If I injure someone but forgive myself in order to move on, that does not exempt me from the actual guilt or from the necessity of compensation and even discipline. If I harm someone but provide closure for myself in order to get on with life, that’s called sociopathological… a condition where I am unaware of the ramification of my actions upon others, or if I am aware, I don’t care. Individuals should be aware of the injury they inflict upon others and be willing to bear the consequences. This is why I support victim impact statements.
If my son seriously hurts someone and causes trauma not only to that person but to my family, it would be unethical for my family to forgive my son and forget the injury so that we can resume our happy life without regard for the injured. My son must understand the seriousness of the injury he inflicted on that person, even if it costs him and my family a great deal. I would want my son to be able to think outside of the confines of his own life. I would want my family to be able to think sympathetically outside the boundaries of the comfort and stability of our own home, and even empathize with the injured.
So there should be an inquiry into the “torture memos”. Attorneys wrote memos giving legal advice that in essence gave permission for the CIA to use harsh interrogation methods when questioning suspected terrorists. This and the system that supported it need to be examined. If we are going to think in protectionist ways, then we are doomed to becoming a law unto ourselves. The bishops who covered up sex-offending priests soon learned that they were not allowed to manage the crisis in isolation but were required to think and act globally and bring the offenders to a public justice.
Senator McCain believes that the American people need closure and to move on. If another nation who committed atrocities upon another nation said that they were sorry but were moving on, there would be an international uproar! No other nation would be allowed to exempt themselves from the torture they inflicted on others so that they could close that chapter in their history without there first being some kind of reckoning in the international court. The day of thinking provincially about how we do things is over. We are called to be responsible citizens of this world, not just our own nations. I’m not a legal expert by no means, so I can’t make declarations on what should happen to the attorneys. But at least it must begin with some kind of admission that their advice was used to endorse torture. And the threat that this would make it difficult for the government to acquire legal advice in the future is empty. Justice ought to be thorough, even to the roots of the laws insinuating that torture was permissible under any circumstance. We must agree that no nation is ethically free to do whatever it wants without global accountability.
It is the same with the Christianity or any religion for that matter. It can no longer think of itself as an enclave of a different moral order not liable to the universal community. The new hermeneutic of our history, traditions, books, documents and actions needs to be one of universal love and global justice. If we exact hate, discrimination, injustice, exploitation, or injury upon any other human being, then we have to be willing to be accountable when we are challenged by the international community. We are members one of another, and we must start behaving so.
Check out my tees HERE. I’m growing my inventory all the time. And check out my art HERE.
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
David Hayward is a pastor artistically stripping to the essential.
That was a weird argument..
I just want to say that as a member of the “christian right”, I am against the war and for abstinence. Birth control shouldn’t be necessary, but condoms are better than abortions.
I think that torture could probably be worse, but it’s not biblical. Even in the old testament you needed something like two witnesses for a trial and you only killed after an act. Plus half the people they’re interrogating probly have no idea. The should only torture if they’re sure the person is a terrorist (ie have proof), and only as a last resort, if they know the person is involved.
TfT – many Christians die a martyr’s death, but they should protect their family. Plus – what if someone isn’t saved? Plus – murder is a sin – we are made in God’s image.
thanks cec.
many Christians die a martyr’s death,(Semety)
Man does this sound awfully familiar.
really? I suppose they’re only martyrs if they die for their faith. Either way, it means they can’t take care of any responsibilities. But I guess, if they really are saved, then yes for them personally being murdered wouldn’t be that bad.
I didn’t mean it to sound like all christians are martyrs – I guess I was just thinking that would be the main reason someone specifically christian would be murdered.
TitforTat said, on April 25th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
fishon and Steve
Just curious, if people are “saved” then what does it matter if they are murdered?
———–That is about the stupidest question I seen here in some time.
fishon
Fishon,
Rats! You beat me to the punch!
How stupid if you are saved and eternal what does it matter if you are murdered? Thats a fair question. Unless of course there is some meaning to how we treat each other here.
TfT,
I think you are on to something.
It does matter how we treat each other here.
Life is a gift and is precious.
When it is finally ripped away from us, we will all be raised again (all of us)…to judgement. Then the Lord will decide our eternal destiny.
Oopss. and if there is then we need to get back to this torture thingie were discussing.
