Who am I?
Christian. Skeptic. Ponderer. Sold on Western Civilization. Background in engineering and software. Rational, but not rationalist.
Informs my values.
Posts On This Page:
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- February 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- October 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- July 2010
- February 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- February 2013
Look closer. Think harder. Choose the sound argument over the clever one.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Around the Brunch Table
Time with loved ones often turns into political debate. Really more like friction, generating more heat than light. With the written word you can take your time, think things through, develop your thoughts uninterrupted, state them clearly and concisely, and scrutinize things to your own satisfaction.
So let's replace heat with light over our brunch table discussion.
Waterboarding. It's very harsh treatment. I wouldn't want it done to me. (That's true of a lot of things.) I think it should be reserved for the toughest cases (and it seems to be). Torture or coercive interrogation? I say the latter. (For one thing, there seems to be no real risk of drowning.)
You seem to think it's obviously torture, but I didn't hear you articulate a definition. Give me one to scrutinize. Here's some of what I might ask:
- Is incarceration torture?
- What about yelling at someone? Doesn't that give the perception that you're about to do them harm?
- What about subjecting someone, in egregious violation of their cherished beliefs, to be treated as a subordinate by an unveiled woman?
Real torture is illegal, and should be. We shouldn't do it for that reason alone.
I do have a lot of sympathy for people trying to stop terrorist attacks. Like police, there are limits to what they can do. But I think stopping terrorist attacks really is a valuable cause. Would you say you share that sympathy (even a little)?
Does it work? Here's ABC News' Brian Ross talking about coercive interrogation yielding valuable information. You seemed unaware of this. I need to see how you come to terms with this, as you seemed to dogmatically assert the opposite. (Of course we need to properly vet everything we receive.)
Will our enemies respect us? Will they treat our soldiers differently? Not a chance. Do you have evidence to the contrary? But that doesn't mean we torture.
How can Christians support it? The same way I support the concept of prison. I'm glad to expound, but maybe you should develop your question a bit more.
Organ failure. It took me a while to find the "organ failure" document. Here it is (PDF, 50 pages). You're right: page 1 does say, "Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
It wasn't written by Gonzales, but to him by Jay S. Bybee (an Assistant Attorney General). So it's not the Whitehouse's assertion, but a response to the Whitehouse seeking legal opinion.
The authors are seeking interpretation for a phrase in the torture law, aka 18 USC 2340: "severe physical  pain." We see at the top of page 6 that they're looking at other US law for that meaning, which seems reasonable. (Where else should they look?). That's where the offending phrase originates.
It's a very aggressive stance, but best I can tell (including waterboarding) they haven't gone that far. (And isn't liver failure painless?)
The end of the document (p 47ff) lists cases in which US courts have concluded torture occurred. Very interesting, as it brings some much-needed perspective.
To answer my own question, I think the existing torture law provides as good a definition as any, and any definition is subjective.
Know that I consider carefully everything you say. Let me know if I've skipped something you think is important.
(Please keep in mind that each commenter's opinions are only his/her own.)
[McCain:] "What America does to its enemies defines America itself"
Many things come to mind:
Germany, Japan, and Italy are essentially free and thriving. Afghanistan is on its way, and so seems to be Iraq (we're shedding our blood toward that goal). So this defines America itself? I'll take it. (Kosovo's not doing well, but nobody can bat 1000.)
So having no bearing on what defines America are its freedoms, opportunity, prosperity, philanthropy, diversity, advances in medicine, science, technology, the arts? Wow.
Convicted terrorists get lengthy prison sentences. If, say, we make a ten year sentence twenty (or five), how does that meaningfully change America's definition?
McCain has a right to define North Vietnam that way. Their brutality is consistent with what they perpetrated on all they subjugated, which does best define them. In that case it's true.
... and ask why Christians would even be quibbling about the definition of torture.
Because it could save lives.
We Christians are commanded to love our enemies. We must take that seriously. But many of us think allowing them to murder our neighbors is unloving to those neighbors, who we're also commanded to love. (I can't speak for all Christians.)
We Christians also consider what we believe as important. Hence thinking clearly about right and wrong; legitimate and not; rejecting falsehoods, distortions, hyperbole, and muddled thinking.
Keep in mind, too, that not everyone at the table considers themselves Christians.
... which has to do with how people in power can justify the betrayal of their principles.
Which makes thinking through my principles, publicly for comment (as I do here), all the more valuable. Perahps yours need a little more sunlight.
If cognitive dissonance "can be associated with the tendency for people to resist information that they don't want to think about," might that apply to you in this very discussion?
You are right that those who oppose our current fight against Islamism and the terrorism it breeds need to think through their principals. Carried to their logical conclusion, we would have no way to fight Islamic Terrorism and it would simply grow. At the heart of it, I would guess they don't see it as a threat to begin with. As for me, I say we need to win this fight, then as we have always done, build a better future for ourselves as well as those we have liberated from tyranny.
(Hi by the way :-))
Dave Bones -- good to hear from you!
Yes: rendering someone to another country would have its own set of agonizing decisions (especially to places like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia). Should we work with their secret police? What if it would save civilian lives? It's a redux of all the Cold War's agonizing decisions: should we befriend thugs to hold mass-murdering butchers at bay? Funny how those questions don't go away.
Post a Comment
Links to this post: