Cancer of torture at Abu Ghraib has metastasized

Tragic is our interrogator of a captured terrorist who has admitted he knows the time and place at which a nuclear bomb will be detonated. The time is in about 8 hours but he refuses to say where it is located.

After an hour of amiable chit chat, Tragic asks one last time where the bomb is.

Terrorist: I will not tell you.
Tragic: Please.
Terrorist: No, never.
Tragic: OK. Would you like some milk and cookies?
Terrorist: Sure, thanks.
Tragic: No problem. I'll let you get some rest now. Would you like steak or lobster for supper?
Terrorist: Could I have both?
Tragic: No problem.

Seven hours later a nuclear explosion goes off in Tragic's home town killing his entire family and 300,000 other people.

Tragic: Oh, well. I wonder what he wants for breakfast.

 

You seem to feel that it is unscriptural to win a war. I would use any and all means to win a war, particularly this one, that is controlled by the evilest of forces, who believe human life has no value. These people have a natural advantage of great magnitude, against a people of morality. I would as a tactic take that advantage away, in the form of a revamping of the "rules of engagement".

 

The Bible doesn't specifically say "don't torture"

In Judges 1 it talks of what you describe as torture.

Joshua Chapter 10 goes into something you would be upset with also.

 

This liberalization of morality, as it pertains to war is precisely what bin laden predicted, as the overwhelming reason he will prevail. And for Christians to willingly accept these liberal viewpoints is appalling.

I'll say it once again; I would do anything at all that would resolve a serious dilemma such as proposed by carpro above. Nothing would stay me if lives were at stake. This notion that we are somehow morally above torture, is pure nonsense, fostered by those dedicated to our defeat, which many of you on here seem so dedicated.

 

Judges 1:7
7 And Adoni-bezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died.

What was the information that they were trying to extract from Adonibezek? Or was this a case of a man providentially reaping what he has sown? Do you really see this verse as justification for torture?

I think a better passage might be 2Kings 6:
2 Kings 6:21-22
21 And the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I smite them? shall I smite them?
22 And he answered, Thou shalt not smite them: wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master.

 

Carpro tactic #337: when cornered, with no Scriptural backing for a particular ideology, mock.

Come on carpro. Give me Scripture, or admit you're suffering form a case of Fundamentalist "Americuh is right no matter what" disease.

God is right, or the government is right. You can only pick one.

 

Yeah, that Jesus guy is really pesky sometimes, huh?

 

This article fails grossly because it fails to note that the insurgence and others tortured and brutally beat people long before Abu Ghraib. But its repetition here serves only to show that some people will believe anything without thinking.

These three soldiers are not gone because of Abu Ghraib. The Iraqi insurgence never followed the Geneva conventions to begin with.

Until some critical thinking finds a revival among the public, this type of foolishness will continue to be said and continue to be believed by those desparate to grasp onto anything that will support their preconceived notions.

 

Perhaps the real lesson in Judges 1 should be that if we go around cutting off thumbs and toes, we shouldn't be surprised if someone does it to us?

 

I don't translate my own Scriptures.

And if the tag doesn't fit you, then it doesn't fit you, does it?

 

Okay. I just watched this show on A&E where a 12 year old girl was knifed to death in her own house.
The police had no suspect.
They zeroed in on the 14 year old brother because, well, he seemed pretty detached about the whole thing.
They questioned him for days on end.
No.
Wrong word.
They did not question him.
They told him what had happened and kept badgering him to confirm that that is exactly what happened.
They told him he was the only suspect because why wasn't he crying ? Why wasn't he concerned about what happened to his sister ?
They told him that it is normal for siblings to have problems.
That they were there willing to work things out with him, and help him out, and all they wanted was for him to be relieved of whatever it is that was bothering him.
He told them repeatedly that there was nothing bothering him, that he was fine, that he did not like what happened to his sister, but he also wants to know what really happened.
This went on for days.
Finally, the boy was so exasperated at the police's insistence that he was the killer that he said, "okay, I am the killer, if you say so, but I will tell you before hand that I will be lying to you from hereon."
And he confessed to the crime.
He even implicated two of his friends.
Now, mind you, the quotes I did were not verbatim, but in essence that was being said.
On tape, this boy told the police that he will be lying to them in his confession.
But he did confess. They put him in jail on the basis of that confession until five or so years later when one good cop just didn't buy that confession, dug deeper and got the real culprit.
Now, this wasn't a terrorist interrogation.
This was a criminal investigation being conducted by a civilian armed unit, the police, on a 14-year old boy.
No torture was done on him, or wasnt' there ?
He did not experience pain....or didn't he ?
The police kept things civil.....or did they ?

I am not suggesting we pull out fingernails, or waterboard suspects, or beat them with rubber bats, but let's face it, investigation techniques do require psychological tactics as well as physiological, and psychological tactics were employed by a civilian investigative unit on a 14-year old suspect when they kept insisting despite his denials that he was guilty, should confess, should get it off his shoulders, and so on.

Critics on this board have so far contributed nothing on how terrorists ought to be investigated and therefore lives, American soldiers' lives, saved. You all have a lot of people you quote, but all those people are saying is how wrong torture, or what they perceive to be torture, is.

How about a quote from one of them on how they think investigations should be done ?

A terrorist has been trained to withstand the rigors, both pysiological, and psychological, of interrogation and investigation. Even our own troops have been trained on this. Anyone who has served in the military of any country knows that the first rule in capture is to escape, and barring that, to withstand interrogation.

If we rewrite the methodology of interrogating captured prisoners of war, then we should also rewrite the methodology of interrogating captured criminal suspects because both aim to get at the same thing: information, and truth of that information.

Police should not be allowed to lie to suspects anymore, such as the tactic of telling a suspect that a cohort has already confessed and pointed to the current investigatee as the mastermind.

Since our aim is truth, then we should also require that investigators also deal with terrorists and criminals in truthfulness: That they have no clue at all, and really, really need help.

What do you think ?

 

I think that arguments from the sublime are pointless.

But thanks for asking.

 

I'm all for digging deeper and finding the real culprits.

 

How come liberals always throw up separation of church and state when it suits their purposes (like the nativity in the public square), but when they point fingers at our military, all of a sudden it is WWJD? :laugh:

 

A noble quest, to be sure. And I will not lump you in as a liberal, you have stated your case well.

 

Sure, that makes toture OK.

 

Rufus_1611: //"How can I take an absolute position opposing
torture when many people believe that it works and
that it's worth it if it prevents another 9/11?"//

Torture is one of the most ineffecient methods of collecting
information. CSI & other high tech methods are much more reliable.
All torture, physical abuse, mental abuse, etc have one function:
they prove the people using them are EVIL and should die.
People who torture others cannot be tolerated in a Republic
or Democracy.