Criminals are treated differently than innocents. They must incur punishment and they must be held accountable and they must release info. on current deeds and plans to injur, maim, or kill others.
We have a duty to protect our own from these types of people. That IS our duty.
Steve: Your president says that you will not use torture anymore.
Criminals are treated differently than innocents(Steve)
But by your own words, you are a sinner, so how innocent are you? And if you look deep in your heart and look at your actions, do you think you may own some of what this world offers you? You seem to want your cake and eat it too, but sorry it doesnt work that way. Especially if you are a sinner.
NP,
If we can’t obtain info. from enemy combatants than many more innocent people will die.
The U.S. President can have that blood on his hands.
TfT,
We’re all sinners. But there are 2 Kingdoms…Heaven and Earth.
Down here, there is a price to be paid for sin.
Up there, He can forgive it all and grant salvation to whomever He pleases.
steve: you stand by your nation when it comes to torturing people and feel you will stand before God and be exonerated; but should your nation stand before God for not torturing you feel you deserve exoneration?
Down here, there is a price to be paid for sin.
Up there, He can forgive it all and grant salvation to whomever He pleases.(Steve)
Ok steve, youve made yourself very clear now. You reminded me of an old saying.
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them”
I believe you.
NP,
You bet I stand by my nation as it gets info from murderers trying to murder more innocents.
More airplanes would have flown into buildings in L.A. (not far from my family) were it not for info. obtained from a high level terrorist by waterboarding.
You would stand by…and do nothing. And INNOCENT people would die.
I would not stand by.
TfT,
Don’t believe me. Believe the BIble.
NP,
Since you are big on not torturing to save the lives of who knows how many because it is sin——-I take it that you would not have lied to the Nazis about the whereabouts of a bunch of Jews that you knew where they were at, because it is sin to lie?
The principle is the same.
fishon
Non violence is the notion of the NT – it is the path taught by Jesus beyond question. Steve’s one scripture he pulls out from Luke is a single passage in 27 books and letters – and I think FIF is right about it -why? If this was the standard Jesus left them (take up the sword and defend those around u) how come in Acts they don’t follow such a path? Paul should of been meting out punishment – not evangelism to Roman guards. Then we have Peter and others being killed – with no scripture to back up the idea of ‘justice by the sword’ – thye preferred to be martyrs over murderers.
However, I know this is a complex issue – defending yourself. This is my take:
(a) The standard set is non-violence – this is the path of Jesus – this is also his teachings to his desciples.
(b) Even with that teaching – we know the best basis to follow is non-violence – however – at times – we need to defend people for the sake of their safety – although this is not the standard – we admit this is our deviation from the standard for justifiable reasons (of the which we must present for each time we do this). Is that wrong? Depends on one’s motive.
(c) Can a Christian support torture? No. If so, scripture to back that point would help – as it stands – no one has presented a single piece of proof from within the life of Jesus (or Paul) that could so much as defend that position…so it won’t neccesarily hold water in God’s court (if he goes by judicial decisions like that – and I look at God’s court as a court).
(d) The gov’t can do whatever it wants – regardless of how we view it – we are not of that kingdom anyways – we are of God’s kingdom and not ‘of this world’. Should we loosen our morals for the sake of support of our gov’t? No. I see no reason to support ideas on torture we cannot find one iota of proof to support from a NT standpoint. A deviation from that standard is in ‘us’ – not in the scriptures.
(e) It is true the world contains a lot of ‘evil’ – but to think more ‘repayment for that evil’ will solve the situation is not measuring the situation very well. Evil for evil will not end any cycles of violence anytime soon – what ends scenarios like that is actually the path of non-violence – including measures of forgiveness, mercy, understanding, diplomacy, and peace. Violence is a result of anger – we need to be addressing the real issue which are just that – anger being fueld over and over…and gitmo did not make that sitaution any smoother.
The problem it seems to me is the disconnect between action and consequence going on in many of the convo’s. People acting as if non-violence is not an answer – but I am not saying we don’t get involved – let’s not pass into the idea of how much violence we will use – because that’s dangerous ‘evil’ territory – allow a little in and soon we are talking about how much gunshots fired into a person is ‘normal’? The standard for the use of violence is quite vague don’t ya think? As compared to non-violence as the standard – we are sure what is being asked of us (no amount of violence is neccesarily the starting point).
