Working Against Torture (by Chuck Gutenson)
Torture is a moral issue. On Sept. 11-12, 2008, in Atlanta, Georgia, Christians will be sharing their grave concerns over the United States' position on this practice at "A National Summit on Torture: Religious Faith, Torture, and our National Soul."
In order to bring this subject to the forefront of the church's dialogue, Sojourners is proud to help sponsor the conference, alongside Mercer University, Evangelicals for Human Rights, and the National Religious Campaign Against Torture -- in cooperation with the Center for Victims of Torture, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Faith and the City, Faith in Public Life, Evangelicals for Social Action, and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.
The two days will look at the path the U.S. has taken since Sept. 11, 2001, and the ways we can, without exceptions, reject torture. A variety of speakers and faith backgrounds will be represented, so all are welcome and all should join in. It will be an open dialogue and discussion, and will set the example for the type of discourse needed to achieve success against torture.
Please take a look at the Web site for "A National Summit on Torture: Religious Faith, Torture, and our National Soul," and register to attend.
Chuck Gutenson is chief operating officer of Sojourners.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
This could start some interesting discussion.
I hope that they also look at other nations and their stand on human rights and torture and will be condeming them along with their condemnation of the US.
It will also be interesting to see what sources they site and the evidence that will present.
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 17, 2008 10:15 AM
I agree, big guy. I do hope that they look at other countries as well as our own. But, as citizens of our nation, we are in a position to actually promote change in our own nation's policies. We do not necessarily enjoy the same leverage with other nations.
And, after all, we should clean our own house before we comment on how dirty someone else's might be, right?
Posted by: RJohnson | August 17, 2008 9:45 PM
Posted by: RJohnson | August 17, 2008 9:45 PM
And, after all, we should clean our own house before we comment on how dirty someone else's might be, right?
Well stated and I agree. We should hold ourselves accountable but I believe that we need to tell the story or shed light on other areas or factors.
Have a great day
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 18, 2008 2:09 PM
I cannot believe that anyone would hold U.S. interrogation used to extract life-saving information from known terrorist on the same level as the pointless infliction of extreme pain and eventual murder of innocent civillians.
Even if we were doing the same things they do, the two would not be morally equivalent.
But we don't do what they do. We don't seek out innocent civillians and capture them. We don't saw their heads off with machetes and make videos so that their friends and relatives can hear their anguished dying screams and watch them begging for their life. We don't burn their bodies and drag their charred corpse through the street while our children run along and beat it with sticks.
No, there is NO comparison between that and trying to SAVE innocent lives by using sleep deprivation, stress positions or even water-boarding (a controlled scenario where the subject is NOT drowned, but is tricked into thinking he will be) on terrorists captured while fighting.
Posted by: Bradley | August 19, 2008 12:07 AM
I listened to NPR radio today, to their latest report on the project to tell the story of PO Box 1142, better known as Ft. Hunt. It was the location where high profile German prisoners were taken during the latter portions of WWII for interrogation. Especially interesting are the accounts coming from the surviving men who did the interrogations.
It seems that they received their best results (i.e., greatest level of cooperation) when they treated the prisoners well. They played tennis with some, took some shopping, and even made arrangements for the family of one prisoner to come to the US.
The results? Apparently huge quantities of information about Nazi nuclear projects, missile projects, and plans for the latter portion of the war. Also, a number of the scientists interrogated at this facility ended up working for our government to develop our own missile and nuclear weapons systems.
Maybe history is trying to remind us of what the FBI and many other law enforcement agencies have been saying: torture does not produce reliable results. Better results come from less harsh methods.
Many studies have shown that torture does not produce reliable, verifiable answers to questions. Instead the prisoner, often in a panic, says what he/she believes the torturer wants to hear.
www.boingboing.net/2008/03/10/fbi-interrogator-tor.html
Posted by: RJohnson | August 19, 2008 1:10 AM
"Well stated and I agree. We should hold ourselves accountable but I believe that we need to tell the story or shed light on other areas or factors."
Certainly. However, we are in the midst of an election season. We are about to choose the person who will be our President for the next four years, the members of one House of our Congress for the next two years, and approximately 1/3 of the members of the other House, who will serve for six years. The issue of torture will continue to come up, especially as we learn more about what the CIA and DIA have done in recent years with high-value prisoners.
