Gonzales supports Roe V. Wade...

[Matt Black]

Denial of food and water? Denial of sleep? Denial of toilet facilities? Beatings? Sodomising with a broom handle (as long as it doesn't cause 'irreperable or serious bodily harm')? The descriptions from the NY Times article which I quoted? I'd really like to know which of these you consider acceptable human conduct for a Christian to endorse.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Pastor Larry]

Matt,

Please think for a little bit before responding. I already said I can't give you a catalog of things.

Denial of food is acceptable, provided it isn't dangerous to life. (Of course, I am of the opinions when people go on starvation diets to make a political point, we ought to let them starve rather than force feeding them through IVs or whatever.) Denial of sleep is perfectly acceptable. Denial of toilet facilities is just plain stupid. That is not torture. Telling them to hold it for a bit is one thing. Beatings that cause harm are unacceptable (I already said that). Sodomizing is rape and thath has been covered.

I have no idea what is going on in your head but this should be just plain old common sense. I already told you I can't give you a catalog. I don't know all the techiniques of interrogation, and I doubt that you do.

But the fact is when life is at stake, we who respect need to stand up to gain the information to preserve life. I can't imagine why you question that. That is strange to me ... Why, if you value life, would you not employ whatever means necessary to preserve it?

 

[Matt Black]

Because those means can, if prosecuted without restriction, cause us to stoop to the level of our enemies from whom we aim to protect our lives, by degrading, debasing and ultimately dehumanising not only those who are tortured but also those doing, ordering and condoning the torture. In other words, in seeking to defend our Way of Life (whatever that means to you), we end up destroying it

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, if prosecuted without restriction ...

But who is talking about that? Certainly not me. Secondly, with respect to "degrading, debasing, and ultimately dehumanizing" (something completely impossible), the teaching of our Lord is that when you do wrong, you should expect to be mistreated and "buffeted for your faults." When someone is engaged in an illegal action which threatens the lives of people, they are doing wrong. They should come clean.

You know, at anytime, these people can end the torture by giving up the info desired. That is what we often forget. This whole thing in Iraq started because Saddam decided to play chicken. He lost. Had he done the right thing, he would still be in power, and none of this would have happened. We often start shifting the blame around without putting it where it belongs.

We defend our way of life through the preservation and sanctity of human life. We cannot hold that ideal if we are not willing to do what is necessary to protect it and preserve it.

 

[The Galatian]

Yep, if we want to beat the terrorists, we have to become more like them.

Isn't that what they want us to do?

Isn't that what we are trying to avoid?

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Hold on...if we're talking about "terrorists", then the answer is to give them a fair trial, and if proven that they are terrorists, they should get a seat in Ole Sparky.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yep, if we want to beat the terrorists, we have to become more like them.

No one here is advocating that. If you want to discuss it, then consider starting a thread on it. Perhaps some will argue for that position. But that is not what is being talked about here.

 

[Matt Black]

I'm sure you are not advocating that, but unfortunately what you are advocating will have that effect

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't think what I am advocating will have that effect at all. I think you don't quite grasp what I am advocating. Your interpretations and imagination about my advocacy is driving your conclusion. Unfortunately, this forum is not a good forum for a full debate and description, and to be honest, I don't have the time to fully flesh out my view. And since I am not in a place to act on any of it, that is probably OK.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

If people truly want to understand Pastor Larry's position, I think a little example or comparison is in order.

EXAMPLE

There is a child molestor/murderer on the loose in your area. Your 10 year old daughter has been missing for several days. The guy is finally caught and he acknowledges that he did kidnap your daughter. He won't tell you where she is or even if she is still alive.

Would you torture him to find the whereabouts of your daughter or her body???

I don't know about you, but I sure would in a heartbeat, and I wouldn't think twice about it.

That is the sort of situation, except replace molestor with terrorist, and your 10 year old daughter with your 18 year old son or daughter. That is what is going on in Iraq.

If we had a terrorist who acknowledged or we knew for a fact that he had knowledge of an impending attack or the whereabouts of kidnapped soldiers, I would be 100% in favor of torturing that terrorist in order to save others.

That is different from torturing every single enemy combatant that comes through the door, i.e. Abu Ghraib.

If we captured Osama bin Laden's top Lt. or another one of his inner circle, we should torture them to find the whereabouts of bin Laden or the place and time of the next attack they are planning, and you know they're planning one.

That's how I see it.

Galatian said,

"Yep, if we want to beat the terrorists, we have to become more like them.

Isn't that what they want us to do?

Isn't that what we are trying to avoid?"

No. They don't want us to be like them. They want us to die. If we were more like the terrorists they would already be dead because we would have nuked Afghanistan after 9/11 and killed them all, including bin Laden. They certainly don't want us to be more like them.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Good point, Bro. Reed. That's why I said earlier:

We all know that if there is truly a situation where a 9/11 could be avoided with information obtained from a bad guy, he's going to get tortured to give it up.

