The morality of torture

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 2 2005, 05:29 PM']Torture may be justified in some cases - for example, if it is necesarry to obtain information to protect the lives of innocents.

HOwever, torture should not be excessive, and should never be done for its own sake, or out of mere sadism.
[right][snapback]777306[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The problem is, what is their definition of torture? Can we piss on the koran? Can we lie to them? Can we verbally mock their beliefs?

Or are those of you against torture only thinking of physical torture?

[Dreamweaver]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Nov 3 2005, 12:00 AM']The problem is, what is their definition of torture?  Can we piss on the koran?  Can we lie to them?  Can we verbally mock their beliefs? 

Or are those of you against torture only thinking of physical torture?
[right][snapback]777560[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

On the flipside, is it ok for Muslims to piss on the Eucharist? Can they lie to us, is it ok for them to mock our beliefs? (of course, I think the last part is more of a First Amendmant issue, not torture).

I believe that torture is wrong. Period. Torture robs basic human dignity from the victim. Just remember the golden rule, "Do unto others..."

[philothea]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Nov 3 2005, 12:00 AM']The problem is, what is their definition of torture?  Can we piss on the koran?  Can we lie to them?  Can we verbally mock their beliefs? 

Or are those of you against torture only thinking of physical torture?
[right][snapback]777560[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Nevermind their definition. How about treating prisoners held by the USA the way we demand other countries treat our people? "Torture" is a pretty well defined concept in international law, I believe.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='philothea' date='Nov 3 2005, 01:16 AM'] "Torture" is a pretty well defined concept in international law, I believe.
[right][snapback]777641[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I want to know this accepted definition of torture...seriously. In order to have a meaningful discussion about a topic, we should probably all agree on the basic definition of what it is we're talking about. I don't think we're at that point...

What exactly constitutes torture?

[quote name='Dreamweaver']On the flipside, is it ok for Muslims to piss on the Eucharist?[/quote]
So you're saying this falls inside the definitions of torture? You don't need to 'flipside' this for me....my question was simply 'is the desecration of something sacred in front of a person actually [i]torture[/i]'?

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='philothea' date='Nov 3 2005, 01:16 AM']Nevermind their definition. 
[right][snapback]777641[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ignore everyone's opinions if they are not the same as international law. If you don't agree with the UN, your thoughts are irrelevant.

hehe

[Semalsia]

The inquisition.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Nov 3 2005, 12:00 AM']The problem is, what is their definition of torture?  Can we piss on the koran?  Can we lie to them?  Can we verbally mock their beliefs? 

Or are those of you against torture only thinking of physical torture?
[right][snapback]777560[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You're right that we need to define torture better. There are guidelines set out in the Geneva Convention for prisoners of war (No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind) but in cases where the Geneva Convention doesn't apply (as we've conveniently decided it doesn't in Iraq) we're in much murkier water.

According to the GC, though (or at least according to the bits I read) torture can include both physical and mental aspects.

It just seems to me that if we start employing base tactics like this, it's eventually going to come back to bite us in the @ss. That whole "do unto others" thing seems a good rule to live by in matters such as these.

[jezic]

maybe it is that the administration thinks that torture will help them. I don't think it will.

How could it ever be right? It is destructive to the very nature of humanity because decisions are no longer free, they are forced.

Anything that God does is completely free to be rejected because that is the gift he gave us in having a free will.

[Jaime]

The only torture that is allowable is when a girl makes a guy wait for days before saying yes to going out with him.



Maybe.


As for the rest, there is never an instance where it is moral ethical or allowable.

[beatty07]

It is tough to nail down the concept, especially in the area of psychological torture. When we played AC/DC at high volumes into the house where Noriega was holed up, were we psychologically torturing him? Don't think so. What about barraging someone for hours, lying to them about horrible things being done to their family? That surely is torture. Where is the line?

I had this debate in the Air Force (where standard doctrine is that torture is not cool) in a similar vein to the article that started the thread. What if it's necessary to protect millions of innocents? What if it's the only way to safeguard the country?

My answer was that the day our country begins to torture, it may not be worth safeguarding.

[philothea]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Nov 3 2005, 11:27 AM']I had this debate in the Air Force (where standard doctrine is that torture is not cool) in a similar vein to the article that started the thread.  What if it's necessary to protect millions of innocents?  What if it's the only way to safeguard the country?

My answer was that the day our country begins to torture, it may not be worth safeguarding.
[right][snapback]777823[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We already began. Fortunately the people and their elected officials put a stop to it.

I am still extremely disturbed that our president thinks torture is a good idea. I am glad he has almost no support in this.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 3 2005, 09:46 AM']You're right that we need to define torture better. There are guidelines set out in the Geneva Convention for prisoners of war (No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind) but in cases where the Geneva Convention doesn't apply (as we've conveniently decided it doesn't in Iraq) we're in much murkier water.

According to the GC, though (or at least according to the bits I read) torture can include both physical and mental aspects.

It just seems to me that if we start employing base tactics like this, it's eventually going to come back to bite us in the @ss. That whole "do unto others" thing seems a good rule to live by in matters such as these.
[right][snapback]777742[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have read some intresting things about what we are doing with the GC. We are claiming it doesn't apply to Iraq/terrorism because they are not enlisted in a recognized state army, and therefore we are free to kill them on sight. At least that is what we say. There is a provision, I think it is like the "Common Agreement" or Common something in the GC which, in any legal sense, extends these rights to all people, regardless of unifrom. The international community sees it this way as do most of the judges in the US and it is held that that was the intent of that section of the GC. IN short, everyone but Bush and his pals, thinks that the GC applies.

I parts of the GC that I know cover mental aspects of touture and I think the Church does as well.

[Thumper]

[quote name='philothea' date='Nov 3 2005, 12:37 PM']We already began.  Fortunately the people and their elected officials put a stop to it.

[right][snapback]777829[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sadly, I'm not confident that we have put a stop to it. The International Committee of the Red Cross is lobbying the U.S. government to disclose the names and locations of all detainment facilities on the theory that the CIA has some "unofficial" prisons in friendly foreign countries (the Red Cross has access to the U.S.'s "official" facilities) .

The Red Cross spokewoman I heard this morning was candid that they didn't have hard evidence that these facilities exist, but indicated that the U.S. had publicized the capture of particular terrorists who were never registered at any of the official detainment facilities.

The possible presence of secret facilities doesn't allow one to conclude that torture is being used, however, the presence of the Red Cross often helps to insure humanitarian conditions.

I heard the news report on NPR, but here's a link to CNN: www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/03/prisons.redcross.reut/index.html

Edited November 3, 2005 by Thumper

[jezic]

do the ends ever justify the means?

I mean honestly that is where the question is. I think that most people would agree, if it wasn't going to save anyone, torture would not be justified. But what if it saves a million people? Then is it justified?

But if you decide it is, where is the line drawn?