A DIFFERING VIEW/Tough interrogation tactics essential to prevail in war
The Rocky Mountain News editorial board once again lambastes the Bush administration for what the Rocky calls “abusive questioning of enemy prisoners” (“The persistence of an outdated policy,” Oct. 7).
Never mind that America is at war. Never mind that gathering intelligence is vital to our national security interests. President Bush’s first priority is to defeat the brutal reign of terror inflicted upon American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yet the Rocky is more concerned about defending the terrorists than the men and women serving our nation in time of war. In short, interrogation of enemy prisoners is essential in tracking terrorists and their sinister plots to destroy our forces.
Nonetheless, the mainstream media will stop at nothing to undermine such efforts, even in time of war. The facts speak for themselves.
Brian Stuckey is a resident of Denver.
This letter, for all its heroic machismo, is too timid to use the word "torture."
Is [torture] of enemy prisoners essential in tracking terrorists and their sinister plots to destroy our forces?
If the letter writer thinks it is, he should just come out and say it.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 01:01 AMok lets put true torture on the table. when we capture a terrorist or even the ones in gitmo from here on out they will need to talk and tell all or they will be placed in a room with pelosi, dingy harry, teddy, and hillary until they do talk. now that is torture.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 06:28 AMTo Anon 01:01 AM - I would like to hear your discription of torture or torture techniques. Having gone through military prisoner of war training (capture/interrogation/camp life) some years ago I have some frame of reference of the issue.
As to your question about torture being esstential - I have no idea what, if anything, is gained by torture. I do think that interrogation of prisoners is esstential and that psychological techniques are very effective. However, not knowing what you think of as torture, I can not determine your frame of reference.
Posted by Frank Discussion on October 19, 2007 07:13 AMIf torture is so essential to win a war, tell me how America prevailed in WWII against more forminable enemies, in less time, without its use?
Considering how the enemy has effectively fought America to a stalemate in both Afghanistan and Iraq, with no end in sight for either conflict, the view that the torture authorized and used by the Administration for the duration of both conflicts (regardless of the public, media or Congressional opinion) is 'essential' to victory is highly dubious.
Given America's lack of success in these conflicts and steady tapering off of international military support, the "facts speak" to a conclusion that the entire American military/political strategy -- which currently relies on torture -- is profoundly ineffective.
What magic does this administration hold over certain Americans that makes them so passionately defend a practice that is both militarily ineffective and morally indefensible? If this is what it means to be a conservative nowadays, the GOP is lost for at least a generation.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 07:15 AMYou do know that you are going to Hell Brian
Posted by on October 19, 2007 07:22 AMI think we should torture draft-dodgers like Bush, Cheney, Owens, BoPeep, Gates, Allard, Tancredo, Lott, Delay, Hastert, Boehner, McConnell, Brownback, Mitt, Rudy, Fred, etc. We are just like Hitler. Bush unleashed crazed Rx drugged troops (PTSD suppressors/mind altering) on Iraqis. When these crazed troops murdered Iraqis, Bush rewarded them with court martials, facing the death penalty. Bush has even unleashed chemical weapons (WILLY PETER) on unsuspecting innocent Iraqi citizens, just like Saddam did.
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on October 19, 2007 07:34 AM... your discription of torture or torture techniques.
For the purposes of commenting on Brian Stuckey's letter, my use of 'torture' is in the context of the RMN editorial he cites. The editorial appeared after the NYT broke a story that the Bush explicitly authorized interrogators to use a "combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures."
Are such tactics merely 'tough interrogation' or 'torture'?
The Geneva Convention (which the Supreme Court in 2006 held applies to Al Qaeda suspects detained by the U.S) prohibits "physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
Many in the current administration considered these tactics torture as well (for full discussion of the internal debate and the memo in question:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html)
In a press conference this past Wednesday, the president couldn't or wouldn't articulate his definition of "torture" deferring instead to the legal definition:
Q:What's your definition of the word torture?
BUSH: That's defined in U.S. law, and we don't torture.
Q: Can you give me your version of it, sir?
BUSH: No. Whatever the law says.
So based on the legal definition of torture (according to the law the Supreme Court says applies to war-on-terror prisoners) the "tough interrogation" techniques defended by Brian Stuckey (a "combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures") are properly classified as 'torture.'
So the question remains, if America thinks torture is so essential to the current war, why don't the advocates simply come out and make the honest case for it, rather than shrouding the issue with benign-sounding words or secret memos.
