Torture

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1409838' date='Oct 26 2007, 04:46 PM']What is moral violence?[/quote]

well, i thought that might be something like forcing a prisoner to do something against his/her beliefs, etc. such as forcing one prisoner to kill another, concious of it at the time or not.

some of what people deem torture i believe is neccessary (not maiming and all that, but like sleep deprivation, good cop bad cop, etc)

i also believe that some information simply cannot be extracted without old fashioned physical torture, but this does not in anyway condone its use. so what if the information saves a few peoples lives, if in order to get it you had to subject another human being to extended horrendous pain and eventual death.

[S][N]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1410401' date='Oct 28 2007, 12:02 AM']Care to share with us what interrogation techniques you [i]do[/i] support?[/quote]

I don't support torture in any way, shape or form. And please don't use this "Interrogation techniques" as a description for torture. Torture is torture, pretty little words don't cover it up.

Again I repeat. I DO NOT SUPPORT ANY FORM OF TORTURE, PHYSICAL or MENTAL.

To torture another human being to such an extend that they would agree to anything, and/or want to die from the pain caused to them, is a disgusting, immoral, sadistic act.

Ask yourselves this as I do myself before taking a position on any political grounding, "Could I do it myself?"

- Could I kill a man?
- Could I bring pain upon another human being?

[matthew1618]

[quote name='S][N' post='1410568' date='Oct 28 2007, 09:33 AM']
Again I repeat. I DO NOT SUPPORT ANY FORM OF TORTURE, PHYSICAL or MENTAL.[/quote]

I agree.

Edited October 28, 2007 by matthew1618

[cmotherofpirl]

Again you need to define what torture is.
Is it an action torture because it is something that can harm anyone if applied? Or is an action still torture when you know its something that would affect one person adversely because of their particular psych makeup, but not really affect the rest of us?
For example, dangling someone from a bridge and threatening to drop them can be construed as torture. But for some people who have a terror of heights, simply dropping them off on a bridge or driving along a road with a steep dropoff will induce absolute panic.

[MIKolbe]

The infliction of physically founded suffering or the threat immediately to inflict it, where such infliction or threat is intended to elicit, or such infliction is incidental to means adopted to elicit, matter of intelligence or forensic proof and the motive is one of military, civil, or ecclesiastical interest.

but do we really really need a definition? Or do we need to treat people like...people?

Edited October 28, 2007 by MIkolbe

[Autumn Dusk]

by your definition then St. Patric tortured the pagans when he choped down the tree they worshiped...give me a break!

[CatherineM]

Both my dad and his brother were POW's in WWII. My uncle came home with a deformed hand because it had been repeatedly broken and rebroken. My dad came home without most of his teeth, and had nightmares for the rest of his life. When I tried to ask him about what had happened, he made me watch the movie "The Rack" with Paul Newman and Lee Marvin. Both played Korean War Vets, both captains with silver and bronze stars, and both had been POW's at the same camp. The difference was that Marvin was physically tortured and Newman had been psychologically tortured. Newman broke and became a collaborator, Marvin didn't. When they had been released, Marvin had turned Newman into the Army. At the end of the movie/court marshal, Newman said that the night before the verdict, Marvin had come to see him. After hearing Newman's testimony, he understood better, and the men reconciled. He said at the end, that everyone comes to a fork in the road. If they choose the right path, it is a moment of Glory. If they choose the wrong path, it is a lifetime of regret.

In choosing to torture, I think we take that wrong path. There were times when people persecuting the church would give someone like a bishop or priest a choice. To deny the faith, or they would start killing their other captives, one at a time. That's torture. If I am ever one of those people who might die unless someone is tortured for information, I hope that my death will show that we can choose the right path. We can choose what is easy, or what is right, ofttimes those are different paths. What good is it to save our lives if we lose our souls? When a country tortures, it can also lose its soul and its way.