Focusing on the issue of torture as it relates to our own government's behavior is quite relevant at this time. The summit is timely for that reason. However, I hope that the work of the summit can continue beyond this year.
Posted by: RJohnson | August 19, 2008 1:17 AM
"But we don't do what they do. We don't seek out innocent civillians and capture them."
Actually, there have been quite a few of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay who were found to be completely innocent. They were turned in for the reward money that was offered. Sadly, in far to many cases, it took several years before our government could bother to investigate to see if these folks had any legitimate reason to be held.
www.amnestyusa.org/spring-2008/five-years-of-my-life/page.do?id=1551002&n1=2&n2=19&n3=1552
"There, he endured five years of torture, interrogations and abuse until his 2006 release" prompted by a personal plea by German Chancellor Angela Merkel to President George W. Bush "even though official documents show that U.S. and German authorities had determined in 2002 that he was innocent."
-------
"We don't saw their heads off with machetes and make videos so that their friends and relatives can hear their anguished dying screams and watch them begging for their life."
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3093637.stm
"The US has historically been reluctant to release photos of people killed in combat.
It criticised Arabic television station al-Jazeera for showing images of dead American soldiers during the war in the spring.
The BBC's Nick Bryant in Washington says some generals at the Pentagon found the release of the pictures on Thursday to be "repugnant".
But, he says, the political imperative to show that Uday and Qusay are dead overrode the military's concerns."
-------
"We don't burn their bodies and drag their charred corpse through the street while our children run along and beat it with sticks."
Are you suggesting that the standard for behavior of our government should be the lowest of the low? That we should measure our treatment of enemy prisoners not by the Geneva Convention or other internationally accepted standards but, rather, by the worst possible behavior we can find? If so, on what grounds do we object when we find our soldiers tortured and murdered by our opponents? If our standard of conduct is "well, we are better than the terrorists" then the terrorists have won, for they have goaded us into destroying that which separates our nation from the terrorists...our rule of law.
-----
Sorry for the double post, but I did not include my name and e-mail in the first one.
Posted by: RJohnson | August 19, 2008 1:30 AM
Posted by: Bradley | August 19, 2008 12:07 AM
Personally - I support our military and GOv't and how they have handled most of the situations in Iraq and the world. But no matter how good we are - we can do better. Many are just taking what the 'drive bys' and others have to say with little concrete evidence about the US policies. I support them talking about it and sheading some light on the issue. For the most part the US does a great job. We have failed a few times but then again we talk about it and correct the situation for the most part.
I believe that we are the standard that most countries should follow. I believe that most the terrorists would rather be interorgated by someone like the US than by their standards.
Yes - we are heading towards an election and this forum will more than likely be used against McCain because I believe the subscript for this issue is to throw mud at the Republicans - let them have their day.
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 8:27 AM
From this part of the world, the recent use of torture by the US has been astounding. What has gone wrong? I would have expected to have seen many more critiques of the situation from the churches.
For those with longer memories, WW2 and the Japanese atrocities, Korea and even Vietnam and one of your current presidential hopefuls still resonate. Much has been said, and written about the inhumanity of those events, and many of use have seen the damage done to the survivors and their families. Yet, why has the collation of the willing stooped to such depths?
Abandoning the Geneva conventions is a dangerous step. Letting loose the dogs of barbarism – for what gain?
It would seem that there is a good case to charge the Bush administration with war crimes over these issues.
For a more in-depth discussion see the transcript or listen to the ABC Late Night Live program
for monday 18 aug.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/
Abstract
A conversation with international lawyer and author Philippe Sands about the process by which the Bush administration authorised torture techniques for use on detainees at Guantanamo Bay. At the end of 2002, Donald Rumsfeld signed off on an 'Action Memo', which contained a request, 'for approval of counter-resistance techniques to aid in the interrogation of detainees at Guantanamo Bay'. This memo led to the sanctioning of a raft of new interrogation techniques which contravened the Geneva Convention guidelines, as well as the American interrogators' bible, the US Army Field Manual.
Posted by: JohnH | August 19, 2008 8:47 AM
You have not given me any evidence that the US is out of bounds on this issue and that you put a link to ABC - aren't they the news network that brought out 'evidence' that was manufactured? Sorry - the House of Rather is not high on my list of network news that is trustworthy.
Until they come out with the black and whites that show proof positive - I am not going to venture into this area.
