I find it interesting that the people who go to church the most often are the ones, according to this poll, who tend to take a more morally ambivalent approach to torture. There isn't any way to prove why that actually is, but I suspect that part of the blame is the way that a lot of evangelical churches teach an authority-free church doctrine which turns grace and mercy, and the spirit versus letter of the law into a license to do evil that good may come of it. Surely, if Jesus broke the Sabbath to save a man's life, what's a little waterboarding of a possibly innocent person to extract information about an attack that may not even be coming?
I can't say that torture can never be justified, but I can say firmly that a Christian can almost never support it, and that that is not a matter of freedom of belief. It goes without saying that a casual policy of torture, wherein it is used to stop any attack, no matter how minor, is a disgusting assault on the commandment to love one's neighbor and to honor the fact that they were created in the image of God.
Of course, the spirit-of-the-law sword cuts both ways. It grants us liberty on the one hand, but shackles us in others. It frees us from worrying about asinine things like what really is work on the Sabbath, but it also commands us to follow through with moral commands on a higher level as was the case when Jesus said that lustful thoughts were tantamount to adultery in God's eyes. So really, the spirit of the law provides us with precious little liberty here to say "well, if the ends justify the means" as a torturer is still guilty of a grievous sin and their only hope is to penitently throw themselves at the mercy of God, knowing full well that the outcome cannot negate the means that acquired it.
As is often the case, extreme examples serve to bring issues like this into focus, and John Yoo provided one when he talked about crushing the testicles of the child of a suspect. In its true, pure form, this is how vile and satanic torture is, and how it lives and dies by the equally satanic moral code "if the ends justify the means." If it takes the destruction of a child's body to save 1000 lives, "is it not worth it?" We are not in God's position, so we cannot know if it is possible for the saving of those lives to be worth it. However, we need not ask God whether or not the act visited upon the child is a grievous sin, the sort which bring's the torturer's soul perilously close to the Lake of Fire because by instinct all Christians know what sort of sin-nature it would take to do such a thing.
The common, extreme argument used to justify torture is the "24" type scenario in which a Jack Bauer type has to do something incredibly evil to an enemy agent to save a city from an attack that could destroy it or at least kill tens of thousands. The improbability of this fortunate event, namely a brilliant, effective interrogator/torturer finding the right guy at the right time, aside, it ignores a fundamental facet of faith. It trusts more in the torturer's hands and tools than in God's faithfulness. It is the same sort of practical faithlessness that made Saul perform his own sacrifices rather than waiting for Samuel to bless his army in the name of the Lord.
(As an aside, making people uncomfortable is no the same thing as torture. Denying them food for days or making them hot or cold (extremes aside) is not torture. However, things like waterboarding have traditionally been regarded in the West as torture. From the time of the Spanish Inquisition, to various military tribunals where our own military has prosecuted waterboarders as torturers, that sort of thing has not been in doubt.)
Mike, this is completely off-topic, but I request your expertise. Reading this story got me thinking about ways to spoof an IP. Would you mind going into detail about the various ways of doing it? I know it can be done when a wireless router is involved, but I don't know much about it otherwise.
I'm not planning on doing it, of course, just curious.
I don't know much about spoofing, but this seems like a good introduction. WRT wireless routers, you can change your MAC address to that of someone who was previously on the wireless network. That would require changing some information either in the driver or in the firmware of the NIC, but it can be done without too much hassle. However, that's not enough in most cases as you would still need a wireless key for many networks.
The real issue in that case was the failure of the FBI to show due diligence in looking at the family's alibi. Not only did they not take the timestamp/time zone issue into account, but they showed absolutely no regard initially for the alibi (nor did they actually interview many of the witnesses which they have a responsibility to do).
In short, this is yet another story about Fascist pigs with badges taking short cuts because they're too lazy to do proper police work.
Thanks, man.
Seems to ba a little in doubt now.
I am in complete agreement with you that religious people's actions and their beliefs should be consistent. I have, however long ago give up expecting women and libersla tobe consistent in word and deed.
I don't think it's so much in doubt as there is a faction willing to go great lengths to legitimate it. Not unlike how the Church of England got its start as the church willing to let Henry VIII have sex with his girlfriend...speaking for myself, I do not wish to legitimize it, it simply isn't torture. If it were, people wouldn't be volunteering to have it done to themselves to prove how aweful it is.
By that logic, two girls and a cup isn't nasty and vile because there are women who have no problem doing what goes on in two girls and a cup...
(Disclaimer: the only knowledge I have two girls and cup comes from Wikipedia. The name alone suggested to me, when I first saw it become an Internet meme on sites like Digg and Slashdot, that it was something that I had better look up on Wikipedia and Wikipedia only)
Mike, after your comment on my most recent post "A little Aussie Humour" I decided to remove that post. Your comment made me realise that the post was actually a joke in pretty poor taste and so I decided to get rid of it.
