Apologetics and the Use of Torture

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dr. Robbers, this is fascinating. I have a corollary question for you, though:

If (as is increasingly seeming to be the case) the Mopologists overwhelmingly approve of torture, does this therefore mean that, in all likelihood, they would also approve of brainwashing? After all, many experts on interrogation have said that tortured prisoners tend to just cough up what ever information they think their captors want to hear, and thus, the torture starts to become a kind of "brainwashing." (Just ask Solzhenitsyn, or Arthur Koestler....) If the apologists---such as Droopy, e.g.---think it's okay to beat people w/ truncheons, or rip off fingernails w/ pliers to extract information, do they also think it's okay to "brainwash" members into retaining their testimonies?

[_Gadianton]

I also have to say that rcrocket's earnest repudiation of torture only affirms my belief that apologists believe in torture. On the threads where the apologists are arguing for the use of torture, as my example here, you don't see any of the real heavyweight senior apologists jump in and correct them. Just as -- as Will has confirmed -- they don't have a problem with will's mouth.

We know from rcrocket's own accounting that a portion of the FARMS crowd burned him out of the canyon so too speak, running him off an important apologetic email list because of his "liberal" views.

In other words, while rcrocket is an apologist and a Mormon and does count in our assessment, he is only one sample point, and he demonstrates something far more important. That it takes a "black sheep" apologist that virtually none of the other important apologists can stomach to get a clear repudiation of the use of torture.

[_bcspace]

That it takes a "black sheep" apologist that virtually none of the other important apologists can stomach to get a clear repudiation of the use of torture.

Why would anyone want such a thing? On what moral basis, that you believe in, should any and all torture be repudiated?

[_harmony]

Why would anyone want such a thing? On what moral basis, that you believe in, should any and all torture be repudiated?

Uh... Do Unto Others?

[_EAllusion]

I think there's a lot to be said about this rather predicable endorsement of whatever socially conservative, hawkish Republicans are arguing these days. What really gets me at the moment is listening to horribly naïve utilitarian justifications for torture practices by people who criticize utilitarianism as untenable because they think it entails these exact sort of horribly naïve arguments to chew people up as a means to some greater good.

I'd say there's a more than insignificant chance that whoever tried to use that Ecclesiastes quotation to argue that torture is morally A-Ok because there is a time and a season for everything (like holocausts, for instance) also criticizes atheists for being moral relativists. That would be awesome.

-------------

If you are looking for a quick and dirty definition of torture, here's what the Convention on Torture Ronald Reagan pushed through the UN says:

Article 1.

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2.

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

....

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1

[_Gadianton]

here's some more statements by apologists (by the way, where is Bill Hamblin's repudiation, DCP's, Pahoran's, where are all the senior apologists to correct their juniors?)

As probably the only U.S. intelligence-certified interrogator on the board...

Don't cry to me about the horrors of what we are doing to people...

and use methods which we believe are appropriate based on the knowledgeability and value of the detainee's information

wow.

Torture is often something in the eye of the beholder.

You should know that the people who were doing the interrogation have themselves been subjected to the techniques that they used.

(child abusers excuse their behavior with the same argument, "my dad beat me too"!)

The judicious placement of lit cigarettes acquired the information that broke up the planned attack.

Thousands were saved. Would I do such a thing? When you look into the faces of the families who died, what would you say to the families when you knew you could have acquired the information but didn't

But according to rcrocket, I'm just making it up that apologists believe in torture...

[_bcspace]

you don't see any of the real heavyweight senior apologists jump in and correct them.

Heavyweight? Not to disparage such organizations, but how many members of the Church pay FARMS or FAIR any mind at all?

Uh... Do Unto Others?

I wasn't asking you and to be intellectually honest, I would certainly expect to be tortured if I were an enemy of freedom and democracy so "do unto others" doesn't work as a moral basis against torture. There is nothing Biblical that can be used against it since God Himself provides the example by your logic.

[_Gadianton]

If (as is increasingly seeming to be the case) the Mopologists overwhelmingly approve of torture, does this therefore mean that, in all likelihood, they would also approve of brainwashing?

Yes, in my opinion.

[_bcspace]

If (as is increasingly seeming to be the case) the Mopologists overwhelmingly approve of torture, does this therefore mean that, in all likelihood, they would also approve of brainwashing?

Yes, in my opinion.

Sounds like you believe masturbation causes homosexuality too.

[_bcspace]

If you are looking for a quick and dirty definition of torture, here's what the Convention on Torture Ronald Reagan pushed through the UN says:

Define "severe". Define "lawful sanctions".