Waterboarding was a war crime in WW2. What's changed?

And for future reference, Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament, not to shred it. I need to let you know that, or you could end up supporting gay marriage, or any number of unGodly things.

 

It Was A Crime Because of the Geneva Convention

And the Geneva Convention was what allowed the prosecution for torture to go through.

Keep this in mind JC, the WWII POW's were considered military combatants, When they were captured, they were in the uniform of their nation. This meant that the POW's were not allowed to be tortured.

Now JC, put on your headgear, and turn up the volume, because here is the difference: those caught in the war on terror are not fighting for anyone country, and they do not have the uniform of any one country, thus we can shoot them, or even torture them, if torture was needed to squeeze the truth out of them.

Again, I don't condone torture, but, what happens to non-military combatants caught and found not to be representing any one country is not under any umbrella of the Geneva Convention, thus, no one should be prosecuted, any more than those who harshly cut off the head of our soldiers in a show of force and solidarity.

What happened in WWII was valid, because it involved doing things that violated the Geneva Convention. The GC does not come into play in regard to this issue in Gitmo.

Sorry dude, but, terrorists are not the same as POW's.

Shalom,

Pastor Paul:type:

 

Nope. You say "love your enemies" means don't fight. I reject that. You obviously cannot fathom scripture, probably because you've only read one chapter of it over & over again, but I won't waste anymore time casting pearls before swine. Let me know when you want to stop all wars, not just the republican ones.

 

Rev. 19:[11] And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
[12] His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
[13] And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
[14] And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
[15] And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
[16] And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
[17] And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
[18] That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
[19] And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
[20] And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
[21] And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.


Not a Mr. Milktoast Jesus, is He?

 

How's that for irony?

 

So show us where Jesus says it is all righty to kill and torture anyone.

 

Which article are you referring to?

Your google search showed 28,200 hits.

Just because google found some of your search words in 28,200 articles does not mean that even one of the articles support your claim.

So which article did you actually read and what part of that particular article supports your claim that waterboarding is used as a recruitment tool by terrorists?

 

I wont, cause it doesn't exist.

Why do you ask for the impossible?

Why even get involved in the decisions of governments and agencies and debate over something which we have no control? Show me the goverment or the agency of the government which operates on Christian principals and by what Jesus said.

Even trying to answer your statement is telling: I don't know what you mean by right to kill. Clearly there are situations where it is right to kill and situations where killing is murder.

But if your conscience tells you otherwise, then don't get involved.

A right to torture? What is that? Define it.
Excessive brutallity and violence intended to cause pain and permanant harm..... That's what I'm against. Have we done that?

I don't know a Christian who has participated or was involved in any decisions or actions.

 

My point is that a Christian cannot follow Christ's teachings and, at the same time, support his/her government when it engages in torture.

 

How exactly then does a Chrisitian follow Christ's teachings and at the same time support politicians/government that engages in murder of the unborn?

 

Why don't you start another thread on this topic. Might be a good one ... but it is off topic for this one. I'd welcome your starting a thread on the topic you suggested and would add entries to that thread.

Perhaps we should start a thread on what activities of a government can a Christian support and what activities can they not support?

 

I must admonish you also then for being off topic.

The topic is what has changed since WWII to cause waterboarding to no longer be a crime.

You comments regarding how a Christian can follow Christ's teachings and also support a government that waterboards terrorists are also off topic.

BTW - I really was not expecting you to explain how a Christian can follow Christ's teachings and also support politicians that support abortion because it quite simply is not possible. - Nice try at deflection though.

 

Water torture techniques used during WWII are much different than waterboarding. Water torture, as cited earlier, introduced water through the nose or mouth through hoses, tubes or submersion which could cause actual drowning. In waterboarding, as practiced now, and as cited earlier, the face of the individual is covered with plastic or cloth and water is poured over the person's head. The recipient does not have water being forced into the respritory system but experiences the full sensation of drowning.

There is a fundamental difference between actually drowning and simulated drowning.

 

You are being intellectually dishonest.

Christ did not make a definitive statement concerning any one of a million things.

 

And the recipient of the treatment suffers no long term ill effects to his health, meaning waterboarding just doesn't meet the legal definition of torture.

 

That is not really true Carpo.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...ding+physical+damage&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

Waterboarding, as used by the CIA, was intended to be a humane way of getting information which the captive does not want to give up.


It was used on only three terror suspects. When employed by people who know what they are doing, it is safe and nonlethal. Otherwise, the US military would not use it on 1000's of American troops every year during SEER's training.

If CIA interrogaters were able to use some sort of truth serum, they would do it. The alternative was to frighten the suspects.