I wonder if Brian thinks its OK for terrorists to torture our troops? Way to support the troops Brian. Torture is fine so long as you're not being tortured. What a jerk.
Posted by just sayin' on October 19, 2007 08:40 AMWhy would the U.S. give all their interrogation tactics to the enemy? The NY Times is a left-wing failing newspaper that is doing whatever it can to aid and abet the enemy.
They are rooting for the terrorists and then decry our soldiers getting killed.Giving the enemy any information that they can use against our soldiers is getting our soldiers killed.
The NY Times would print top secret missions of the soldiers if they could.
Of course we could let some of the terrorists go and give them the target of the NY Times building,all hush hush. That I would love to see.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 08:44 AM"If torture is so essential to win a war, tell me how America prevailed in WWII against more forminable enemies, in less time, without its use..."
COMMITMENT. Enough troops, enough money. In the 40s the war was not simply to make a profit and garner votes, like it is today.
Posted by Mac on October 19, 2007 08:48 AMBrian, in your letter you state "President Bush's first priority is to defeat the brutal reign of terro inflicted upon American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan."
If this was remotely true, Bush would have finished the job in Afghanistan and stayed the hell out of Iraq. Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism and Iraq had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks on the U.S. While you are entitled to your opinion/s, it is unwise to make up facts to support them.
Will you ever be capapble of thinking for yourself, or will you always depend on the talking points of those who you worship.
Posted by A True American on October 19, 2007 09:11 AMIn 2001 we were told that if we don't go on with our way of life the terrorist win. What has happened is our government let the terrorist win the day they decided to forget our laws do as they wished.
War is suppose to be BAD VERY BAD that is why they should be avoided. Our government has made a deal with those think WAR is just good business. They have tried to take the pain out of our hearts and while keeping their hand in our pockets. Or body counts are down, but the over all cost is way up.
Yes we were attacked in a very cowardly manor. However W and his bunch gave away public opinion and our VALUES when they took us into IRAQ. Now many of you claim that unless we are with Bush we are helping the terrorists. That is PURE BS and you know it. The greatest damage to this country was not done by the terrorists but by BUSH himself the day he decided that our laws don't apply to him unless he agrees with them and they aid in his is cause of granting more power to the president. He proved to the rest of the world that we are indeed becoming just as bad as they are.
You cannot claim "well they do it" or worse because of course they are. They are terrorists! We how ever are not or at least we are not suppose to be. So before you claim BUSH is right why don't you really look at what he has really done. He has not kept us safer as our borders are still wide open. He has lied many times about IRAQ and the suppose WAR on Terror. If we had wanted to defeat IRAQ the WAR would be over. That was never BUSH's purpose. He wanted to expand the war so more of OUR money was in the POOL of funds they could steal from. 9 BILLON comes to mind.
As to torture this country has never done that in my name. To even agree that it is need goes against our LAWS and VALUES.
So if you still support W you are a NOT supporting the United States of America. You are supporting a FASIST PIG! And if you don't like that then change. We need to go back to the real values that made us great. LIKE freedom and liberty fair play standing up for the little guy. Not trying to convince the courts that terrorist do not have the same rights to know the charges against them, face them in court. Or be held as a POW with the rights grant them by treaty.
Posted by bluesone on October 19, 2007 09:16 AMIn 2001 we were told that if we don't go on with our way of life the terrorist win. What has happened is our government let the terrorist win the day they decided to forget our laws do as they wished.
War is suppose to be BAD VERY BAD that is why they should be avoided. Our government has made a deal with those think WAR is just good business. They have tried to take the pain out of our hearts and while keeping their hand in our pockets. Or body counts are down, but the over all cost is way up.
Yes we were attacked in a very cowardly manor. However W and his bunch gave away public opinion and our VALUES when they took us into IRAQ. Now many of you claim that unless we are with Bush we are helping the terrorists. That is PURE BS and you know it. The greatest damage to this country was not done by the terrorists but by BUSH himself the day he decided that our laws don't apply to him unless he agrees with them and they aid in his is cause of granting more power to the president. He proved to the rest of the world that we are indeed becoming just as bad as they are.
You cannot claim "well they do it" or worse because of course they are. They are terrorists! We how ever are not or at least we are not suppose to be. So before you claim BUSH is right why don't you really look at what he has really done. He has not kept us safer as our borders are still wide open. He has lied many times about IRAQ and the suppose WAR on Terror. If we had wanted to defeat IRAQ the WAR would be over. That was never BUSH's purpose. He wanted to expand the war so more of OUR money was in the POOL of funds they could steal from. 9 BILLON comes to mind.
