A reversal on waterboarding

[matt wade]

I just thought I'd post that I've made a reversal on my opinion of waterboarding. I don't believe it is torture and I have no problem with it being utilized to extract information.

Thanks for the healthy (and sometimes not so healthy) debate on the topic.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Not so healthy....LOL

Hopefully you'll come around on those mean boot-camp drill instructors. raying:


:saint::smilewinkgrin:

 

[LadyEagle]

I just thought I'd post that I've made a reversal on my opinion of waterboarding. I don't believe it is torture and I have no problem with it being utilized to extract information.

Thanks for the healthy (and sometimes not so healthy) debate on the topic.

Thanks, matt, for being honest. :thumbs:

 

[donnA]

wow, really? we hardly ever see anyone say they've changed their minds.
lol, unless it's ken saying he isn't poting in the politics forum anymore.lol
sorry ken

 

[carpro]

I just thought I'd post that I've made a reversal on my opinion of waterboarding. I don't believe it is torture and I have no problem with it being utilized to extract information.

Thanks for the healthy (and sometimes not so healthy) debate on the topic.

Why did you change your mind?

 

[carpro]

No answer?

Strange you would go to the trouble to make such an announcement and, at the same time, be so reluctant to share your reasons.

 

[matt wade]

No answer?

Strange you would go to the trouble to make such an announcement and, at the same time, be so reluctant to share your reasons.

No..the only strangeness is that I've been extremely busy. I saw your response and was going to come back and respond when I had more time. I still don't have the time to really give a thought out answer, but I'll try to give you something .

Basically, I've just decided that utlizing waterboarding, and some other methods of extracting information, are an acceptable practice when people's lives are on the line. I've never denied that I would use any method at my disposal to personally extract information from a criminal if it would save the life of my family or loved ones. I've just always held to the belief that, even though I would do it personally, it doesn't make it right.

Anyway, I guess I've also redefined the word torture within myself. I now believe that torture is something that is done because the torturer is a some type of sadist. Extracting information from someone in order to save lives is not torture, even if the methods are the same or resemble each other.

For instance, waterboarding someone for no reason other than waterboarding them would be torture. Waterboarding them to extract information that will save lives is not toture.

Anyway, there's more to it than that, but I wanted to share some of my decision making process anyway.

 

[carpro]

Thanks.

As donnA pointed out, not many minds are actually changed here. Even fewer make it known so forthrightly. :applause:

My hat is off to you.

 

[matt wade]

Thanks.

As donnA pointed out, not many minds are actually changed here. Even fewer make it known so forthrightly. :applause:

My hat is off to you.

Thanks . I thought it only fair that since I had spoken out against waterboarding, and done so quite vocally, that I make this announcement.

Bro. Curtis...as for those boot-camp drill instructors, my opinion is still the same! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[just-want-peace]

Well Matt, I must say that it is refreshing to find someone who has actually thought the process through, and, IMHO, come to a reasonable conclusion.

I can accept opposing viewpoints to mine if there is some modicum of logic involved, but that is a rarity on most BBs. People just HATE to admit that they are wrong.

Incidentally, I have always hated the idea of torture, but could not shake the premise that when other lives were at stake, it was a justifiable procedure.

This quote from you

For instance, waterboarding someone for no reason other than waterboarding them would be torture. Waterboarding them to extract information that will save lives is not toture.

says what I've felt, but could never put into words.

Thank you for this bit of insight.:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[LadyEagle]

Yep, me, too. You have perfectly defined my feelings in a way that I could not put into words before. Thanks a million, matt. That is a great definition.

 

[StefanM]

For instance, waterboarding someone for no reason other than waterboarding them would be torture. Waterboarding them to extract information that will save lives is not toture.

I hope you realize you just played into situational ethics. That's not as big of a deal for me, personally, but I think it would bother many on this board.

Where do we draw the line? Could you rape a woman in order to "extract information that will save lives?" Could you cut off limbs?

Torturing someone for pleasure is pure sadism. Even the most brutal regimes generally have a point to their torture beyond pure sadism.

 

[LadyEagle]

I disagree. Raping and cutting off limbs is not waterboarding. Waterboarding is the subject of this thread.

 

[StefanM]

I disagree. Raping and cutting off limbs is not waterboarding. Waterboarding is the subject of this thread.

