Is torture ok?

[DanieltheDragon]

With recent events revealing the depth and aspect of torture carried out by the United States, it had me ponder if torture was ok within scripture.

Sure we can find instances of god ordering the deaths of women children fetuses etc, but generally speaking god either tortures people himself (the plagues for example or has his people just straight up kill) He never as far as I can tell actually orders people to torture.

Sure we can say hell is a torture but it isn't god commanding people to be tortured its a special place to torture those who don't go to heaven.

Job sure gets tortured but again its not people torturing Job.

So the question is how can Christians support the torture of other people in general.

We see it in the middle ages with Bloddy Mary and even Queen Elizabeth. We see it with the spanish inquisition. We see it during the witch trails and we see it now.

How do Christians justify torture?

Is it because the bible largely is just absent about this. After all there is no command against torture which leads me to ask

Is torture a sin?

So my questions for debate are the following

Is torture ok?

If yes can you support it with scripture

If no can you use scripture to support your case

Is torture a sin?

ditto to the above sub questions

I would argue in the affirmative.

The bible does not rule out torture and never speaks out against it specifically
Torture is not a sin and the bible makes no reference to any aspect of torture as a sin.

[Donray]

God believes torture is fine and he uses it ever day. God created hell for the specific use torture for those that don't bow down and worship him.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 9 by bluethread]

We are voluntarily here on this forum we can leave whenever we want to a detainee cannot leave. There is no choice in what they are subjected to. I think the line should be drawn at causing pain and harm.

Let's take the selling loosies example instead of killing a man why not just have a law where the officer can just issue a citation. After all its about lost tax revenues right(well technically since these cigarettes were already bought once the government already collected the taxes so its a double tax issue here) There is no sense in arresting someone and subjecting them to our prison system over a few loose cigarettes. But lets examine when force is necessary lets say someone is resisting arrest inflicting pain might be necessary to subdue the individual(thats fine I understand that)

Excuse me for dividing up the post, but this is an important case. I agree with your point. Deblasio creates a black market by putting a confiscatory tax on cigarettes, then, when the Police, who work for him, attempt to enforce his law, he throws them under the bus. This is not a matter of torture, but misuse of the police force by Deblasio.

We are not talking about individuals that need to be subdued though we are already talking about people who are subdued. At the point in which an individual has already be subdued causing pain crosses a line. Our CIA did just fine before without torture we caught Bin Laden without torture. We were warned about 9/11 without torture the memos were sent to the president who simply ignored them. It was not until after the war on terror did we start torturing people.

I say we should use discretion with psychological harm but when you start actually physically causing harm that should immediately be off limits. These are not extreme examples though this was COMMON practice in terms of interrogating detainees. I can't find one example where we acted as humans.

So, what specifically are you talking about. You just throw around the word "torture" as causing physical harm. Are you saying that we should not making someone uncomfortable? Is that torture? By the way, waterboarding does no physical harm, it merely triggers involuntary responses. It is a psychological interigation technique.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 12 by bluethread]

Have you been waterboarded?

I can't believe we are seriously arguing whether or not waterboarding is torture.

Waterboarding is a form of torture, more specifically a type of water torture, in which water is poured over a cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death.[1] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.

The risk of death comes from the gag reflex. Waterboarding immediately triggers the gag reflex which causes vomit to come up the throat which when inhaled causes a high risk for sudden death due to the aspiration of the vomit into the lungs.

It was classified as torture in the United States even with the introduction of the EIT. They simply did it overseas out of reach of US law. Subsequently The Bush administration reclassified it.


Aside from the physical harm the psychological trauma is very severe. There is a video of Christopher Hitchens being water-boarded if you want to see that he lasts roughly 5 seconds.

Waterboarding is incredibly dangerous and there are risks even with trained professionals. I would suggest you submit yourself to be waterboarded and get back to me on whether or not it is torture.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 12 by bluethread]

Have you been waterboarded?

I can't believe we are seriously arguing whether or not waterboarding is torture.

Waterboarding is a form of torture, more specifically a type of water torture, in which water is poured over a cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death.[1] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.

The risk of death comes from the gag reflex. Waterboarding immediately triggers the gag reflex which causes vomit to come up the throat which when inhaled causes a high risk for sudden death due to the aspiration of the vomit into the lungs.

It was classified as torture in the United States even with the introduction of the EIT. They simply did it overseas out of reach of US law. Subsequently The Bush administration reclassified it.


Aside from the physical harm the psychological trauma is very severe. There is a video of Christopher Hitchens being water-boarded if you want to see that he lasts roughly 5 seconds.

Waterboarding is incredibly dangerous and there are risks even with trained professionals. I would suggest you submit yourself to be waterboarded and get back to me on whether or not it is torture.

That Wikipedia reference is based on advocacy organizations and commentators. It may be their assessment that it is torture, but that is up to debate. Regarding your saying that I really can't comment if I haven't been water boarded, if that is the case, how can many who oppose it, who have not undergone the technique, comment? There are many who have undergone the technique who do not see it as torture. Human rights watch also sees extreme temperatures, forced standing, binding in stress positions, and severe sleep deprivation, as torture. What is interesting is that the man who supervised the few times that water boarding was used was the one who voiced concern about it's use, but considered the circumstances to warranted it and does not consider it torture. Also, many things can lead to injury or death, but that does not mean that they have to.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 14 by bluethread]

You do realize that our country has sought the death penalty for people using waterboarding before right? It was considered torture until we started doing it. To me that seems prettttty hypocritical. Apparently as long as we are doing it its not torture....

