Torture is an unacceptable option for a civilization nation regardless of the circumstance or consequence. It would be simply morally reprehensible to engage in such conduct. To even contemplate legalizing the practice is beyond the realm of legitimate public discourse, and I am shocked that we are even having a public debate on the subject. Enacting any law to this effect is beneath the dignity of the American people, or in fact, the human race.
Now I'm going to go for a little walk. For about an hour. Make that precisely one hour. It's going to be a long walk far away from this room. So you'll be alone with this guy who says that there's a ticking nuke hidden somewhere in NYC. Talk to him for a while and encourage him to direct us to its location. Watch out for any sudden moves that he might make, because I wouldn't be surprised if he likes to shock his own testicles with electrodes or burn himself with a hot knife.
If you need me, I'll be at Starbucks.
UPDATE: Horrendous mispelling corrected.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
John, How can we enact such a law when we can't even agree what torture is? Heck some people call it torture if you make someone stand in one place to long. Maybe I should call a human rights commission on my boss.
Maybe they should use the fluffy pillows?
Nobody can resist the Spainish Inquisition!!!
Parbar, I would say that it is. There are, on rare occasions, horrible things that one must do. They must be done quietly and without anything remotely resembling moral approval. The senarios must be so extreme and unusual that they call for responses beyond normal moral standards. Why? Well, we want a civilization worth defending.
Bob, I recall that one of the 'torture' techniques that had the Dhimmi Left up and arms was a female interrogator giving a lapdance (thanks to Gavin for showing me what that word means) to a prisoner at Gitmo. I can't imagine how that constitutes torture, or even anything unpleasant. Another was an incident in which a female interrogator used a red magic marker to mark up the crotch of her panties, which she told the prisoner was menstrual fluid. She then put the panties on his head. I approve of anything which attacks or makes us of the Islamic world's brutal misogyny.
Stephen, don't make me say "Nee!" on you.
I understand that there are horrible times when you must do what you must do. Then, you shut up about it, swallow your moral conflicts and work it out with God. You don't make it the foundation of policy.
Well put.
"I recall that one of the 'torture' techniques that had the Dhimmi Left up and arms was a female interrogator giving a lapdance (thanks to Gavin for showing me what that word means) to a prisoner at Gitmo. I can't imagine how that constitutes torture, or even anything unpleasant. Another was an incident in which a female interrogator used a red magic marker to mark up the crotch of her panties, which she told the prisoner was menstrual fluid. She then put the panties on his head."
Such a level of cultural ignorance is amazing!!! I do not agree with the Islamic view of the place of women, and would not support it in anyway but this is just a stupid comment! Just because you do not understand why a particualr psychological torture is effective doesn't mean it isn't! I am quite happy to eat Pork, but I can understand that to force a Jew to might be considered torture... I know it is quite a sophisticated thing to do to walk a mile in someone elses shoes... torture is all about de-humanising someone, something we westerners are extremely good at... whether it is through empire building, racism, prejudice, cultural facism or simple arrogance.
Yeah, torture is about dehumanizing people -- sort of like what Islam does to women.
Cry me a river, Mohammed. I have no sympathy for anyone who treats women as savagely as Muslims do.
I agree with you about dehumanising women, if you had read my comment you would have seen that, however... Hussein did NOT enforce shariah law, if that is the excuse for war why is Bush not invading Suadi? The point I am making (and by the way I am not a Muslim as you seem to think, but a Christian Minister) is about torture and you seemed unable to understand what was offensive and demoralising about being forced to sit and watch a stripper or to be paraded naked etc. I could equally say I have no sympathy for anyone who supports a country that has (and still does) treat people from African descent as bad as America does! Try taking the tree trunk out of your own eye, you might see the world a bit clearer!
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, six of one and half a dozen of the other. Either one would have been fine with me.
Now, onto defining torture. I think that 'cultural insensitivity' would entail a far too generous definition of torture. Cutting people, smacking them around, shoving reeds under their fingernails -- this is torture. Placing a pair of panties on a man's head does him no physical harm. No I have no problem with an interrogator doing this to a suspected terrorist.
As for Black Americans -- the way they are treated in America bears absolutely no resemblance to the way women are brutalized in the Islamic world. For example, Blacks can go to school, drive, vote, inherit property, be elected to public office, and sue in court. Women cannot.
Blacks couldn't do these things a century ago. Or even a few decades ago in some places. But we aren't living in those times and therefore cannot retroactively undo those wrongs. We can, however help shape a better culture for women in the Islamic world.
Or would you prefer that Muslim women retain their lowly status?
No of course not, however Women did all of these things (apart from vote in a free and fair election) in Iraq, there were women in Husseins cabinet. This was not the reason for going to war in Iraq, nor was terrorism. I would not minimise the effect of psychological torture it has proved just as effective as physical tortue in breaking a persons spirit. Indeed sensory deprivation has been said to be the most effective technique and what about thre infamous Chinese water torture... a dripping tap (or equivalent)
Part of the problem I have is with the word suspected... torture is a short term solution with a long term consequence! The danger is that by torturing someone because intelligence says they may be a terrorist (can we ever trust governement intelligence again after the WMD scandal?) you breed further discontent and new terrorists... is the world really a safer place after what has happened in Iraq... my Government would have us believe that the threat is higher now even though they wont link it with Iraq (it would be political suicide to do that!). Call me a bleeding heart (I'm sure many will ;-) ) but it has to be a serious situation to even consider torture... e.g. a confessed terrorist who has planted a bomb, not a suspect... Though I am not convinced of the accuracy of testimony given to stop torture anyway.
My other point is that we in the west can be extremely arrogant, yes there are things which go in Islamic states I don't agree with, there are in capitalist states too, not to mention China, Zimbabwe etc. But there are ways to impact society without military invasion, see South Africa.
So many issues are tied up in the middle east... Oil, Islamaphobia, territory, Zionism etc. etc. Western governaments have no problem with non-democratic even oppresive regimes, lets not forget that only a few years ago both of our governments sold arms (inc chemicals) to Hussein and to many others.
Sorry long long comment
This may sound odd, given that I think Christians should practice non-violence, but I am with John.
Look, if the government is going to fight a war on Islamic terror, then it must create fear and doubt in the hearts of the terrorists.
If doing things which make them feel unclean and at risk of losing the reward they think they have earned through killing for their faith, so be it! And if that sense of defilement makes them break and talk, then it is worth it.
It is this certitude of faith in jihad which fuels this war. If America can attack that sense of certainty, then America can weaken the resolve of the enemy and win.
Islamic fundamentalism is a cult. These men must be de-programed for their own good and so that they will cease to be a threat to every soul on earth.
Is that view very tolerant on my part?
Perhaps not.
But tolerance has its limits. And jihad will not be stopped by pleading for tolerance.
There are two paths to stop jihad. One is to confront it and defeat it by war and the other is to evangelize the Islamic world.
I will not fault the American government for taking the only path it can, though in good conscience, I cannot do as they do.
Instead, I will tell the Church to take the other path. Muslims are lost and need Christ. And until they find Him, they shall remain lost. Our tolerance does them no good with out commitment to evangelize.
Why was Christ crucified? Because it was the most savage, most inhumane way the Romans could execute someone. Are we to emulate those who killed Christ?
We play a different game. If we play by the rules of the opposition, we will lose.
Post a Comment