The real question is:

Do we want to have an actual policy that says so

or

do we want to take the position that says "get it done and don't tell me the details".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Pastor Larry]

PJ,

Aren't you upset because Bush essentially said, "Get it done and don't tell me the details"? You (if I am not mistaken) and others here have blasted Bush for not knowing what was going on at Abu Ghraib and other places saying he is responsible since it happened under his administration. Now you seem to be saying it is okay to "not know" so long as you don't have a stated policy and get the information. That seems inconsistent. Can you help me understand your position?

 

[Bro. James Reed]

PAJim, the only problem I see with your position is that it might possibly lead to criminal prosecution, as we're seeing now, of those who carried out or were present during the torture.

We all know that things are going to 'slip out', even if something is supposedly done in secret.

With the way people think nowadays that we are entitled to know every single thing that our government does, people are going to be clamoring to know what methods are being used.

Other than that, I would agree with your position. It's probably the way things have been done for years anyway.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I am not defending any particular acts. I am suggesting that human life is important and the need to gain information to save life overrides the personal comfort of enemies.

I find it inconceivable that you do not share my view. I cannot understand how human life is so unvalued to some. When we can save lives of people, it is incumbent on us to do so. Perhaps you have never thought of it in terms of saving lives and that is why you have your perspective. That is fine, but I would encourage some deeper thinking on this.

It is true that torture can be unreliable, but it can also be reliable. I am not suggesting humiliation for the sake of humiliation. I am simply saying that if we are going to do this, we need to do it right. I can't imagine that this is even disputed.

Again, this is moral relativism. Torture is wrong, period. When I was a kid, I was taught two things:
1. Always take the high road, and be the better person.
2. Two wrongs do not make a right, nor do they "cancel out" one another.

To quote Bruce Springsteen once again: God have mercy on the man who doubts what he's sure of."

Our Constitution exists for those who live under it. Our constitution guarantees nothing to people who do not live under it, so no, it isn't a violation of our Constitution.

So, depriving someone of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness is not wrong if they are not an American citizen?

If, by interrogation techniques, you could have obtained information that would have prevented 9/11, would you have done it? If killing the 19 hijackers would have prevented 9/11 would you have done it?

Here you go again with another example of moral relativism. The ends justify the means.
It is not that I don't respect your opinion. I simply do not subscribe to it. I find it "inconceivable" that you would actually admonish someone for not sharing your view.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
PJ,

Aren't you upset because Bush essentially said, "Get it done and don't tell me the details"? You (if I am not mistaken) and others here have blasted Bush for not knowing what was going on at Abu Ghraib and other places saying he is responsible since it happened under his administration. Now you seem to be saying it is okay to "not know" so long as you don't have a stated policy and get the information. That seems inconsistent. Can you help me understand your position?

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.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
PAJim, the only problem I see with your position is that it might possibly lead to criminal prosecution, as we're seeing now, of those who carried out or were present during the torture.

We all know that things are going to 'slip out', even if something is supposedly done in secret.

With the way people think nowadays that we are entitled to know every single thing that our government does, people are going to be clamoring to know what methods are being used.

Other than that, I would agree with your position. It's probably the way things have been done for years anyway.

Thanks, Bro. Reed. Notice, though, that I really didn't take a position, I just outlined what I think are the only possible choices. Of course that in itself is somewhat of a position, since it assumes that there are times when torture is necessary.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Again, this is moral relativism. Torture is wrong, period.

No, that is not moral relativism. There are useful interrogation techniques that obtain needed information to save human life. We all practice a sort of "moral relativism" when we choose to run over a dog rather than a pedestrian. We recognize the relative value of human life when a police officer shoots to wound rather than to kill. That is not moral relativism.

r Constitution.

So, depriving someone of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness is not wrong if they are not an American citizen?[/quote]I didn't comment on that at all. First, that is not our constitution. That is the Declaration of Independence. It has not binding value. Second, the constitution instructs the government to pursue the national defense and the general welfar of the people. That is exactly what they must do. The 9/11 issue is a vital one. You seem to favor not interrogating suspects in order to gain information that would save lives. Not only is there the constitutional issue of national defense and general welfare. There is the moral issue of 3000 lives that died. I can't imagien you think we should not have used all necessary means as I have described to save those lives.

I find it "inconceivable" that you would actually admonish someone for not sharing your view.

I am not sure I admonished someone for not sharing them. I expressed some surprise about what appears to be a relative devaluing of human life.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Again, this is moral relativism. Torture is wrong, period.

No, that is not moral relativism. There are useful interrogation techniques that obtain needed information to save human life. We all practice a sort of "moral relativism" when we choose to run over a dog rather than a pedestrian. We recognize the relative value of human life when a police officer shoots to wound rather than to kill. That is not moral relativism.</font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying that "interrogation techniques" are okay? What exactly are these "interrogation techniques?" [That's a catchy phrase, by the way.] Where does one draw the line? Who ensures that this line is not crossed?

 

[Pastor Larry]

BIR,

I have already answered that question several times with the following: I draw the line at irreparable bodily harm and death. I cannot give a catalog of the acceptable/unacceptable practices. The line is obviously enforced by the authorities.

Yes, interrogation techniques are clearly okay. All of us accept that. I am not sure I could participate in any or all of them. I could sooner participate in techniques of force or deprivation than I could in techniques of misleading or lying.

 

[The Galatian]

Just so you don't have to know about it, um?