I think we need to stop playing word games here. Why not call a spade a spade. If you are pro torture fine just admit it. No sense in denying what it is. If you support torture why not just come out in say it.

This whole well its not technically torture thing is just a semantics word game that torture advocates play, because its not politically correct or culturally acceptable to admit that you are pro-torture.

I look at waterboarding and this is what I say

Forced submission to psychological and physical terror. The inducement to make the subject have a fear response related to drown. It is meant to simulate drowning in every conceivable manner. The pathways for air Nasal and through the mouth are smothered in water. If you don't consider that torture then we have a very different definition of what torture is.

When I define torture and when most of the world defines torture waterboarding is right up there.

When you watch waterboarding videos people can tap out at any time and the people submitting individuals are trying to be as easy as possible on them. When we did this to detainees there is no tap out there is not safe word they just do it and do it and do it over and over and over again. Now imagine if you are one of these detainees and you don't have the information they want. What do you do then?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 15 by DanieltheDragon]

Here I will make an offer only because I think you are a smart enough person that you can figure things out on your own. I will pay or hire for you a trained professional who is capable of waterboarding in your area.

If you are willing and have the free time necessary, I will take care of all the finances regarding it. Provided that we get a recording for posterity.

Secondly if you live close enough to the charlotte area I would be willing to undergo it with you.

What do you say?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 14 by bluethread]

You do realize that our country has sought the death penalty for people using waterboarding before right? It was considered torture until we started doing it. To me that seems prettttty hypocritical. Apparently as long as we are doing it its not torture....

I am not here to defend everything the country I live in has done. Are you ready to defend everything the country you live in has done? I personally think that the whole idea of war crimes is silly. In order to be able to determine what is and is not a crime one must first win the war. What I think is prettty hypocritical is for people to demand that they be protected, then, after the fact, sit in judgment on those who protected them. Sorry, my mistake, that is being an ingrate.

I think we need to stop playing word games here. Why not call a spade a spade. If you are pro torture fine just admit it. No sense in denying what it is. If you support torture why not just come out in say it.


This whole well its not technically torture thing is just a semantics word game that torture advocates play, because its not politically correct or culturally acceptable to admit that you are pro-torture.

It would not be true. I do not believe in cutting off limbs, evisceration and other such things that are considered torture. If one is going to discuss methods and tactics, calling a spade a spade, IS discussing what torture is technically. The whole, it is torture, because that is what one chooses to call it, in the security of a protected society, thing is just an attempt to impose political correctness on those who are tasked with providing that protection.

I look at waterboarding and this is what I say

Forced submission to psychological and physical terror. The inducement to make the subject have a fear response related to drown. It is meant to simulate drowning in every conceivable manner. The pathways for air Nasal and through the mouth are smothered in water. If you don't consider that torture then we have a very different definition of what torture is.

When I define torture and when most of the world defines torture waterboarding is right up there.

When you watch waterboarding videos people can tap out at any time and the people submitting individuals are trying to be as easy as possible on them. When we did this to detainees there is no tap out there is not safe word they just do it and do it and do it over and over and over again. Now imagine if you are one of these detainees and you don't have the information they want. What do you do then?

You do realize that the free world is not the majority, don't you? In most of the world, water boarding, as we practice it, is patty cake. In fact, KSM, knowing that we could not do it for anything but short durations, just counted it out. That is what the man who reluctantly performed the procedure said last night on the Kelly File.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]

It is not about political correctness the only ones trying to put political correctness on it is the ones torturing.

Fine we have established your cut off point(pun intended, sorry I just couldn't resist) is severing limbs great. However, the definition of torture is not limited to limb hacking. Everything leading up to the severing of limbs including forcibly sodomizing people is still torture your just ok with and support some forms of torture over others

What I think is prettty hypocritical is for people to demand that they be protected, then, after the fact, sit in judgment on those who protected them. Sorry, my mistake, that is being an ingrate.

Did I ask nay, did I demand to be protected? I am a vehemently against this war on terror. I would rather that 81,000,000 dollars we paid 2 psychologists to develop torture techniques to go to the families of the 9/11 responders(some of whom we are letting suffer from the carcinogens they breathed in while responding to the attack). Does this torture actually protect anyone? The CIA doesn't know that so how can you be so sure.

John Brennan "These techniques made it harder to pursue our interests with allies and partners" "I have experienced this first hand"

He went on to say that his agency is unsure if these techniques contributed to gaining intelligence of value.

John Brennan is the director of the CIA. He of course would not condemn the techniques, but he couldn't even say they contributed to our defense in any meaningful way.

I am not asking you to defend these techniques you are volunteering it. For a brief window in our history and only under the bush administration were these techniques considered not torture.

I am not asking for the ones who committed the torture to be punished, I am simply pointing out that those who ordered the torture to be held accountable. The grunt in the field doing what his superiors commanded under the guise of national security are just tools used by the sick and sub-human. I would no more blame them for these horrific atrocities than I would blame the individuals caught up in the Milgrim Experiments. The fault lies in the minds of those that would have us believe raping men and torturing individuals is in the name of national security.

If you believe that it actually helped us were is the evidence? Can you point to a single instance where us torturing people saved lives?

[perfessor]

I am strongly opposed to torture. But limb-ripping and evisceration are merely enhanced interrogation techniques, not torture. Limb-ripping is fine, as long as we are reasonably suspicious that the suspect has knowledge of impending shoplifting or other serious crimes.

Seriously - c'mon, bluethread, you can't just define away techniques that are widely regarded as torture, and say that that makes them OK. It seems quite anti-American to me. But then, I'm an American, so p[erhaps my viewpoint is skewed.