A Functional Blasphemy

[Paladin]

The Washington Post reports some "[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201219_pf.html"]aggressive interrogation tactics[/url]" some here might approve of:
[quote]In a previously unreported allegation, one interrogator bragged to an FBI agent that he had forced a prisoner to listen to "Satanic black metal music for hours," then [b]dressed as a Catholic priest before "baptizing" him[/b].[/quote]
But there's no real harm in it, right? There's no permanent physical harm, no tissue damage, just a bit of "college hazing" style interrogation. If Caesar can torture, why not let him mess with their heads, too? And if anyone is offended, it's their fault for not recognizing the grave necessity of ignoring the Church's moral teaching in order for the State to "do what must be done."

[White Knight]

Well dude, I'm not saying the story isn't creditable, but the source, is horribly liberal, and biast, The Washington Post & The New York Times though they are big and popluation with the Polictial Left Wing Base, that doesn't mean anything.


I question the creditability of this story as being "fair" for all sides do you have any other links? like From MSNBC, Fox News, or some Independant source?


Not trying to be rude, but Washington Post and New York Times "Cannot" be trusted fully on their own, since there apart of the mainstream, controled Liberal Media.

God Bless.

Edited January 3, 2007 by White Knight

[Paladin]

I suppose FBI memos are "not to be trusted" as well?

I agree that most media has a liberal bias, but there's a difference between leaning in a direction and outright making stuff up.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Paladin' post='1155288' date='Jan 3 2007, 04:06 PM']
The Washington Post reports some "[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201219_pf.html"]aggressive interrogation tactics[/url]" some here might approve of:

But there's no real harm in it, right? There's no permanent physical harm, no tissue damage, just a bit of "college hazing" style interrogation. If Caesar can torture, why not let him mess with their heads, too? And if anyone is offended, it's their fault for not recognizing the grave necessity of ignoring the Church's moral teaching in order for the State to "do what must be done."
[/quote]
You're remark that "some here would approve of" this shows your methods.

I do not approve of satanism or blasphemy, whether used as "torture" or for anything else.

You seem like you are trying to imply that people here approve of [i]absolutely anything[/i] that is done as interrogation.
(It is similar to that sicko nonsense someone brought up earlier concerning raping one's own kids)
This does not mean there are legitimate uses of "aggressive interrogation."
Your argumentation is fallacious.

I think the burden lies with those who say no "torture" whatsoever may be used to gain information from hardened terrorists, etc.

What [i]is[/i] permissable?
Is anything which causes any sort of pain or discomfort off-limits?
Are they to be sweet-talked and coddled and pampered into giving up potentially life-saving information?

[Paladin]

[quote] What is permissable?
Is anything which causes any sort of pain or discomfort off-limits?
Are they to be sweet-talked and coddled and pampered into giving up potentially life-saving information?[/quote]
This is the question that everyone's asking, and we act like we've never heard of torture before. Water boarding and other techniques the government has admitted to using have been considered torture for a long time. Water boarding itself is shown in a museum that shows Khmer Rouge torture techniques.

The Church teaches that torture is a sin. [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2297.htm"]This is an inarguable fact[/url]. So let's not treat torture as this strange and foreign concept that we must philosophy on like Pilate's "Quid est veritas?" Treat it like any other sin. When we teach chastity, the question is never "How far can I go before it's wrong?" it's "How can I maintain Christian charity in this relationship?" The Church teaches that we must not compromise charity in interrogation. Therefore, the question we must ask is not "How far can I go before it's wrong?" but rather "How can I maintain Christian charity in this interrogation?"

That said, I do believe there are aggressive interrogation tactics that are not torture. But much of what we look at and ask "Quid est cruciamentum?" is in fact torture. We just refuse to see if in our pursuit of justice (noble, but sometimes misguided).

Edited January 4, 2007 by Paladin

[White Knight]

[quote name='Paladin' post='1155376' date='Jan 3 2007, 05:27 PM']
I suppose FBI memos are "not to be trusted" as well?

I agree that most media has a liberal bias, but there's a difference between leaning in a direction and outright making stuff up.
[/quote]


And the Liberal Media has done both in the past. so ya gotta be very careful, CBS fired many journalists for spreading slander about President Bush's Military Career. Dan Rather also left CBS.

Also the Government as been known to give out fasle information in the past to protect it from getting into the hands of the enemy, rather foreign or domestic.

Edited January 4, 2007 by White Knight