A;; the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 9:03 AM
Rather worked for CBS, not ABC.
Posted by: | August 19, 2008 10:58 AM
i heard the npr program about the germans. one could hardly say there are very many similarities to today. first the germans were scientist not folks caught on the battle field. they also wanted to cooperate in many cases according to guards that were interviewed. let us not forget we have released some from gitmo only to have them return to the battle field or worst yet as a suicide bomber. roger
Posted by: roger | August 19, 2008 11:12 AM
let us not forget we have released some from gitmo only to have them return to the battle field or worst yet as a suicide bomber.
Evidence, please. Where have you read and/or heard reports of this happening?
D
Posted by: Don | August 19, 2008 11:19 AM
"You have not given me any evidence that the US is out of bounds on this issue and that you put a link to ABC - aren't they the news network that brought out 'evidence' that was manufactured? Sorry - the House of Rather is not high on my list of network news that is trustworthy.
Until they come out with the black and whites that show proof positive - I am not going to venture into this area."
So now we are to assume that, in spite of the evidence that has been presented, that the government is blameless -- or that we're getting complete and open information about government activities?
For those who measure actions with situational ethics, I can see why torture could be rationalized. By their determination, once "we" determine that some human life has little or no value, actions like torture are moral.
There is no way to justify it for Christians. Scripturally, the growing circle of disciples after the Resurrection chose to suffer rather than inflict suffering upon others.
That doesn't have to be the governmental guideline, but it's unavoidable for Christians.
There's an interesting article a recent Time magazine about US torture policy building its base on the example of "Jack Bauer" on the Fox TV series, "24." When it comes to governmentally making our own rules, fiction as an example is as likely as anything else.
Posted by: openeyes | August 19, 2008 12:54 PM
I would rather deal with the US and our history on almost any issue than even some of our allies today. No - we are not perfect but we are not as bloody and damaged as many would lead us to believe.
Bring out the big spot light - light up all the warts and scars for all to see. What other country in the world in the last 100 years would join us under that light? France - I would like to see who was involved in the 'oil for maney' scandel. Russia - dare I say Georgia? China - you have got to be kidding. Germany, Britain, Brazil - anyone?
Now - think about it being your child or relative that is captured. You willing to allow the US to go a little too close to the edge to get the info that could save their lives? You willing to let the forces to use deadly force to rescue them? I would be willing to say and Pearl's family would. (maybe not...) Yes - we can always be and do better and we have to. But let us not throw out the baby with the bath.
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 1:35 PM
don, check any news outlet for the stories about those released from gitmo returning to the battle field and at least one became a suicide bomber. roger
Posted by: roger | August 19, 2008 2:10 PM
Moderatelad: "Bring out the big spot light - light up all the warts and scars for all to see. What other country in the world in the last 100 years would join us under that light? France - I would like to see who was involved in the 'oil for maney' scandel. Russia - dare I say Georgia? China - you have got to be kidding. Germany, Britain, Brazil - anyone?"
Any of the Scandinavian nations, Canada, New Zealand.
And you've not yet responded to Don's request for evidence.
Posted by: carl copas | August 19, 2008 2:35 PM
Posted by: carl copas | August 19, 2008 2:35 PM
This is 'big guy'
You might be correct about these countries but I believe that if you look close - they have flaws just like us. In WWII - being Scandahovian myself - they did some interesting things to Nazi's and their spies. My relatives worked with the underground in several counties and assisted in the capture of Nazi's and spies/traitors in their country and others.
Don's question is not for me - I believe that is someone else.
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 2:54 PM
carl, i did responed to don just google searh gitmo detainees suicide bombers. have your pick, cnn, abc, nbc, cbs, bbc or fox. roger
Posted by: roger | August 19, 2008 3:02 PM
don, check any news outlet for the stories about those released from gitmo returning to the battle field and at least one became a suicide bomber.
This is not an answer to my question, roger. If you make what appears to me (for at least one reason*) to be an outrageous assertion, you need to be ready with an article title, date, and/or link from a credible source.
*Frankly I don't believe this. Why? Well, for one thing, if this were true, what a great talking point it would be to the current administration, who is in need of justifying their continued detentions in Guantanamo in the face of their critics. If anything like this were true, you can be assured that the Bush administration would be jumping all over it and letting us know all the details.