I know for a fact the way of Jesus does work – I use it all the time – a standard of peacemaking and not violence. I have broken up around 30 fights in the last 8 years – in some fairly intense situations – including weapons…what should be a good Christian ethic in scenario of violence. Always should start with peace – making things right – stepping in to break up violent acts and pursuing ways to not see people hurt. Does it always work – 30 of 30 times I stepped in to stop or prevent something – it worked. Now maybe the next time I get stabbed or something – I don’t know – but at least I know I hold a standard that does work – tried, tested, and results.
I hear talk of killing home invaders – why is this the only answer? Some shots into the villian as the just response? Why is the worst level of violence going to be the obvious answer to an attack on your family? I almost have to think some of you have never been in these situations or don’t know people that have perpetrated them. I keep a bat by my bed in case of such scenarios (to protect my wife and I) – but is my thought of killing the perp? No. Hurt him, stop him, scare him, or whatever – but death is far from my idea of ‘keeping my family safe’…because I would consider the death of the home invader as murder – but that’s my standard…I don’t seek death for that person – just boundaries be set.
I think the convo has delved into Christian people sitting too close to violence and too far from their personal admission they would do something of pressured to ‘help someone’. Always seek peace – set a standard becoming of a Christian – be the change that is not there. Know that violence may happen – but it is our personal deviation our known standard – and in the end – we will find we are non-violent almost 10 times out of 10.
My father was a career police officer in a small town, beginning about 1950 as a motorcycle cop and retiring as chief almost 25 years later. I am a former police officer/detective (in a city of 150,000), now a pastor. From this perspective, I can tell you that there are a lot of interrogation “techniques” which have been used in the past half-century plus, many of which are illegal now, and have been since the 1960s and 70s. I remember older officers telling me that they once had a “lie detector chair,” which was nothing but a heavy wooden chair with metal strips attached to a relatively low amperage-high voltage source; and every time they asked a suspect a question about a crime which he denied, they shocked him. There were no electrodes attached to the man’s genitals, but he felt a heavy shock nonetheless in the region of his buttocks and thighs. And if he lost control of his bladder in the process, it was all the more effective. Guess what? They got quite a few confessions; and if their detective work was good going into the interrogation, many of those confessions were probably true. And that is just one circa 1950 “technique.” There were others.
I was not a Christian when I was in law enforcement, but by then, there were Supreme Court rulings on what was and what was not a legally acceptable proceedure. Looking back from my Christian perspective, I say thanks be to God that I never shocked, beat, whipped, or otherwise abused a suspect in the course of an interrogation–and I took confessions on virtually everything from simple thefts to rape, child molestation, and murder.
My point is that a good police interrogator can get a confession many times without recourse to techniques which would be illegal under Supreme Court rulings, or for that matter, considered torture internationally. Is a terrorist harder to get a confession from than a criminal? I could speculate, but having never dealt with terrorists, it would be strictly speculation. I can tell you that many career criminals have sociopathic tendencies, and few of them want to get caught or confess.
Has some information came of “harsh techniques” which saved lives? Possibly, although I would suggest that “24″ is just a television show which has little connection to reality. And in the final analysis, as a Christian, I fail to see how any Christian could justify torture (by whatever name) simply because it is sometimes effective. We are just better than that–or at least we are supposed to be.
I would even go so far as to say that any conservative evangelical who approves waterboarding or similar measures does so because he/she is more conservative than Christian. And I say that from the perspective of a conservative evangelical Christian.
In World War II, allied POW’s were often abused and interrogated harshly at the hands of the Gestapo. My parents had a friend whose fingers were crushed by a guard at a POW camp–over an escape attempt. By contrast, the biggest problem at Allied POW camps (by and large) was getting the German & Italian prisoners to leave when the war was over. As a teenager, I knew a German who came to the US as a POW, and when the war was over, not only did he stay, but got his wife over here too. They remained until he retired in the mid-1960s, then moved back to Germany. We didn’t treat German, Italian, or Japanese prisoners “tit-for-tat.” We were better than that. And today, Germany, Italy, and Japan are our allies. In 50 years, will we be able to say that about Iraq?
When I go to bed at night, I’m not visited by the “ghosts” of people I abused, neither do I have to worry about standing before the judgment seat of God to answer for that. I have my sins certainly, but that is not among them. I wonder: can those who waterboard and otherwise “harshly interrogate” be able to say that?