As to torture this country has never done that in my name. To even agree that it is need goes against our LAWS and VALUES.
So if you still support W you are a NOT supporting the United States of America. You are supporting a FASIST PIG! And if you don't like that then change. We need to go back to the real values that made us great. LIKE freedom and liberty fair play standing up for the little guy. Not trying to convince the courts that terrorist do not have the same rights to know the charges against them, face them in court. Or be held as a POW with the rights grant them by treaty.
Posted by bluesone on October 19, 2007 09:17 AMIn 2001 we were told that if we don't go on with our way of life the terrorist win. What has happened is our government let the terrorist win the day they decided to forget our laws do as they wished.
War is suppose to be BAD VERY BAD that is why they should be avoided. Our government has made a deal with those think WAR is just good business. They have tried to take the pain out of our hearts and while keeping their hand in our pockets. Or body counts are down, but the over all cost is way up.
Yes we were attacked in a very cowardly manor. However W and his bunch gave away public opinion and our VALUES when they took us into IRAQ. Now many of you claim that unless we are with Bush we are helping the terrorists. That is PURE BS and you know it. The greatest damage to this country was not done by the terrorists but by BUSH himself the day he decided that our laws don't apply to him unless he agrees with them and they aid in his is cause of granting more power to the president. He proved to the rest of the world that we are indeed becoming just as bad as they are.
You cannot claim "well they do it" or worse because of course they are. They are terrorists! We how ever are not or at least we are not suppose to be. So before you claim BUSH is right why don't you really look at what he has really done. He has not kept us safer as our borders are still wide open. He has lied many times about IRAQ and the suppose WAR on Terror. If we had wanted to defeat IRAQ the WAR would be over. That was never BUSH's purpose. He wanted to expand the war so more of OUR money was in the POOL of funds they could steal from. 9 BILLON comes to mind.
As to torture this country has never done that in my name. To even agree that it is need goes against our LAWS and VALUES.
So if you still support W you are a NOT supporting the United States of America. You are supporting a FASIST PIG! And if you don't like that then change. We need to go back to the real values that made us great. LIKE freedom and liberty fair play standing up for the little guy. Not trying to convince the courts that terrorist do not have the same rights to know the charges against them, face them in court. Or be held as a POW with the rights grant them by treaty.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 09:18 AMNow, now, children! No more bickering! The Great Decider has Decided; and that's all you need to know.
Big Brother Brian has given you the word, straight from the . . . er . . . uh . . . the Great Decider's own Orfice; and that's that.
Now settle down, and behave. Or, our Beloved Leader may have his independent contractors from Blackwater come in to keep the peace.
Now, Johnny, can you tell us how much greater Rome became after Caesar crossed the Rubicon?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 19, 2007 09:26 AMAsk John McCain - who spent 5 years as a POW in VietNam & was tortured exactly how effective torture is. Until he "bent over" for Bush, he was adamantly opposed to torture, knowing firsthand that at some point the average POW gives in & confesses to anything to make the torture techniques stop.
As far as the Gitmo prisoners, many of them were turned in by neighbors who may well have had other axes to grind (like property, marriage, etc) for the $5000 bounty - which for those folks is more than they make in a year. Many have been released - because the Feds finally figured out that they weren't even low-level terrorists, let alone sources of any information about the terror cells.
Finally - this does not excuse the torture of our prisoners by the terrorists; however, the US has always prided itself on being able to take the moral high-ground - which both earned & kept allies. Being involved in torture is morally reprehensible - for either side. Either this country needs to reclaim the moral high ground or admit it is no better than its avowed enemies.
Posted by Mary on October 19, 2007 09:33 AMWhy would the U.S. give all their interrogation tactics to the enemy? The NY Times is ...doing whatever it can to aid and abet the enemy.
This is another dodge of explaining how/why torture is "essential" to this war. Worse it is also a frightening example of how torture has become normalized for a segment of Americans.
In his/her rush to shoot the message, this commenter blithely glosses over torture as just another 'interrogation tactic' that we don't want to share with the enemy, showing no apparent awareness that it is a legitimate public policy question to ask whether torture is consistent with American values. Rather the comment presumes that torture -is- consistent, which is a radical departure from modern American military history and policy.
In the abstract, the NYT broke a story about a president who secretly changed government policy in contravention of long-held fundamental American values, Congressional mandate, and public opinion...and then apparently lied about it.