The author specifically justified his stance on waterboarding by appealing to the intent of the person doing the activity. It is highly relevant to bring out the implications of his argument.

 

[LadyEagle]

The author specifically justified his stance on waterboarding by appealing to the intent of the person doing the activity. It is highly relevant to bring out the implications of his argument.

The thread is about his stance on waterboarding only. Not about cutting off limbs and raping. Your comments, in debate tactics, is called "Bait and Switch."

 

[StefanM]

The thread is about his stance on waterboarding only. Not about cutting off limbs and raping. Your comments, in debate tactics, is called "Bait and Switch."

I debated competitively. This is not a bait and switch. It might have been, had he not made the following statement:

"Anyway, I guess I've also redefined the word torture within myself. I now believe that torture is something that is done because the torturer is a some type of sadist. Extracting information from someone in order to save lives is not torture, even if the methods are the same or resemble each other."

He EXPLICITLY admitted that the determining factor in torture was not the act itself but the intention--"even if the methods are the same."

My appeal was a loose version of reductio ad absurdum to point out the moral bankruptcy of such thoughts.

 

[LeBuick]

Basically, I've just decided that utlizing waterboarding, and some other methods of extracting information, are an acceptable practice when people's lives are on the line. I've never denied that I would use any method at my disposal to personally extract information from a criminal if it would save the life of my family or loved ones. I've just always held to the belief that, even though I would do it personally, it doesn't make it right.

Anyway, I guess I've also redefined the word torture within myself. I now believe that torture is something that is done because the torturer is a some type of sadist. Extracting information from someone in order to save lives is not torture, even if the methods are the same or resemble each other.

For instance, waterboarding someone for no reason other than waterboarding them would be torture. Waterboarding them to extract information that will save lives is not toture.

Anyway, there's more to it than that, but I wanted to share some of my decision making process anyway.

I applaud you're honesty also and believe your justifications are sound.

However let me ask, is it okay to steal a steak because you are starving to death? Is it okay to lie if it will save lives?

These are the questions at the core of why I have not changed.

In my view the question of water boarding and torture is not can we justify the reasons for its use, the question is did it violate a principle or moral standard by which we live. This is the foundation of the statement Jesus made when he said, "what good is it for you to gain the whole world and loose your soul". What good is it to save everybody in the world if you compromise your foundational principles? In each of our lives there must be a line that no matter what the circumstance we will not cross it. So to me the question is did we cross that line?

My statements are not to detract from your decision or to say your are right or wrong, I am simply saying the reason I have not changed has to do with the question of legality. Like stealing the steak or telling a lie, it is not whether I feel it is justified, it is a simple matter of was it legal.

 

[LeBuick]

I hope you realize you just played into situational ethics. That's not as big of a deal for me, personally, but I think it would bother many on this board.

Where do we draw the line? Could you rape a woman in order to "extract information that will save lives?" Could you cut off limbs?

Torturing someone for pleasure is pure sadism. Even the most brutal regimes generally have a point to their torture beyond pure sadism.

I agree... Your examples are extreme (probably for effect) but the principles are sound...

 

[steaver]

It came to mind of those times when our military used bright lights and loud music on folks holed up somewhere trying to get them to surrender.

How does a Christian harmonize self defense, kill them before they kill you, with "love thy ememies"?

This is why some Christians excuse themselves totally from politics and war. Yet as a Christian we know that without war and good fighting the evil there would be nothing left but evil.

What scriptures would you reference that justifies Christians (those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ) picking up a weapon and rushing into the battle to slay an enemy? I know the OT, how God ordered wars and killing by His people, but Jesus never did, did He? Jesus never talked about this subject, I wonder why.

If my wife is about to be murdered and I can stop it by killing the person first. Am I justified by scripture anywhere in the NT? Or do we apply both OT and NT scriptures together in determining this quandary?

Jesus seems to have changed the OT order to just let the evil happen without resistence....

Mat 5:38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Any insights?

 

[steaver]

BTW, Doesn't it sound stupid coming from Obama how that water boarding is torture when he cares nothing for those babies that are ripped apart limb by limb until dead? Or those babies that are pulled out of their resting place in the womb by the feet and stabbed in the back of their heads to get their brains sucked out till death? Or those babies born alive in a botched murder attempt and allowed to suffer without attention until dead? I think that even our military gives medical attention to the enemy that is found wounded on the battle field.

Talk about hypocrisy overflowing!