

[Phokus]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t...aily_dish/2007/03/the_tide_turnin.html


This is excellent news. It seems to me that evangelicals, who once only endorsed republican moral talking points in the past are now taking an anti-political view of morality and calling a spade a spade on the Bush admin's use of torture.

 

[kage69]

Better late than never, as they say...


Still, would have been nice to hear this back when Abu Ghraib was going down. Oh wait, there was an election around the corner back then, nevermind...

Does this mean in a few years they're going to start acting like all life is sacred too? Here's hoping... :thumbsup:

 

[DealMonkey]

You would think that the concept of not torturing people would be self-evident. Good to see the evangelicals doing something right for once though.

 

[Jaskalas]

This depends on what you consider torture to be. If saying ?boo? is a problem, then we have issues.

There NEEDS to be interrogation of members of radical Islam. They have brethren out there who need to be found and killed before we are stuck again. I would easily go so far as water boarding, but real torture such as ripping off flesh or cutting off limbs, inflicting intense physical pain should not happen.

Then we have Abu Ghraib mentioned, as if it?s standard operating procedure. Such dishonest misinformation undermines this county. It seems vile to me to use it as such.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
This depends on what you consider torture to be. If saying ?boo? is a problem, then we have issues.

There NEEDS to be interrogation of members of radical Islam. They have brethren out there who need to be found and killed before we are stuck again. I would easily go so far as water boarding, but real torture such as ripping off flesh or cutting off limbs, inflicting intense physical pain should not happen.

Then we have Abu Ghraib mentioned, as if it?s standard operating procedure. Such dishonest misinformation undermines this county. It seems vile to me to use it as such.

you need a refresh on what constitutes as torture, you are way off

 

[ayabe]

Waterboarding is torture(.)

 

[johnnobts]

torture works. just ask jack bauer.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
This depends on what you consider torture to be. If saying ?boo? is a problem, then we have issues.

There NEEDS to be interrogation of members of radical Islam. They have brethren out there who need to be found and killed before we are stuck again. I would easily go so far as water boarding, but real torture such as ripping off flesh or cutting off limbs, inflicting intense physical pain should not happen.

Then we have Abu Ghraib mentioned, as if it?s standard operating procedure. Such dishonest misinformation undermines this county. It seems vile to me to use it as such.

you need a refresh on what constitutes as torture, you are way off

No thanks, I'm free to have my own opinion. Unless we're ripping off flesh, or inflicting physical pain it isn't torture. I suppose I failed to mention another element such as sexual abuse, that should never happen either.

 

[johnnobts]

our operatives are trained to resist torture, right? now why would we make them go through that, if torture, according to our politicians, doesn't work? and since torture isn't approved by the u.n. then that means no other countries are doing it (riiight, China, I'm sure you just have hug-fests in your prisons).

i agree it should be a last resort, the person being interrogated must clearly be involved in a potential attack, and like jaskalas there should be limits. but waterboarding, for example, has been proven effective, and it doesn't leave any permanent physical damage. sonics have been proven as well. i'm even willing to let uncle sam fit the bill for their pyscho-therapy after its over for mental and emotional scarring.

the bottom line is, which is really more compassionate? saving the lives of thousands of people, or scaring a bad guy who wants to kill you, your family, and your way of life?

 

[piasabird]

I say torture is torture. Just because someone is a Nazi or a Communist or a Muslim Extremist, it does not matter. In fact if direction came from the White House or the President's Cabinet, then the President is guilty. The President is the Commander-In-Chief and he is responsible. This is a serious enough of a crime that it could be considered a War Crime. It is an impeachable offense in my mind. I can say this clearly and without malice. I was in the U.S. Army. I know that people in Military Intelligence just can not be trusted to follow the Geneva Conventions. They will hang out to dry some MP's, but I have not seen any high-ranking Military Intelligence Commanders brought up on charges. I am pretty sure all torture starts with Military Intelligence. Soldiers do not just decide to start torturing people. This has to come from their commanders. If no Brass Hangs for this, then it is a farce and a cover-up.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

For everyone that loves to watch 24, or thinks how great torture is, please read

This

And learn about how the US military is worried about TV that shows us using torture, and how people become more accepting of it because of TV.

Torture is illegal. I don't see anyone wondering why in WWII, when the Japanese tortured POW's, argue that we should start torturing Japanese POW's (or German or Italian).

And the reason why we should use it (according to people to approve)? "They would do it (or have done it) to us". What kind of excuse is that? "He did an illegal act, so now I want to do an illegal act".

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
torture works. just ask jack bauer.

Well done sir. I tip my hat to you.

 

[Termagant]

If they really condemn torture.... will they finally stop trying to argue against evilution?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
our operatives are trained to resist torture, right? now why would we make them go through that, if torture, according to our politicians, doesn't work? and since torture isn't approved by the u.n. then that means no other countries are doing it (riiight, China, I'm sure you just have hug-fests in your prisons).

i agree it should be a last resort, the person being interrogated must clearly be involved in a potential attack, and like jaskalas there should be limits. but waterboarding, for example, has been proven effective, and it doesn't leave any permanent physical damage. sonics have been proven as well. i'm even willing to let uncle sam fit the bill for their pyscho-therapy after its over for mental and emotional scarring.

the bottom line is, which is really more compassionate? saving the lives of thousands of people, or scaring a bad guy who wants to kill you, your family, and your way of life?