We can be better than that again.
I donlt like to do “hit-and-run” comments, bu I will be out hiking next week. You won’t hear from me again in this thread, but I felt I just HAD to comment.
John Fariss
Wise words John – thanks for them!
This article couldnt have been more better timed.
Eric Margolis…. Sun Media. April 26
Nations that use torture disgrace themselves. Armed forces and police that torture inevitably become brutalized and corrupted. “Limited” use of torture quickly becomes generalized. Information obtained by torture is mostly unreliable.
I learned these maxims observing or covering dirty “pacification” wars, from Algeria to Indochina, Central and South America, southern Africa, the Mideast, Afghanistan, and Kashmir.
All this historical evidence notwithstanding, the Bush administration encouraged torture of anti-American militants (a.k.a. terrorists) after the 9/11 attacks. The full story has not been revealed, but what we know so far is revolting and shameful.
Many Americans want the Bush administration officials who employed and sanctioned torture to face justice. President Barack Obama hinted the attorney general might investigate this whole ugly business.
Republicans, who have become America’s champions of war and torture, are fiercely resisting any investigation and lauding torture’s benefits. So too are some senior intelligence officials.
Torture is a crime under U.S. law. It is a crime under the Third Geneva Convention, and the UN’s anti-torture convention, both of which the U.S. signed. Kidnapping and moving suspects to be tortured in third countries is a crime. Torture violates core American values.
In 1945, the U.S. hanged Japanese officers for war crimes for inflicting “water-boarding” (near drowning) on U.S. prisoners — exactly what the CIA inflicted on its Muslim captives.
FBI agents rightly refused to participate in the torture of al-Qaida suspects, warning it violated U.S. law and could make them subject to future prosecution.
Republicans and even Obama’s intelligence chief, Admiral Dennis Blair, claim some useful information was obtained by torture. That depends on what you call useful. al-Qaida is still in business. Osama bin Laden remains at large. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan became monstrous fiascos costing $1 trillion. Torture did not protect America from a second major attack. The 9/11 tragedy was a one-off event, and al-Qaida has only a handful of extremists. Administration claims about dirty bombs and germs were lies.
SIX TIMES DAILY
The CIA’s “useful” torture information came from two suspects: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tortured by near drowning 183 times — six times daily for a month; and Abu Zubaydah, 83 times in August 2003.
Give me Dick Cheney, a power drill (a favourite “investigative” tool of America’s Iraqi Shia allies) and 30 minutes and I’ll have him admit he’s Osama bin Laden.
A U.S. Senate report just revealed that after the Bush administration could not find the links it claimed between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, it tried, in best Soviet style, to torture an admission of these non-existent links from its captives.
The Senate reported CIA and Pentagon torture techniques were adopted from torture methods North Korea used in the 1950s to compel American prisoners to admit to lies about germ warfare.
In fact, North Korea learned its torture techniques from Soviet KGB instructors. KGB’s favourite tortures in the 1930s and ’40s were merciless beatings, confinement in refrigerated cells, week-long sleep deprivation and endless interrogations. The CIA and U.S. military copied these but added contorted positions and nakedness and humiliation, techniques reportedly copied from Israeli interrogators who used them to blackmail Palestinian prisoners into becoming informers. Hence all the naked photos from Abu Ghraib prison.
SOPHISTIC LEGAL BRIEFS
Torture was authorized by President George W. Bush, VP Dick Cheney, secretaries Don Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice. Four lickspittle lawyers and two bootlicking attorneys general provided sophistic legal briefs sanctioning torture. All should face an independent judicial commission.
Now, Obama claims he won’t prosecute the torturers because they were following proper legal advice and orders. So did Nazi officials who killed millions. Nazi lawyers legally dismembered Germany’s Weimar democracy and imposed Nazi dictatorship in only two months after the “terrorist attack” on the Reichstag in Feb. 1933.
When I served in the U.S. Army I was taught that any illegal order, even from the president, must be refused.
Have we learned nothing from the 1940s? Show the world America upholds the law and rejects these foul violations of human rights and decency.
Email Story Print Size A A A Report Typo Share with:
+ What are these?
I think I have to agree that torture isn’t biblical. There’s repayment, but nothing preemptive really in the bible. But the revenge can be torture, that’s why there’s Hell. Even though, since the old testament has a lot of history, there’s a lot of people doing immoral acts, so it’s hard to tell what is or isn’t condoned.