Posted by: Don | August 19, 2008 3:08 PM
don, how about this cnn.com/2008/world/meast/05/07/gitmo.bomber/index.html roger
Posted by: roger | August 19, 2008 3:17 PM
Posted by: Don | August 19, 2008 3:08 PM
I will try to find an article for you. But did you watch the 'Showdown at Saddleback' on Sunday? It was great and Warren did a great job with both canidates. McCain told about the terrorists taking two mentally challenged girls / women and straping explosives to them and then sending them into the middle of the market and remotely setting them off killing dozens of innocent civilians. This also happens more that we want to know. Terrorists are evil and evil has to be defeated. This act was unthinkable but they are a good at doing the unthinkable. The sadder element in this whole act of cowardice is that I have not heard one major Islamic Religious Leader denounce those who would do such a thing. The silence of those in the Islamic world is deafening - how sad.
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 3:18 PM
The CNN link didn't work, but I did find an article elsewhere that said a Kuwaiti who died in a suicide attack had the same name as a Guantanamo detainee from Kuwait who had been released in 2005. That doesn't sound to me like proof positive that we're talking about the same person.
Further, after being held in Guantanamo for several years without a chance to prove your innocence or even to learn why you are being detained might be enough to turn just about anyone into a real enemy.
big guy, you are wrong. Several Islamic leaders have denounced suicide bombings. Here's one: http://scholarofthehouse.stores.yahoo.net/jgowrinwikha.html
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 19, 2008 3:28 PM
don, try reading neilsnews on boortz.com this will help keep you up to date. roger
Posted by: roger | August 19, 2008 3:36 PM
Posted by: Don | August 19, 2008 3:28 PM
Khaled Abou El Fadl is a professor of Law at UCLA. I am looking for a major religious leader that has a following outside of their area like a Pope - Archbishop or Cardinal. Someone on par or greater than El Sadar or better.
My personal opinion is that when asked some Islamic leaders will give lip service to denouncing terrorists - privately I believe that they might be pulling for them to achieve their goal.
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 3:39 PM
"You might be correct about these countries but I believe that if you look close - they have flaws just like us."
Of course; I suppose all nations have blood on their hands, though some have more than others.
"arl, i did responed to don just google searh gitmo detainees suicide bombers. have your pick, cnn, abc, nbc, cbs, bbc or fox."
That's not evidence, Roger, that's assigning Don a research project. You've alleged a very serious thing; you ought to be able to furnish some proof.
Posted by: carl copas | August 19, 2008 3:52 PM
RJohnson said, "Actually, there have been quite a few of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay who were found to be completely innocent"
Do I understand your position correctly in that you believe the inadvertent capture of an "innocent" civillian during combat is the moral equivalent of the specific targeting of innocent civillians by terrorists? And further, that the inadvertent capture of an "innocent" in efforts to remove enemy combatants from the battle field and interrogate them in hopes of getting life-saving information is the moral equivalent of targeting and kidknapping innocent civillians for the express purpose of sadistic torture and brutal murder?
Posted by: Bradley | August 19, 2008 3:53 PM
Big guy: "My personal opinion is that when asked some Islamic leaders will give lip service to denouncing terrorists - privately I believe that they might be pulling for them to achieve their goal."
If you believe this to be the case, then why do you want to hear them denouncing suicide bombings?
How do you know that Khaled Abou El Fadl is not a major religious leader for Muslims in the LA area?
Posted by: carl copas | August 19, 2008 3:57 PM
"From this part of the world, the recent use of torture by the US has been astounding. What has gone wrong? I would have expected to have seen many more critiques of the situation from the churches."
I totally agree. The church's lack of response has been appalling. Recently, my husband (an Air Force veteran who is adamantly opposed to the use of torture) has been embroiled in an ongoing e-mail discussion about this topic with his brother, a professing Christian who fully supports the use of torture as a method of interrogation (he justifies his position by citing the many atrocities committed by terrorists/militant radicals against Americans, as if two wrongs make a right). My brother-in-law goes to John Hagee's church, so I wonder if having war-monger for a pastor has influenced his opinion on the subject. When my husand wrote to Focus on the Family asking what their position is on the use of torture by the U.S. military, Focus replied that they refuse to take a stand against torture!