[Autumn Dusk]

Despite your heartbreaking story, I think torture is sometimes necessary.
Some criminials are brainwashed to begin with. Their mental toture began long before we ever got to them.
It's not a matter of do unto others, its a matter of the value you place on information and thought.
In the narrow view torture can be viewd as almost anything...making someone sleep on a hard mattress or defyling a Koran in front of a Moslem? In the wide view torture can negate physical, mental even sexual violence (weither that be through scandal or actions). In the wider view its obvously wrong and a power play/bully thing.

When contries are at war and people are dying over sensless things just because you wouldn't want to be tortured dosn't mean thats not the way to go about things. Yes, each human life is a value and people shouldn't go about committing extortion, but if people's lives are on the line and a bop on the head can get it out of the guy or lying and telling him his villiage burned down, than do it!

[Norseman82]

Normally, I would say no, but I might look the other way if it was necessary to find a nuclear weapon or other WMD and preventing it from going off in a major metropoloitan area (and could be done in a non-lethal manner). In this case, the cathechism reference does not appear to apply, because:

1) It is not about extracting a confession, punishing the guilty, or hatred, but rather about finding out critical life saving information.

2) If lives and public safety are endangered, then it might be necessary for public order.

The only question is what is the most reliable way of getting this information?

Edited October 28, 2007 by Norseman82

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1410596' date='Oct 28 2007, 08:54 AM']by your definition then St. Patric tortured the pagans when he choped down the tree they worshiped...give me a break![/quote]
The definition is from Black's Law Dictionary.

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1410693' date='Oct 28 2007, 04:13 PM']The definition is from Black's Law Dictionary.
[/quote]


I don't care where its from, I'm just saying that some of it is wrong in my eyes and that by its definition that one of Catholocism's greatest saints (or most known in the very least) would be defined as a torturer.

[MIKolbe]

i guess i disagree with your assesment that torture is *sometimes* ok, or *sometimes* acceptable.

I think it never is.

I think you cannot do evil so good may come from it.

I think trying to crawl right next to torture without crossing the line is the wrong way to look at it. I think we should start with the sacredness of the person...even the enemy..even if the enemy is evil.

I think we are on the verge of becoming the very beast we claim to hate when we start to torture or become torture apologists.

Don't get me wrong.. there is a part of me that would love to put their collective heads in a vice and squeeze until i hear some popping... but then what have i become? How can i do that, yet claim to follow my Saviour who commands me to love my enemy?

Will we win the war to lose our souls??????

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1410707' date='Oct 28 2007, 04:42 PM']i guess i disagree with your assesment that torture is *sometimes* ok, or *sometimes* acceptable.

I think it never is.

I think you cannot do evil so good may come from it.

I think trying to crawl right next to torture without crossing the line is the wrong way to look at it. I think we should start with the sacredness of the person...even the enemy..even if the enemy is evil.

I think we are on the verge of becoming the very beast we claim to hate when we start to torture or become torture apologists.

Don't get me wrong.. there is a part of me that would love to put their collective heads in a vice and squeeze until i hear some popping... but then what have i become? How can i do that, yet claim to follow my Saviour who commands me to love my enemy?

Will we win the war to lose our souls??????[/quote]


Sometimes it isn't about winning the war but saving lives. Technicaly by revaling the sucidide bomber and arresting him you've also saved your enimie's life.

There are very bad thigns that can happen to a person. Most of the bad things that happen in the world happen in homes and streets, not interragotiaon booths

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1410708' date='Oct 28 2007, 01:44 PM']Sometimes it isn't about winning the war but saving lives. Technicaly by revaling the sucidide bomber and arresting him you've also saved your enimie's life.

There are very bad thigns that can happen to a person. Most of the bad things that happen in the world happen in homes and streets, not interragotiaon booths[/quote]

How much evil is *ok* to save 10 lives?

Is more evil *ok* to save 1,000,000?

and who is the arbitor (sp?) of how much evil is *ok*???

[Norseman82]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1410707' date='Oct 28 2007, 03:42 PM']Don't get me wrong.. there is a part of me that would love to put their collective heads in a vice and squeeze until i hear some popping...[/quote]

Well, in such a case you obviously would defeat the purpose if the guy can no longer provide information.

But if we are talking about using "truth serum" type drugs, I see no problem with it.

Edited October 28, 2007 by Norseman82