Our morals come from God, so we have no standard to judge Him by. If he said torture was right, than we’d have to agree. But if there’s nothing said about it, we have to use the bible to come to the best conclusion and we can’t tell who’s right on this issue.
But without God, nothing is ultimately wrong.
Tft: it’s a silly question, because it’s pointless, murder is still wrong, even if the victim benefits in the end. And of course it has to do with how you live, if you follow God, it’s because you’re saved. Really though, all life is meaningless before death, except to answer where you will go after.
I’m not sure sleep deprivation or interragation counts as torture. It’s not violent at least.
All life is not meaningless before death. If that was the case, why would God have bothered to create beauty, emotion, the wonders of the planet? Life here and now, even though disfigured by us, still has incredible potential, wonder and meaning.
“I’m not sure sleep deprivation or interragation counts as torture. It’s not violent at least” (Semety)
You’re kidding right?
Sleep deprivation – do some studies on it – long periods of sleep deprivation can have people wishing to kill themselves – nevermind the hallucinations.
Depriving a guy a piece of Aunt Martha’s chocolate cake coulbe be considered torture also.
That these guys maim innocent kids and rip people’s faces off with piano wire and fly planes into buildings…well…we can’t deprive them of a few zzzzzzzzzzz’s to see where the bombs are hidden, now can we?
Ok, we ALL now know where you pro-torture people stand. We get it. We really do. You are entitled to your views and your opinions. There are people on here who believe that torture is evil and agianst the law. We have a right to our views and opinions. We have all expressed our views ad nauseum.
Let’s recognize a couple things:
1. LET’S BE CLEAR ON ONE THING, THOSE OPINIONS DO NOT MEAN A HILL OF BEANS BECAUSE OUR GOVERNMENT SIGNED ONTO AND SAID IT DOES NOT TORTURE! EVEN BEFORE BUSHIE AND CO. BROKE THE LAW, WHICH THEY DID BREAK THE LAW!
2. Since no one’s mind looks to be changed, let’s move on to another topic.
So, let’s stop this insane argument. It’s tiring going around in circles and hearing the same arguments for and against torture.
G-D Bless,
EP
pah, I’ve been sleep deprived. Yeah you start to hallucinate, but it might make them easier to ask questions of. I don’t think they should be tortured, esecially if it’s illegal. We do have to give way to civil authority. I’m just curious what they’d do instead of torture? The can still interrogate suspects right? They can’t just let them off if they have information..
steve: you seem to take it very lightly how easy it is to dehumanize someone.
NP,
I take nothing very lightly (I often wish I could).
It is a messy world. When one decides to align themselves with murderers one sometimes has to pay a price.
That free people would want to stay free and keep their loved ones safe and sound in the face of murderers plots, overrides a terrorist’s humanity.
Besides, there are degrees to what we are speaking about.
And that is the real issue, Steve, that we can’t really get to in this type of forum.
The degrees within the issues.
99.99 % will have a total different take on the issue of torture when it becomes personal.
Hey, say a pray for me as I travel to the Dr. to see why my the inside of my nose is being eating up. It isn’t good no matter what, but some things worse than others.
I might be looking like NP did a few months ago——-oh those eyes so colorful.
jerry [fishon]
Fishon,
Good thoughts (as always) Jerry.
I will pray that your doctor can figure out the problem and find a way to get you back to normal.
– Steve
These are toughs issues to be sure. I abhor violence but, to be honest, I don’t know what I’m capable of in defense of those I love. I sure know that I’m capable of hatred.
I do know that I appreciate that there are people who do risk life and limb to defend those who cannot. But, other than in old westerns, it’s awfully hard telling the good guys from the bad guys. To some extent of course, we all fall into both categories. But when is it time to step in when people are being exterminated?
The problem is that we don’t know the entire picture and probably never will. We don’t know the agendas held by those in power; genocides have occurred with much less resulting police/army action. It’s hard not to become cynical when superpowers only seem to get involved when it becomes a matter of economics.
Fishon…hope all is well and you find find grace if life turns bitter.
fishon: i would like to ditto fif. blessings bro.
jus’ thinkin’…it cd be said that torture is pre-emptive revenge
This short article is a must read:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer050109.php3