Torture Architect Called as Bishop

[_madeleine]

"I'm a psychologist who helped develop controversial interrogation methods that some human-rights groups say amount to torture..and I'm a Mormon."

[_Chap]

by the way: the lifeboat analogy is a bad one. Nobody dies from properly executed water boarding or sleep deprivation.

All analogies are imperfect. The issue is, when is one permittted to do an otherwise morally reprehensible act in an attempt to save one's own life?

With respect, since I know you are neither a fool nor a bad guy, might I suggest that focusing on one or more of an infinite number of hypothetical individual dilemmas (e.g. "Would you torture someone to make them reveal the combination to the lock that will release your wife and children from a gas-chamber timed to kill them in an hour's time or if any attempt is made to breach it?"), we might look elsewhere?

How about the only argument that actually addresses real politics - that is, of what laws you wish to live under? Do you want it to be against the law for public officials or those otherwise employed by government to torture people to achieve the government's ends? Do you want Army regulations to prohibit subjecting prisoners to torture and degradation, and do you want soldiers trained to realize that this is not what the Army does, or will countenance? Or what would you prefer, given that laws and regulations there must be?

That kind of question demands sober reflection that weighs the long-term consequences of such decisions. Does a country that outlaws torture gain on the whole and in the long term by doing so, or not - taking into account not just the debatable effectiveness of torture in gaining an information advantage in the short term, but also the undoubted advantage of making that country on the whole more admired (of course some people will never admire you) and on the whole less hated (though some people will always hate you)?

Decisions like that are hard, and whichever way you decide you will dislike some of the consequences. But they have to be made.

[_harmony]

Y'all assume all the members of the ward knew about the torture thing. Not something I'd assume.

[_Chap]

Y'all assume all the members of the ward knew about the torture thing. Not something I'd assume.

But presumably those who called this guy as a bishop may reasonably be presumed to have known about his previous career, even if we don't believe that they had any 'spiritual' discernment.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Really?

Really.

Doesn't the fact that he was instrumental in developing techniques to extract information from individuals through the use of the un-Christian application of pain and mental anguish kind of mean he has rejected the principles of loving ones neighbour, turning the other cheek etc?

Not really.

How can a man that is capable of that be worthy to legitimately ask others to live a higher standard?

Pretty easily.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Didn't a BYU LAW graduate write the torture justification memo

[_lulu]

Those questions are good ones.

There are occasions when one is allowed to kill someone else. War, self defense, or defense of a third person.

Interestingly the judges of the Tokyo War Tribunal did not make an exception for waterboarding. At least one Japanese combatant was executed for waterboarding and others were imprisoned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-bega ... 91153.html

As best as I recall Dershowitz's example was more like your first one. Only, I think, set in an Israeli market with a time bomb and a terrorist in custody.

But I also think that issues of how sure you are there is a bomb, how sure are you the suspect in custody really can help you find and disarm it if he talks. Information gained under torture might frequently be unreliable, but is it always?

International law and the law of war makes no exception for torture even though most legal systems allow for killing under some circumstances. Not easy questions, but that brings me back around to the question, does someone have a duty to risk one's life or die in the name of "no torture."

by the way: the lifeboat analogy is a bad one. Nobody dies from properly executed water boarding or sleep deprivation.

All analogies are imperfect. The issue is, when is one permittted to do an otherwise morally reprehensible act in an attempt to save one's own life?

With respect, since I know you are neither a fool nor a bad guy, might I suggest that focusing on one or more of an infinite number of hypothetical individual dilemmas (e.g. "Would you torture someone to make them reveal the combination to the lock that will release your wife and children from a gas-chamber timed to kill them in an hour's time or if any attempt is made to breach it?"), we might look elsewhere?

How about the only argument that actually addresses real politics - that is, of what laws you wish to live under? Do you want it to be against the law for public officials or those otherwise employed by government to torture people to achieve the government's ends? Do you want Army regulations to prohibit subjecting prisoners to torture and degradation, and do you want soldiers trained to realize that this is not what the Army does, or will countenance? Or what would you prefer, given that laws and regulations there must be?

That kind of question demands sober reflection that weighs the long-term consequences of such decisions. Does a country that outlaws torture gain on the whole and in the long term by doing so, or not - taking into account not just the debatable effectiveness of torture in gaining an information advantage in the short term, but also the undoubted advantage of making that country on the whole more admired (of course some people will never admire you) and on the whole less hated (though some people will always hate you)?

Decisions like that are hard, and whichever way you decide you will dislike some of the consequences. But they have to be made.

[_Nomomo]

Didn't a BYU LAW graduate write the torture justification memo

Jay Bybee: Lifetime Mormon, Eagle Scout, missionary, garment wearing, temple recommend holding war criminal. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bybee

[_Equality]

Y'all assume all the members of the ward knew about the torture thing. Not something I'd assume.

Good point. Why are members asked to vote without first being given sufficient information on which to form a judgment?

[_Drifting]

Really?

Really.

Doesn't the fact that he was instrumental in developing techniques to extract information from individuals through the use of the un-Christian application of pain and mental anguish kind of mean he has rejected the principles of loving ones neighbour, turning the other cheek etc?

Not really.

How can a man that is capable of that be worthy to legitimately ask others to live a higher standard?

Pretty easily.

Thank you for your deep insight.