Hehe good call, Morris. It's hard to not laugh at the thought of a terrorist (a real one, like Bin Laden) getting his nuts zapped, but we both know what's most likely to happen.
As I said about torture, the problem is, you get the wrong person, then you've just done so really sick stuff to an innocent person. There is no "hey dude, ends justified the means... here's a dime, go call someone who cares." Justice demands the shedding of the blood of those who torture the innocent, even if they did it in good faith.
I have no idea what two girls and a cup is. This is the first time anyone has referenced it.
***googling***
Oh my. Yet your argument fails because the actors, and producers do not claim it isn't nasty. Quite the opposite, they are selling the nastiness because of its nastiness. We need a new word to describe how nasty that is. From the Wiki entry, it seems that your example is one where there is universal agreement that the content IS indeed nasty.
Our basic problem is in the definition of words. Specifically the definition of "torture". Laws can define it but laws change from time to time. Last year, the law didn't define waterboarding as torture, this year it is. Under such flexible standards, who can say what it will be next year? Just as "cruel and unusual" used to exclude all kinds of behavors like firing squads, slavery, flogging, etc and is now used to argue against any form of death penalty. We have this problem because of 50 years of liberalism twisting words to suit their occasion. Even though they have won all branches of the government, they still cannot stop trying to embarass the previous administration.
I am unequivocably against torture. Waterboarding is not torture. If you wish to insist it is, You have every right to use words as you see fit (for now). But the precise use of language used to be what separated the intelligencia from the mob. Which group do you aspire to be in?
I consider it to be a form of torture in part because Western civilization from about 1470-1700 something (Spanish Inquisiton) considered it a form of torture and that is from a time when liberalism barely existed at all. Not to mention the fact that our own military has prosecuted waterboarders as torturers. My calling it torture has nothing to do with the left, and everything to do with the Western view of the last ~500 years that waterboarding is a form of torture.
BTW,
I disapprove of your example above, forcing me to learn of a fringe perversion that I would rather have remained ignorant. It is a disturbing image and you should not spread it around.
Sorry. Unlike most people, I am pretty good at suppressing mental images. I learned that as a defense mechanism against people who thought it was funny to try to give people in our major a mental image of certain professors wearing thongs.
One case in 130 years is not a policy or a law. The prosecution was for cruelty (something that was against the law), not torture or waterboarding (something that was not against the law) and the record is insufficient to tell if there were other incidents to qualify the cruelty. The other officer present was accused of mass murder and got off as "over enthusiasm".
Again. Words. Language changes in 500 years. So do translations from Latin, and Spanish into common English. They also used the word, "Examine" as a euphamism for torture. Nor have I seen any policy memos by the Roman church defining waterboarding as torture. I will concede they used it. They also used feeding, bathing, sheltering, treating wounds and releasing prisoners, none of which are considered torture today. Flogging was not considered torture, or cruel or unusual as late as 1952 in Delaware and is still practiced in many countries today to chastise youths instead of imprisonment.
I would certainly not volunteer to be flogged, just for the experience. I would consent to being waterboarded. I do like to test things and not depend overmuch on other people's word for it.
It was commonly used under the papal bull ad exstirpanda.
Again, I think there is no accounting for stupidity when you cite Sean Hannity's willingness to be waterboarded as evidence that it isn't torture. If he gets waterboarded, then I'd like to see it be done by someone with the moral disposition of a Syrian torturer so we know that he's getting the full, real deal.
I think waterboarding will become the "must do" event for extreem thrill seekers this year. The only thing holding it back is skilled practitioners advertizing in the Yellow pages. They probably fear liability so this will never become a "legal" business opportunity. I suspect this is already going on underground in some macho communities as a party event.
The problem with volunteeing for waterboarding is that the volunteers know that their torturer is not going to let let them die. It will be in a controlled environment with medics etc. It will be a safe happy way for the volunteer to pretend to be a bad-a$$.
Do this instead: hook they guy up, then bring out a convicted criminal to do the waterboarding and tell the criminal that years will be taken off their sentence for the number of times they get the volunteer near death and for the number of confessions the volunteer makes. Also tell them that there will be no penalty if they accidently kill the volunteer.
Then proceed with the torture and not stop until the volunteer confesses to killing Abraham Lincoln and being Osama bin Laden.
That last bit is key - the purpose of torture is to get the victim to say stuff that is useful to the tortures (it doesn't have to be truthful).
That certainly is a key part of the problem with using Sean Hannity as an example. There is no way in hell that the guy is going to be treated like KSM or any other serious detainee. I would like to see someone who is the spittin image of Tomas de Torquemada do La Toca (the Spanish Inquisition's version of waterboarding) on him until Hannity confesses to being a Muslim traitor trying to evade the attention of the secular authorities.