Such presidential action would be equally newsworthy if it pertained to abortion, euthanasia, religious freedom, etc. And the media outlet that broke such a story, whether it is Fox, WSJ, or NYT is only aiding and abetting those Americans who exercise their right to hold government officials accountable for their actions.
It is a sad sign of how our collective expectations are so low of this particular administration and the perversion of ideas of patriotism so malignant, that this is even a matter of debate.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 09:53 AMBraindead Stuckey could use a good waterboarding. I'd suggest electroshock to the genitals, but sincerely doubt he has such a thing.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 09:58 AM8:18 A.M
I am continuously amazed at how cavalierly some people toss around opinions disguised as facts. The SCOTUS has never ruled that captured Al Quaeda must be treated under the Geneva Convention as Prisoners of War.
SCOTUS has stated that the military tribunal system as originally put forth by the Bush administration did not meet the requirements of the constitution. That however is a far cry from your statement. This issue was addressed by Congress and the President in The Military Commissions Act of 2006. It has yet to be ruled on by the Supreme Court.
In any case, rational people can look at "discomfort", "head slapping" and subjection to "frigid temperatures" and rightfully conclude that these tactics are not torture. Count me among the rational.
Posted by Nostra Damus on October 19, 2007 10:05 AMI try to imagine what kind of person would condone torture. Probably a self-righteous hardcore Christian. I wonder how Brian squares that position with his God? More than likely Brian is an uncoordinated spasmatazz of some kind. It seems like the least fit would be OK with torturing others. It is strange to imagine how anyone feels that torturing people is OK. I wonder how Brian treats small animals? Sick psycho??
Posted by Will on October 19, 2007 10:56 AMThe SCOTUS has never ruled that captured Al Quaeda must be treated under the Geneva Convention...
Wrong. Writing for the majority in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, J.Stevens:
[T]he [D.C. Circuit] Court of Appeals concluded that the [Geneva] Conventions did not...apply to the armed conflict during which Hamdan was captured. The [Appeals] court accepted the Executive's assertions that Hamdan was captured in connection with the United States' war with al Qaeda and that that war is distinct from the war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. It further reasoned that the war with al Qaeda evades the reach of the Geneva Conventions. We...disagree with the latter conclusion.
126 S.Ct. 2749, 2794-2795 (2006)
The Court later explicitly holds that Geneva Convention "Article 3... is applicable" to Hamdan. Id. at 2796. Article 3 requires prisoners be tried before a "regularly constituted court" (the issue before the Court in Hamdan) and prohibition of torture (topic of today's discussion).
In any case, rational people can look at "discomfort", "head slapping" and subjection to "frigid temperatures" and rightfully conclude that these tactics are not torture. Count me among the rational.
Another dodge. The current administration authorizes the combination of the tactics you cite separately, plus some others such as simulated-drowning, which place it firmly within the legal definitions of torture.
You can whistle-past-this-graveyard on this issue all you want, but you are more appropriately "counted among" those (hopefully few) Americans who have assimilated toture as a norm.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 11:18 AM
Brian, The U.S. used to acknowledge the Geneva Conventions to protect our troops as much as the enemy's. Ignoring basic codes of human rights endangers our soldiers because then we have no leverage when they are taken hostage.
Also, torture techniques have been proven to be extremely unreliable in providing our intelligence accurate information, as tortured prisoners will have the tendency to relay information (including false information) that the torturer WANTS to hear in order to end the sessions.
Then there's the violations of habeus corpus to take into account (as I'm certain no courts officially authorize torture on prisoners). Habeus corpus is a tool that helped make this country the wonderful and free country it is today, and it has in effect been suspended.
Brian, you are a pathetic excuse for an American. Your ignorance harms our troops and you have no concern for the basic principles that make our country the special country that it is. You are a lousy patriot and a cowardly chickenhawk.
Will - Your Statement
"I try to imagine what kind of person would condone torture. Probably a self-righteous hardcore Christian."
Have you not looked in on radical websites from groups in the middle east running tapes of what they do prisoners and people who oppose them? Is that not torture?
I do not believe that the US should use torture. It is counter productive. However, your one-sided opinion is clearly wrong.
Posted by FD on October 19, 2007 12:24 PM"If torture is so essential to win a war, tell me how America prevailed in WWII against more forminable enemies, in less time, without its use..."
I have to say also, COMMITMENT. The polititions and the country were committed to win the war knowing that death of our soldiers was going to be the result. I don't believe those deaths were any easier to accept and there was more of that on all sides. But, please don't forget that collateral damage on the civillian population was somewhat of an expected and acceptable occurrance. The citizens and politicians of this country have hamstrung the military to the point that they cannot win any kind of fight on those terms.