An unintended consequence of the American church's refusal to oppose torture is the impact this could have on cross-cultural missionaries from the U.S. serving in countries that are already hostile to Christianity. Right or wrong, most countries in the world equate America with Christianity. When they hear that many Americans support torture, they will assume that overseas missionaries from the States also support torture. Not only could this seriously undermine their Christian witness, but it could also put them in danger.
Posted by: Julie | August 19, 2008 3:59 PM
Don and Carl,
What Roger has referred to is actually well documented and I am surprised that you seem to be unaware of it. Here is one article from the Washington Post by John Mintz,
"At least 10 detainees released from the Guantanamo Bay prison after U.S. officials concluded they posed little threat have been recaptured or killed fighting U.S. or coalition forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to Pentagon officials."
You can find the rest of the article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html
Posted by: Bradley | August 19, 2008 4:01 PM
Posted by: carl copas | August 19, 2008 3:57 PM
Look him up and he is at UCLA. At best he is like a Seminary Professor. I am looking for an Islamic religious leader that would be like a Bishop or Cardinal, denominational leader.
Yes - I am skeptical. Does that mean that I can not learn or find someone that is genuine - I could. I believe that you can learn not only from what they say but how the handle their lives.
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 4:17 PM
Posted by: Julie | August 19, 2008 3:59 PM
My brother-in-law goes to John Hagee's church, so I wonder if having war-monger for a pastor has influenced his opinion on the subject.
OK - you are holding your brother-in-law accountable for the teachings that he heard at Hagees church????
SO - how do you feel about Obama and the Rev Wright?
I said it before and it bears repeating
Goose and Gander -
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 4:22 PM
Khaled Abou El Fadl is a professor of Law at UCLA. I am looking for a major religious leader that has a following outside of their area like a Pope - Archbishop or Cardinal. Someone on par or greater than El Sadar or better.
Well, you will be looking for a very long time, because there simply is no such leader in Islam.
You (and others as well, most likely) need to take some time and read up on Islam, its history, its culture, its institutions and structures. Islam is not organized like the various branches of Christianity at all. There are no overarching leaders like popes, bishops, or even denominational presidents. That kind of leadership is pretty much uniquely a Christian thing. Even the imam in a mosque isn't really equivalent to a pastor or priest. He's more or less a prayer leader, the rough equivalent to a lay cantor or liturgist, though he also preaches.
Instead, Islam is "governed" (to the extent that any faith claiming more than a billion adherents can be governed) by schools of Islamic law as interpreted by scholars of those schools of law. These scholars issue rulings on points of law (called fatwas) whenever controversies over legal interpretation arise. Khaled Abou El Fadl is one such scholar. In essence, particular Islamic communities choose which scholars they pay attention to. As a result, some may have more authority than others. But no Islamic leader can speak for more than a relatively small number of Muslims.
Roger, Bradley, et al:
The only thing I can say regarding these reports about former prisoners from Guantanamo turning up later as fighters against US and coalition troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, is that it's a risk we may have to take if we're going to capture and detain persons and not accord them prisoner of war status. If we did that, we could hold them as prisoners for the duration of the conflict and treat them according to the Geneva accords POW policies. But since our president decided they aren't entitled to be regarded as POWs, and since our own judicial system requires that we either charge them with a crime or else release them, then we may have to recognize that we might meet up with them on the battlefield at a later date.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 19, 2008 4:48 PM
Don: "The only thing I can say regarding these reports about former prisoners from Guantanamo turning up later as fighters against US and coalition troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, is that it's a risk we may have to take if we're going to capture and detain persons and not accord them prisoner of war status."
I'll go even further and say that it's surprising if a detainee who has been subjected to torture at the hands of the U.S. does NOT become a warrior for Afghanistan or Iraq. After all, our torture policy no doubt made combatants out of other young men who read about it in the papers or saw it on TV. That is one of the practical reasons for opposing torture, in addition to the moral ones.
Posted by: I and I | August 19, 2008 5:03 PM
I and I wrote:
I'll go even further and say that it's surprising if a detainee who has been subjected to torture at the hands of the U.S. does NOT become a warrior for Afghanistan or Iraq.
I agree and said as much earlier (3:28 PM).
D
Posted by: Don | August 19, 2008 5:10 PM
RJohnson said, "Actually, there have been quite a few of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay who were found to be completely innocent"
Bradley said, "Do I understand your position correctly in that you believe the inadvertent capture of an "innocent" civillian during combat is the moral equivalent of the specific targeting of innocent civillians by terrorists?"
