Gonzales supports Roe V. Wade...

Were you in the wrong thread? That doesn't appear to have anything to do with this conversation.

 

Just commenting on your statment that you wouldn't be willing to do yourself, what you would be willing to let others do to humans.

 

There are many things in that category, Galatian, as I am sure there are for you. I would never be able to be a doctor or a medical professional. But I am perfectaly willing to let others do that. I could be a mortician or a funeral home director, but am glad that others do that.

So what?

 

What went on in Abu Ghraib seems very bizarre to me. First, it was sexual perversion, second, it was videotaped. I am not under the impression that the prisoners there were terrorists with information that could stop a terrorist attack against our population.

That should help you understand my position, if you really want to. If you simply want to start a semantic argument, there is no possible resolution. </font>[/QUOTE]The Abu Ghraib video tapes and photos aren't all that bizarre if you consider the whole purpose of these images was to get them "on the air" and desensitize you and I to torture, and to infuriate the Arabs streaming into Iraq.

War doesn't pay all that well if you win to quickly or to easy. Maximum profits come from long wars.

 

Pastor Larry,

I draw the line at irreparable bodily harm and death.

So, then is a repairable broken arm or leg acceptable? Is non-treatment of an already broken bone acceptable?

 

Do you have any common sense?

 

I am still aghast at the idea that there are Christians who support the use of torture. In stooping to acts of criminality ourselves we become little better than the criminals we profess to so despise; in short, we become what we hate. I have to say that I am utterly dismayed and not a little disgusted to come across support for this kind of barbarity of what purports to be a 'Christian' board

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I'll ignore the insult and infer that perhaps your rule uses common sense, and is not necessarily as you stated. Perhaps a little more clarity on your part would be helpful. What do you mean by irreparable? Lacerations are repairable, broken bones are repairable, a dislocated shoulder is repairable. Brain damage is not, a gouged eye is not. Is the line common sense? Does Gonzalez's memo describe what is acceptable? If you can't give a definition of "acceptable" (and that is fine; I'll be a little more gracious than you--exactitude is admittedly difficult here), some examples would help. In the meantime, I'll look back in the thread and see if you have provided some.

 

PL,

I did look back and see that noise, solitude, denial of food and sleep, and psychological are all acceptable. I would agree with you to some extent on all of these. I would also agree with you that our own refraining from torture will not keep an enemy with nothing resembling Christian morality from torturing our own POW's, but we should also be careful not to sink to their level. I don't believe that most of what I saw from Abu Ghraib rises to the level of torture but it was clear that those involved did so out of a sadistic bent and they were enjoying themselves which is simply not acceptable in a professional military.

[ January 20, 2005, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

Matt,

To defend and protect human life is of the utmost importance to me. I wish you shared my perspective. I think if push came to shove, you probably would. If it were your daughter kidnapped and within hours of death, I doubt you would sit by with simple questioning and let someone go at that. Maybe I am wrong and you don't care any more than that, but somehow I doubt it. In the defense and protection of human life, we have to put our proverbial money where our mouth is.

I am not in the least saying we should sink to their level. WE are not becoming like them. In fact, our pursuit of the protection of human life is what sets us apart from them. They will keep their mouths shut in order to kill. We will attempt to open their mouths to save lives. I hope should I ever be kidnapped that you have absolutely nothing to do with finding me and obtaining my freedom.

FTR,

As I said earlier, I can't give a catalog of what's acceptable and what's not. My implication in my previous post was that common sense says I don't accept breaking bones as a form of interrogation. Seriously, it never crossed my mind that someone would actually question that, since it is so far out of realm of common sense, to me anyway. Sorry to have offended you with that. I am not into physical torture, the infliction of pain. What went on at Abu Grhaib was completely out of line, sadistic, and wrong. I am not in the least defending that.

 

PL,

It sounds like we may be pretty much on the same page, especially with your last post, and I apologize if I missed the same point earlier. I believe that Gonzalez's memo was way out of line. I sympathize with the view that Al Qaeda should not expect humane treatment but that we should expect it of ourselves in how we treat them. I do believe that those in Guantanamo (primarily Taliban, I guess) should be tried by military tribunals and, if found guilty of war crimes, shot. However, simply fighting back against an invading army (however proper, and I believe it was, that invasion was) is not a war crime. Those of Al Qaeda, however, are irregular combatants in an ongoing war of terrorism and I have no problem detaining them for the duration.

 

Exactly. We shouldn't treat them humanely because of who they are. We should do it because we are who we are.

 

Personally, though, it wouldn't bother me to walk up to one of them and put a bullet between his eyes, any more than it would to kill a rat.

 

Come on now, fromtheright, what did a rat ever do to you?

 

Bro. Jimmy,

Yeah, you're right, that is being rather cruel to the rat.

 

I will add one thing that does disturb me about Gonzalez's nomination, besides the definition of torture in his memo (though I think that his point that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists is quite arguable and has been well defended, as I've pointed out elsewhere), is this from JGrubbs earlier thread on Gonzalez and La Raza:

White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, President Bush's nominee for attorney general, got the backing of a group that promotes driver's licenses for illegal aliens, no immigration law enforcement by local and state police and amnesty programs broader than the administration's proposal.

 

I'd like to know how Gonzales justifies the torture of the four British citizens who have just been released from Guantanamo Bay.

Actually, scratch that, I don't give a monkeys about his opinion; I'll care about his opinion on this when someone has locked him up and tortured him for 3 years without telling him why.Until then, he and Charles Clarke, our equally illiberal Home Secretary (thread to follow) and Donald Rumsfeld - and anyone else who agrees with them - can go and pull each others nails out in private.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Wow ... and you accused me of being unChristian. At least my allowance for certain things dealt with the preservation and protection of human life. Your allowance deals with your selfish desire for revenge.

 

It was a rhetorical device But if you as a Christian want to support illegal acts, that's up to you. Can't exactly imagine Jesus lending his support to such practices though, can you?

Yours in Christ

Matt