If they are villified in the press for civillian deaths and for interrogation techniques in an attempt to prevent those deaths, then I see no way to win!! War is a dirty and deadly business no matter how you look at it. That is suppossed to be the deterient. So many people of this country seem to have some kind concept that death should not be part of the equation and if it is then we, as a country, need to run and hide from the responsibility of protecting ourselves. The battles now cannot be fought soldier on soldier unless both sides are willing to identify there soldiers. As al-Queda is unwilling to identify there soldiers by putting them in uniform in order to protect their own civillian population, then how do our soldiers know who is civillian or enemy?? And in that case, how does the press know?? At least our solders are willing to identify themselves and are proud of that. Why should they be villified in the press for killing civillians if nobody even knows who the soldiers really are?
I like Brians' statement where "President Bush’s first priority is to defeat the brutal reign of terror inflicted upon American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan". Brian is unaware of the United Nations Charter, which gives all people the right to resist military occupation using any means available to them. We could rightfully call it "terrorism" if IEDs were going off in say, Chicago, but in Iraq, it is legitimate self-defence against a foreign invader.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 12:52 PMInquiring minds want to know how Stinky gets so many letters published. Is it blackmail? Is he really a pseudonym for Templeton? Consistently week after week we are treated to another crazy rant about how important it is to maim and destroy.
None of my left-wing liberal letters ever (ever) get posted but week after week Stinky gets his published. So much for the mainstream media having a "liberal bias". It looks more like an insane stupidity bias.
Posted by Wes on October 19, 2007 12:52 PMI like Brians' statement where "President Bush’s first priority is to defeat the brutal reign of terror inflicted upon American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan". Brian is unaware of the United Nations Charter, which gives all people the right to resist military occupation using any means available to them. We could rightfully call it "terrorism" if IEDs were going off in say, Chicago, but in Iraq, it is legitimate self-defence against a foreign invader.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 01:05 PMAnon poster wrote
So the question remains, if America thinks torture is so essential to the current war, why don't the advocates simply come out and make the honest case for it, rather than shrouding the issue with benign-sounding words or secret memos.
Those who should know better and stand up for the use of torture as a tool for getting info from terrorists have no cajones, and have been so whipped by the liberal media and politicians from both sides of the isle that they dance around and shroud the fact that it is in the best interest of our country to make these very bad people tell us what they know.
For those of you that think you know better, just wait until one of these very bad people succeed in intercepting an airliner with a stinger missle (or whatever manner they invent to murder innocent people en masse), and your son, daughter, father or mother is a victim of said event. Your perspective will be slightly altered. Some of you may continue in your delusions but many will re-think the matter.
"Torture" is reading the drivel of the brain-washed ass-maggot who goes by the inappropriate name of skeptical.
Posted by on October 20, 2007 02:41 AMskeptical,
So, you "stand up for torture" now. Interesting, to say the least. And, a bit amusing as well.
How do you square torture with your rambling and disjointed ideas of what constitutes "christianity" for you? The "christianity" you are always insisting YOU follow, while everyone else is going to wind up someplace other than Paradise in eternity if they don't follow your thinking, that is.
Or, to put in terms even you might be able to aprehend: What part of YOUR IDEA of "christianity" teaches, or supports, the use of torture?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 20, 2007 07:53 AMThose who should know better and stand up for the use of torture as a tool for getting info from terrorists have no cajones, and have been so whipped by the liberal media and politicians from both sides of the isle that they dance around and shroud the fact that it is in the best interest of our country to make these very bad people tell us what they know.
Another dodge.
No 'Old Grouch,' this 'Skeptic' doesn't come out and say he/she stands up for torture, just an oblique reference to 'those who should no better' without having the integrity (a more accurate term than 'cajones') to make the case for torture him/herself.
Curiously, Skeptical frames the torture advocates (who include the president and legal staff) as some type of victim (...of the media, bipartisan wrath, presumably the public...) for the collective efforts to hold them accountable for subverting the established political and legal process and altering a long-held American value in secret.
Skeptical (and Brian Stuckey): if you feel strongly that torture is an effective "to make these very bad people tell us what they know" and America's adoption of the tactic brings more upside than downside, say so directly and make your best case for it.
Just don't play the victim if your arguments get shredded or you are vilified for advocating a practice most Americans find abhorrent and morally indefensible.
Posted by on October 20, 2007 08:40 AMChocolate chip cookies and milk always work.
GET REAL. We are at war with maniacs. If we have to get tough, so be it.