But that's the problem many of us have with this whole thing. Let's say for a moment that torture works, just for the sake of argument. I submit that the only "proof" most of you are working off of is what happens on '24' (how the hell do you know what our "operatives" are trained to do?), but for the sake of argument let's assume torture is an effective way to extract vital information.

So we're left with a moral dilemma...just how far are we willing to go in the name of expediency? The right loves to rant about "moral values", but it seems to me that "moral values" are really only worth something if you follow them when it's difficult. Anybody can live by their beliefs when it costs them nothing to do so, the real test is whether or not you're willing to do so when it becomes difficult. Because life is not a TV show, rarely is it so black and white as you'd like us to believe. Maybe the "bad guy" doesn't know anything helpful, and we're torturing him for no gain at all. Or maybe he's not really a bad guy at all, just some random guy in the wrong place at the wrong time (hey, without a trial, who the hell knows?). Is it OK to torture him? Given the number of people we're holding vs the number of terrorist plots that kill thousands of people, you're fantasy situation sounds even more ridiculous.

And that's the real danger, that you pro-torture folks aren't looking at this right. In your mind, EVERY action taken in the name of fighting terrorism is going to prevent the next 9/11. So the scale in your mind is whatever we're doing vs. 9/11. No matter how silly such logic is, that is your world view. Now maybe it's just me, but I think you could justify some pretty horrible stuff balanced against 9/11...can you see why that might be a concern?

 

[johnnobts]

Two wrongs don't make a right.
_____________________

its called lesser of two evils. in war there are seldom good options. just ask tony almeida (rip).

 

[kage69]

Then we have Abu Ghraib mentioned, as if it?s standard operating procedure. Such dishonest misinformation undermines this county. It seems vile to me to use it as such.

If I appear vile to the likes of you, well I'll just have to take that as a compliment! I'm only too happy to undermine your "county."

Mindless zealots with penchants for patriotic grandstanding are an actual threat to this country, not mention of only the most recent scandal involving the failed tactic of torture. It's this kind of blind fixation on ideology that prevents them from noticing the hypocrisy behind the global advocate of human rights being caught violating them via torture.
Ever hear of Operation Phoenix? Any of our dealings in Latin America?


Take your flag-wrapped indignation and cram it.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

I personally consider the phrase "What Would Jesus Do?" to be an over-simplification emblematic of a society that gives too much credence to "pop", and not enough to "culture". However, it is a summary - regardless of how trite - of the very basis of Christianity:

To follow Christ's teachings in everyday life.

The modern conservative movement Has a large! base in Evangelical Christianity, a religion that seems to have lost some of the more subtle and philosophical lessons of Jesus Christ in favor of simplified bubble-gum rhetoric.

Despite their willingness to invoke God, and claim the moral high-ground based on their beliefs, there is very little evidence of self-reflection on whether their path is the one that Jesus would follow.

It is their ultimate hypocrisy then to act in such ggressive ways, and I don't think it unreasonable to ask them if they believe their actions to be Christ-like. While this is would be unreasonable question of secular persons, or of those of other religions, it is appropriately applied to those who invoke their Christianity as the inspiration for their lives.

So the question then is:

Would Jesus have "tortured" his adversary's?

Would Jesus have called Judas a "lovely human"?

As much one can focus on their hypocrisy when it comes to military service or family values, their hypocrisy in their religious life is their ultimate disgrace.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I say torture is torture. Just because someone is a Nazi or a Communist or a Muslim Extremist, it does not matter. In fact if direction came from the White House or the President's Cabinet, then the President is guilty. The President is the Commander-In-Chief and he is responsible. This is a serious enough of a crime that it could be considered a War Crime. It is an impeachable offense in my mind. I can say this clearly and without malice. I was in the U.S. Army. I know that people in Military Intelligence just can not be trusted to follow the Geneva Conventions. They will hang out to dry some MP's, but I have not seen any high-ranking Military Intelligence Commanders brought up on charges. I am pretty sure all torture starts with Military Intelligence. Soldiers do not just decide to start torturing people. This has to come from their commanders. If no Brass Hangs for this, then it is a farce and a cover-up.

By God I couldn't agree more.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
our operatives are trained to resist torture, right? now why would we make them go through that, if torture, according to our politicians, doesn't work? and since torture isn't approved by the u.n. then that means no other countries are doing it (riiight, China, I'm sure you just have hug-fests in your prisons).

i agree it should be a last resort, the person being interrogated must clearly be involved in a potential attack, and like jaskalas there should be limits. but waterboarding, for example, has been proven effective, and it doesn't leave any permanent physical damage. sonics have been proven as well. i'm even willing to let uncle sam fit the bill for their pyscho-therapy after its over for mental and emotional scarring.

the bottom line is, which is really more compassionate? saving the lives of thousands of people, or scaring a bad guy who wants to kill you, your family, and your way of life?

You don't see your way of life is not worth saving? Your way of life is identical to those who also kill you to save thousands of lives and justify it the same way.