DiscussMormonism.com

Several posters have recently opposed Romney and a couple of them have noted that they do not support the use of torture.

Tonight I was watching the O'Reiley Factor and this was one of the topics discussed. They showed an interview that was originally aired on ABC, whereby an Al Quaida operative gave in to water-boarding after 30 seconds. He said he heard Allah tell him that he should tell the Americans whatever they wanted, just to easy the pain of his Muslim cell mates who would have to go through the same ordeal. The guy they interviewed looked Middle-Eastern as well, but I assume he worked for an intelligence agency for the US government.

Anyway, the results were astonishing. According to this person, the terrorist gave them all sorts of data that apparently resulted in several foiled terror attacks on US troops, saving an unknown number of American lives as well as innocent bystanders. He went on to say that the notion that torture never works, is purely a myth.

Then they had a discussion with two pundits arguing pro and con. The Democrat who disagreed with this tactic was asked a question:

"If your children were missing, and you knew water-boarding a suspect could provide information that would save their lives, would you support it?"

She answered yes.

OF COURSE she answered yes.

Then I had to ask myself the same question. If someone had my two kids, I knew I would do whatever was necessary to save them. So I felt somewhat hypocritical to criticize politicians who felt obligated to do whatever they could, to save the lives of US troops.

So why is it that when the President of the United States has the choice to make the same decision, we're inclined to oppose it? Is it because our kids aren't the ones who would be saved?

Is it immoral to use torture if the end result is saved lives?

I happen not to believe that the ends justify the means. Torture may work, sure. But if we run around using violence and brutality to get what we want, we separate ourselves from the terrorists only by degree. Torture is fundamentally designed to induce terror in a victim.

Maybe that's cliché, idealistic, impractical, and stupid. I believe it's the way to a better world.

Honestly, I think I could make more enemies talking about politics than talking about religious matters. Two hot topics, huh?

I don't understand why we or the media (whomever it may be) think we have the right to know every little thing that goes on in this ongoing war with terror. After all, it is war, isn't it? I seriously doubt that saying to a terrorist, Well, I asked you nicely and then think we will get cooperation. I could really get upon a soapbox here, but I'll restrain myself.

I don't believe an end always justifies the means, but it would depend on the end and the means in question.
In this case, to me at least, saving the life of many human beings is the most noble end that could be sought.

Torture may work, sure. But if we run around using violence and brutality to get what we want, we separate ourselves from the terrorists only by degree. Torture is fundamentally designed to induce terror in a victim.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Nobody is "running around" invoking violence even in these instances. These are terrorists we are dealing with. We didn't ask them to terrorize and threaten our way of life. They brought themselves to us by commiting these crimes. So this image of mad CIA opeartives running about the country in a fit of rage, dunking heads in water indiscriminately, just because it is legal under specific circumstances, is just too whacky a scenario to entertain.

I don't see how torturing terrorists for the purpose of saving lives would encourage others to do violence to others.
So let's say a terrorist knows there is a nuclear bomb about to go off in a city where your entire family lives.

You're telling me you wouldn't condone water-boarding if the end meant you will be able to see your family alive the next day? I think you would. Just like I believe most democrats would condone it if it meant saving the lives of their own loved ones. If they deny it, then something is seriously wrong with them.

Where do we cross the line here?

Is torture only acceptable when our own family members can be saved? Does this make us more idealistic and noble for rejecting torture when it can save the lives of non-relatives?

WWJBD, what would Jack Bauer do?

I want to know what each and every one of you would do if it were your child's life at stake.

I think that is a fair question.

First of all, I would do anything to save my child's life, even if it meant being tortured or killed myself. I don't know of any parent in their right mind who wouldn't feel this way.

I do have a question that is probably rather ignorant. What is water boarding, exactly?

Grab a board and a hose. It's an imperfect world and they should consider themselves lucky we aren't them.

Kevin,

The image of CIA agents running around torturing people is a silly caricature of what I said, and you know it. Redemptive violence has become part of the American ethos, whether it be the American Revelation, the Civil War, the Iraq war, or torture. And unfortunately (to put something of a utilitarian spin on my idealistic ethic) we are finding that violence begets violence. If we really want a world where there's no violence, the first step is to avoid giving people excuses for it. When the use of violence is precluded, one frequently surprises oneself by finding redemptive solutions one might not otherwise have considered.

I admit that there are limits even to my idealism. In the Jack Bauer scenario where there's a nuke going off in LA in 24 hours and we're trying to find out where it is, I'd dunk the bastard. And in World War II, where there were millions being slaughtered in death camps, I believe joining the war was the right thing to do. But in cases where there is no such clear goal, I simply can't condone the use of violence. And I can't vote for anyone who does. I'm sorry you disagree, but here I stand.

-Chris

SatanWasSetUp wrote:WWJBD, what would Jack Bauer do?

Threaten to murder the terrorist's kids.