We are living in a very dangerous world, more than any other time in history. We have to do what we have to do.
Posted by c on October 20, 2007 10:02 AM"...just wait until one of these very bad people succeed in intercepting an airliner with a stinger missle..."
It's going to happen anyway (or some version of it) UNLESS WE WIN. Torture, abuse of the Consitution, and screwing around in Iraq won't win sh**.
Posted by Mac on October 20, 2007 10:05 AMOct. 19, 7:15 AM
There was torture in WW11. The media was not compelled to report every move we made against our enemy as it is today.
I don't need to know about techniques, the next move we are taking to defeat the enemy and neither do you. The military is doing what it needs to do to protect this country against madmen who are out to destroy our world.
GET IT?
Posted by c on October 20, 2007 10:14 AM"...We are living in a very dangerous world, more than any other time in history. We have to do what we have to do."
Where have we heard THAT line before?
Posted by Mac on October 20, 2007 10:27 AMListen Mac, the technology that is available today to our enemy in itself makes it a far more dangerous world than any other time in history.
I don't use anyone's quotes, it's what I know to be true. I assume you are referring to Bush.
Is he also to blame for your brainless post?
Posted by c on October 20, 2007 10:59 AMThe credo of the coward is ever thus: "We are living in a very dangerous world, more than any other time in history. We have to do what we have to do."
Frightened people do revolting things to others.
Get a spine Mr.C, and stop being such a whelp.
Skank (how appropriate),
People who don't defend themselves against maniacal terrorists are DEAD.
Posted by c on October 20, 2007 03:24 PMC -
Actually, no, I wasn't referring to Bush. I was thinking in more generic terms - as in people have always used this reasoning (if not the exact line) to justify their excess. The Salem Witch trials, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the staged "invasion" of Gemany by the Poles in 1939, J. Edgar Hoover and McCarthy, the Gulf of Tonkin, and most recently WMDs. Not one fear-monger in specific.
The same technology is available to us, in fact I would say we have more and better.
And I take full credit for my "brainless" post; President Bush had no say in it. (Strange that you would think that)
There was torture in WW11.
Yes. Japan was known for its torture of American POWs. Their barbarity was in sharp contrast to America's conduct during the same war, and that difference was a source of pride and honor to both the soliders who defeated them and the civilians who supported the war effort.
If you can provide a single example of authorized -American- torture from WWII...even better one that produced actionable intelligence that advanced the war effort...please share it. But don't look for support of your claim from the vets who conducted top-secret interrogation of thousands of Nazi prisoners-of-war:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html How did they get the info needed to defeat the Germans? Played chess and ping-pong. As one vet says, "I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."
I don't need to know about techniques, the next move we are taking to defeat the enemy and neither do you.
If the 'next move' involves a war crime, one that is approved in advance and could be stopped before it occurs, I -do- need to know about it. Because unlike Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, American citizens elect the leaders who plan and execute military strategy.
If our president gives the military approval to use -any- technique to win a war, whether it is torture, intentionally killing unarmed civilians, or using chemical and biological weapons, we are collectively responsible because we have the political means and moral obligation to stop it.
The very reason we are fighting Al Qaeda and (presumably) why we invaded Iraq is that the tactics both used were morally reprehensible, even if Saddam and bin Laden justifed them as necessary to "defeat the enemy" as they perceived it.
To have commenters such as 'c', 'skeptical', and Brian Stuckey advocate policy that brings America in closer alignment with the amoral framework of Al Qaeda and Hussein is disturbing enough. To have a president working in secret to make this happen is downright scary.
We'll find out in Nov 2008 whether this was an unfortunate aberration in American history or whether our shared values have been permanently degraded since 9/11/2001.
Old Slouch
Yes, torture the bad guys until they squeal like a pig and spill their guts. Cowardly couch grouches such as yourself will benefit from the knowledge gained.
What a laugh. Trying to understand Christianity from a brain dead position is difficult. Unlike atheism, it takes gray matter.
Following "skeptical's way of thinking" will not get you into Paradise. You must read the Bible for yourself.
Posted by skeptical on October 20, 2007 06:53 PMThank you, skeptical,
As with "An American" you now have presented your position overtly.
As the writer above says, from this time on, I suggest that your ideas of what is "christian" are open to the justified criticism that will be forthcoming. I don't choose to vilify you, since that is your mode of creating the position of "victim" in which your position originates.
Rather, I will merely observe hat I have read the Bible - the whole book, not just the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ version - more times over more years than you have been around, in more languages as well, including the original. Your interpretation of the book is very faulty; and simply goes to show how little you really know about religion as a whole, much less about Christianity.
