ardillacid Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 [quote]Water-boarding: prisoner bound, with cellophane wrapped round his head. Water is poured onto his face and is said to produce a fear of drowning Cold cell: prisoner made to stand naked in a cold, though not freezing, cell and doused with water Standing: Prisoners stand for 40 hours and more, shackled to the floor Belly slap: a hard slap to the stomach with an open hand. This is designed to be painful but not to cause injury[/quote] From the BBC Do you think any of these are permissible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I can't say I like the ideas, but they are a far cry from what they did to my dad in WWII. I don't like the idea of torturing someone just to see if they know something. If you are dealing with a kidnapper or child molester, and you are trying to find a child before they die, I'd say yes. If we pick up someone that we have evidence that they are involved in a terrorist act that hasn't happened yet, maybe so too. Just for a fishing expedition, I don't think we should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txdinghysailor Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 the water boarding thing isn't bad because it's not causing any harm to the prisoner. It's just mental anguish, which is what these guys deserve. Cold cell is fine. standing is definitely permissible. i don't think you're going to cause anyone long term physical ailments by making them stand up. and the belly slap is absolutely permissible! I mean I do that to my buddies all the time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I'm somewhat leery, obviously, but most of all about the standing one. Standing for prolonged periods of time... can't it potentially be dangerous, if done to excess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) [quote name='notardillacid' post='1795530' date='Mar 2 2009, 06:09 PM']From the BBC Do you think any of these are permissible?[/quote] No Edited March 3, 2009 by MIkolbe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 If its not something you would want done to your mother, sister or child you don't don't touch them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 The Jack Bauer in me says "yes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 CCC: 2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 [quote name='MIkolbe' post='1796244' date='Mar 3 2009, 12:13 PM']CCC: 2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.[/quote] Hm, what does the rest of the text say? "Prisoners" as in prisoners of war, or actual inmates? (I assume prisoners of war though, within the context.) I understand that even our enemies (like the most heinous of criminals) deserve to be treated humanely, but if known terrorist is captured, and there is beyond a reasonable doubt that this terrorist has information regarding an impending terrorist attack against our country that would take away three thousand innocent lives, and clearly this terrorist is well trained and will not budge at all to verbal demands, we are supposed to "sit back" and let the attack happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishSalesian Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1796253' date='Mar 3 2009, 01:32 PM']I understand that even our enemies (like the most heinous of criminals) deserve to be treated humanely, but if known terrorist is captured, and there is beyond a reasonable doubt that this terrorist has information regarding an impending terrorist attack against our country that would take away three thousand innocent lives, and clearly this terrorist is well trained and will not budge at all to verbal demands, we are supposed to "sit back" and let the attack happen?[/quote] No. However we cannot torture a person. One cannot preform an evil act in order to attain good. Doesn't matter what example you give you cannot torture someone. No evil act could be permitted to attain the greater good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 [quote name='CatherineM' post='1795559' date='Mar 2 2009, 09:29 PM']I can't say I like the ideas, but they are a far cry from what they did to my dad in WWII. I don't like the idea of torturing someone just to see if they know something. If you are dealing with a kidnapper or child molester, and you are trying to find a child before they die, I'd say yes. If we pick up someone that we have evidence that they are involved in a terrorist act that hasn't happened yet, maybe so too. Just for a fishing expedition, I don't think we should.[/quote] as always catherineM is the voice of reason. i'm surprised hischild, etc, is supportive of those methods. i always thought she etc was adamentaly opposed to it all. i'd argue if it's questionable whether it's torture, then in the less certain situations, go ahead and do it. eg, bin laden's driver is in captivity and we think he knows stuff but won't tell (real life example, really happened), go ahead and water board em. but don't do things that amount to torture. save real torture for those cases where they admit it, or it's 99%ish sure and the gravity of the harm is high. but then, i'm a proportionalist/consequentialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 [quote name='IrishSalesian' post='1796254' date='Mar 3 2009, 12:36 PM']No. However we cannot torture a person. One cannot preform an evil act in order to attain good. Doesn't matter what example you give you cannot torture someone. No evil act could be permitted to attain the greater good.[/quote] Do you believe these methods to be under the definition of torture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1796255' date='Mar 3 2009, 12:38 PM']i'm surprised hischild, etc, is supportive of those methods. i always thought she etc was adamentaly opposed to it all.[/quote] Where the heck did you get this idea? I have actually never been involved in a discussion/debate on torture, although I have been involved in discussion/debate on the death penalty, which I am not opposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishSalesian Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 [quote name='notardillacid' post='1796257' date='Mar 3 2009, 01:39 PM']Do you believe these methods to be under the definition of torture?[/quote] Yes, I do believe that these are torture. You are degrading human life. Treating the person as less than human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1796243' date='Mar 3 2009, 01:13 PM']The Jack Bauer in me says "yes."[/quote] The Jack Bauer in me says the same thing, but the Church has overruled him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now