Bradley, where in that sentence does RJohnson even remotely come close to asserting moral equivalence? What a distortion!!
Posted by: carl copas | August 19, 2008 5:13 PM
Posted by: Don | August 19, 2008 4:48 PM
You (and others as well, most likely) need to take some time and read up on Islam, its history, its culture, its institutions and structures. Islam is not organized like the various branches of Christianity at all. There are no overarching leaders like popes, bishops, or even denominational presidents.
I understand this - but there is some type of a organization in Islam. I understand this because awhile ago some fanatic is Iran called upon the people of Islam to bump off an author and all were united behind that cause. if they can do that - they can also call upon them to backdown and live peacefully. Not sure that will happen.
All the Time - God is Good
,
Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 5:46 PM
Posted by: Don | August 19, 2008 4:48 PM
Posted by Don
"You (and others as well, most likely) need to take some time and read up on Islam, its history, its culture, its institutions and structures. Islam is not organized like the various branches of Christianity at all. There are no overarching leaders like popes, bishops, or even denominational presidents."
Posted by Big Guy
"I understand this - but there is some type of a organization in Islam. I understand this because awhile ago some fanatic is Iran called upon the people of Islam to bump off an author and all were united behind that cause. if they can do that - they can also call upon them to backdown and live peacefully. Not sure that will happen."
Come on Big Guy, you really didn't read what Don
wrote, did you? Or, if you did you didn't bother to take it in?
Yes God is good, but even as important important, God is forgiving.
God be gracious unto us all, poor sinners that we are.
Sam
Posted by: Sam | August 19, 2008 6:44 PM
...awhile ago some fanatic is Iran called upon the people of Islam to bump off an author and all were united behind that cause.
You are of course referring to the death-sentence fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie by the Ayatollah Khomeini. This case doesn't at all counter my earlier statement that Islam's authority structure is decentralized.
Not all Muslims agreed with the fatwa against Rushdie. But you only heard from those who did. With over a billion adherents and at least five major legal traditions, I'm sure we could find a variety of opinions about the Rushdie case. And Khomeini's authority still only extended to those who were willing to grant it to him. (Further, he was a Shi'ite, which limited his authority to no more than about 15% of the world's Muslims.)
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 19, 2008 7:38 PM
Carl, I did not distort, in fact I copied and pasted his quote. This is the full context: (The first quotation, he is quoting me from an earlier post)
"'But we don't do what they do. We don't seek out innocent civillians and capture them.'
Actually, there have been quite a few of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay who were found to be completely innocent."
This was why I asked for clarification. He quoted me and then made his statement which claims moral equivalence (i.e. suggesting that we are no better because we do the same thing.) There is no distortion here.
Posted by: Bradley | August 20, 2008 1:00 AM
Sorry Folks,
In my post above, I posted a link to the ABC. This refers to the Australian Broadcast Commission, a non commercial organisation some what analogist to the BBC. I assumed that the 'au' in the internet link would have identified that is was not the ABC based in the USA.
The reference is to a book which has just been published on this matter.
Posted by: JohnH | August 20, 2008 2:14 AM
Roger thanks for the tip on this . I can't really understand , but expect some of the comments that you got on this . I found infromation easily on the subject from your direction . Hard situation , we have terrorists , murderers , who have no uniform , no alliance to a nation , treat them as a POW , to what country ? Not sure what the right course to take , but I tend to side with humane treatment , but release . Releasing someone that goes back and kills again , then hear people have the actual audacity to blame America on it . Shamefull . The man went back and Killed Iraq citizens . Not Americans . you release a terrorist with the thinking they have been taught , you can give them eggs and steak, swimming pools and such and they would go back and strap children with explosives . Blame America on it , wow
In early May of this year, news organizations reported a Kuwaiti carried out suicide attacks in Mosul just weeks prior. The reports were based on information from the US Department of Defense and reports from the family. Abdullah Salih al Ajmi, a former detainee at Guantanamo Bay was reported to have conducted a suicide bombing at the Umm Al Rumman police station in Mosul on April 26. Seven policemen were killed and 26 Iraqis were wounded in the attack.
The report created a stir, as Ajmi is the first former detainee confirmed to have conducted a suicide attack against US forces.