Indeed, you give evidence that you, yourself, have, in truth, NOT READ all that much of the Bible - even in English translation - yourself. Some day, when you do actually take the time to READ, you might make some comparrison between the words of Christ and your own comments about torture.
However, I do thank you again for the basic honesty of placing yourself on record.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 20, 2007 07:16 PM"Yes, torture the bad guys until they squeal like a pig and spill their guts...Trying to understand Christianity ..."
I must not know my Bible as well as I thought I did. In which verses does Jesus authorize torture? Don't forget to tell me what version (King James, American Standard, New LIfe) you are referencing. Those are the three I have.
Wait a minute - wasn't it the parable of the battery cables?
Mac, best letter yet. Skeptical used to post reasonable writings, but fear can make anyone loony.
Torture any person we call a terrorist? Torture only those we are 90% sure have information on coming events? Torture for revenge? Torture for fun?
Skeptical answer my questions, are you into torture only for the men who might know something or just anyone who gets arrested? Would you torture women, children, old people?
Where do you draw the line, in anywhere?
You make Christianity look like the stuff of nightmares, not something beautiful, by your comments.
Christianity is easy to understand: people are afraid of death so they created a God and his Son who will let them live forever. And today we are still stuck with this tribal God and his improbable offspring, all thanks to a bunch of male sheep and goat herders from the illiterate Middle East. Homeless, landless people who invented a war God to let them loot and kill all over the area.
There is no "thinking" in religion, which is why Christians try to get it into kids heads before they go out in the world and start learning. Stuff like the Earth goes around the sun, and not the other way.
Christians are such lovely, calm, reasonable people.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 21, 2007 02:37 PMSharon B.
The nightmares are in your head.
Defending our country from avowed terrorists is done by men and women with the fortitude to get the job done. To put them in harms way and then define the terms by which we will allow them to defend us, while we sit in the comfort of liberty and type away on our keyboards is disgraceful.
To say there is no thinking in religion is baseless. You throw around your platitudes about the bible being written by "goat herders" and Old Grouch claims to have read it many times in different languages. When you cast judgement on the Bible, you reveal everything about yourself.
First of all, the first five books were written by a man that was schooled in the best environment that Egypt had to offer.
His time of herding goats may have taught him more than Pharoah's finest wise men.
The Lord God does stand up for His people in violent ways when necessary.
Exodus 15:3 states plainly "the Lord is a Man of war, the Lord is His name."
David stated plainly in 2 Samule 22: 35 and Psalm 18: 34 "He teaches my hands to make war, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze."
Enjoy your freedom, but don't blame those who buy it for you at high price or accuse them for the currency they spend to pay for it.
Old Grouch, by your postings you reveal a pompous attitude. Fine, but lumping anyone that claims Jesus to be the Son of God and the only way to Heaven, in one group and lambasting the whole of Christianity as a cash flow system is a mistake. When you stand before the Lord, you'd best work up a better defense than some misdirected anger at the Ted Haggards of the world.
Posted by skeptical on October 21, 2007 03:56 PMSkeppy,
Both of your quotes in your last post are from the Old Testament / Torah. Christianity, at least as I was raised in the Presbyterian Church, is following the teachings of JESUS.
Now, people can make arguments for torture, even some halfway decent ones on occasion, but there is absolutely no way a person can say that torture is part of Jesus' teachings. NO WAY.
Mac
Jesus words John 5: 39 "You search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life. And these are they that testify of me."
After His ressurection He spoke with two men on the road to Emmaus and "beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." Luke 24: 27
Jesus said that if anyone messes with one of His little ones that it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he would be cast into the sea. reference Matthew 18: 6, Mark 9: 42, & Luke 17: 2
I know the soldiers at Gitmo haven't gone so far as that yet. Not that I'd complain if they were to purchase a few millstones.
Any resident Christians want to support Skeptical's interpretation that Christian doctrine and Scripture supports torture?
Or will Christians remain silent to this heresy? If so, they are due the same criticism earned by Muslims who failed to condem al Qaeda's use of the Koran to justify terrorism.
Posted by on October 21, 2007 05:47 PMAnon
Please list your scriptural support that gaining info by torture to save innocent lives otherwise sacrificed by Islamofacists is wrong.
BTW..........the Q'uran heartily endorses everything that the Islamofacists are doing.
Posted by skeptical on October 21, 2007 05:51 PMLet me be clear on one thing. I support the use of torture as being used by U.S. forces to exact info.
I believe in every word of the Bible as being inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.
I am only a man, not a prophet of God. No news there.
Each of us will stand before God as individuals.
Please don't think you can be excused by the Lord on judgement day by saying that someone named skeptical on the RMN forum thought "thus and so" about torture and since you were of a kinder, gentler nature you "threw the baby out with the bathwater" so to speak. In other words, that you reject the teachings of the Bible on the basis of anything said by me on these posts.
Other men, better Christians than myself may have opposite views about the use of torture.
Posted by skeptical on October 21, 2007 06:20 PM...the Q'uran heartily endorses everything that the Islamofacists are doing...
But apparently so does the Christian Bible...at least in the open-ended interpretion you've used to condone torture (from your prior post):
The Lord God does stand up for His people in violent ways when necessary.
Exodus 15:3 states plainly "the Lord is a Man of war, the Lord is His name."
David stated plainly in 2 Samule 22: 35 and Psalm 18: 34 "He teaches my hands to make war, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze."
Just as you cite these general passages as supporting America's use of torture, bin Laden could quote the same Biblical passages & rationale to condone his barbarity...who needs the Koran when he's got your Bible?
As to your concern expressed in 6:20 post, your private conception of Christianity is as unconvincing as a basis for religious belief as the 9/11 highjacker's conception of Islam.
In otherwords, few if any will turn away from Christianity based on your words, beyond holding them up as an example of how some Americans have lost their religious moorings of right and wrong since 9/11.
Posted by on October 21, 2007 08:55 PMSkeptical,
Better, but I stil disagree with your interpretation.
I do admire your ability to admit you don't know everything and could be wrong and that people can interpret things differently than you do. That is a rarity on these forums lately and it's refreshing.
Anon
What in the world did you say in your last post?
Of what moorings do you speak? If there is no Christianity, if it is not reality, there are no moorings. Read the entire Bible, not the selected passages only.
I could not care less of what Bin Laden does or thinks. He can and will cite whatever lends itself to his Jihad. We still must deal with his insanity as it surfaces and we are affected.
Do not forget this one thing, he brought this war to us and has plans to continue it forever. Check the news, 98.5% of the terrorist activity going on in countless countries of the world is based on the dictates of Islam.
skeptical,
Your particular form of bibliolatry is NOT all that "christian" to begin with. Indeed, not even the principal Protestant revolutionaries taught that when they founded their various and sundry Je$u$ Bu$ine$$e$ to compete with the (un)-Holy Roman Empire, and its form of State Religion.
But, as a good, fanatic, "true believer", you are to be commended for coming out of hiding under a sanctiphonious veneer of superior Christian behavior, and actually placing your belief-system on record. Having done so, we may now deal with your postings responsively, and responsibly.
The belief-system itself is not founded on any historical fact., and is, at best, a fringe cultus with only the most tenuous of relationships to Christianity as such. Thus, those who are Christian need not trouble themselves to take your positions as any serious threat to, or alternate exposition of, their own beliefs or practices.
That said, your rights to your belief-system, as well as to your postings here, are not at issue. This is both a forum for ideas, and a form of "opinion page, or column"; and your opinions enjoy the same rights to appear as do those of anyone else.
As opinions, however, they are open to such observations as may be made about them by others, who do not regard them as highly as you do in your presentation of them. And here, I will simply return to earlier statements concerning your lack of knowledge, and your equal lack of understanding and comprehension of what is presented by others.
Mac,
In reality, none of us "knows it all", about anything, much less everything. That's more or less an impossibility for any human being to achieve in a lifetime. But, there is a difference between knowledge and mere opinion, that is much more than "interpretation" of something.
I agree that "skeptical" is to be commended for finally establishing the fact that he posts opinion only, rather than having knowledge of the history of both Christianity and the book he keeps quoting. But, I still do think he would be far better off, and profit far more, from learning history, before sounding off on a subject that has some 2000 years of it.
Aw, shucks! that old school teacher in me just won't go away.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 22, 2007 11:59 AMOG I wrote agree that "skeptical" is to be commended for finally establishing the fact that he posts opinion only, rather than having knowledge of the history of both Christianity and the book he keeps quoting.
Your pompous pretention to be someone of substance is betrayed by your disingenuous use of posting space. The only thing I would like to establish is that you have no clue as to who the Lord of this Universe is.
I'll point you in the right direction though, it isn't you. (sorry, but it's not Shirley MacLaine either)
Posted by skeptical on October 22, 2007 03:31 PM