Posted by: Michael | August 20, 2008 4:04 AM
And, after all, we should clean our own house before we comment on how dirty someone else's might be, right?
Posted by: RJohnson
Yes the way I have heard we have treated POW's has been an embarrassment to this country . But I never quite understood the position of people who advocate for say partial birth abortions , speak to it as though you were an extremist if you wanted the procedure explained and shown to the American people , yet the same political party at least want to show and explain another kind of torture in what happens to prisoners who are thought to be terrorists . .
Its like we are civil in treating this one group , but let the other group suffer , or let that group suffer and be fair with the other group . But your comment is well taken , and hopefully we can all accept it . It appears so often political strangleholds blind us from seeing things like torture and sound advice so often given not to follow , but for someone else to .
Posted by: Michael | August 20, 2008 4:21 AM
You know - I am all for supporting the Geniva Convention Guidelines and if we are out of bounds - we need to correct that and make safe guards so that it does not happen again.
Now - with that said. I believe that many on this site and I will enclude myself. I believe that if it was my daughter who was taken by a group of people that were going to torture her in order to achieve their goal. I could see myself doing a google search to take a 10 minute course in what to do to get info out of them.
I can remember when my gard student son was little and there were several kidnappings of 3 to 5 year old boys and girls from stores and shopping centers. One of these attemps was thwarted and they caught the two people before the got away with the child. The child that they had changed clothes from boy to girl, colored their hair with a spray and were exiting the building. One of my friends made the statement - can you imagine all the questions the police are going to ask to figure out this case. My response - not very Christian - was. They could question all they wanted after I had my 10 minutes with them first.
So even as believers who desire peace - we have an area that we don't go to in our beings but - we could if the circumstances pushed us there.
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 20, 2008 9:19 AM
"OK - you are holding your brother-in-law accountable for the teachings that he heard at Hagees church????
SO - how do you feel about Obama and the Rev Wright?"
I feel the same exact way about Obama and the Rev Wright. I am not sure why you assumed that I support Obama when I never even mentioned him (for the record, I do not support either McCain or Obama for president but am voting for Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate). Next time, try to remember what happens whenever you assume something.
Posted by: Julie | August 20, 2008 10:21 AM
Christopher Hitchens has a persuasive article on this issue.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
The problem with the torture debate is that the end goal never seems to be to advocate a precise definition of the term that we can then apply to policy.
Rather, it becomes a chess game along ideological lines. Joe wants to paint Jane as an absolute pacifist, while Jane wants to accuse Joe of loving torture.
The argument misses the point, since neither Joe nor Jane support the use of torture, and neither is a pacifist. Rather, both agree that a wide variety of unpleasant interrogation techniques are necessary, but that this does not provide a blank check to our military to impinge upon the rudiments of humanity.
Meanwhile, at a political level, one particular tactic (waterboarding) becomes the proxy battleground for this ideological war. But if we ban tactic, the central conundrum remains. It would seem, rather, that the best tact would be to generate consensus around what our policy SHOULD look like, in concrete terms, and push the government in that direction.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 20, 2008 10:24 AM
Posted by: Julie | August 20, 2008 10:21 AM
Next time, try to remember what happens whenever you assume something.
The sentence about the Rev Wright was in the form of a question. If had wanted to accuse you - I would have been much more direct. I feel the same way about both but I also know that they have the right to speak what they want to say. There are subjects that Hagee talks about that I agree with him on and some that I do not.
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 20, 2008 10:53 AM
Posted by: Sam | August 19, 2008 6:44 PM
Come on Big Guy, you really didn't read what Don
wrote, did you? Or, if you did you didn't bother to take it in?
Yes I read it and too many people believe that the radicals of Islam are just doing their own thing and are not organized because there is no paperwork or trail to follow. This is bogus. During WWII the underground movement in all the various countries worked indepemdant and together. They coordinated efforts all the time and even financially supported them. I know this because my Mom's family lost their fortune supporting the underground movement against Hitler - they did not keep records of who rec'd how much because if the Nazi's got that info - it would put many in danger. You don't think these radicals could do the same? (if you don't - I have a new bridge in Mpls that will be available for sale in Oct)
I am not the brightest bulb on the tree - but if I can put this together - so can they!
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 20, 2008 11:07 AM
Yes I read it and too many people believe that the radicals of Islam are just doing their own thing and are not organized because there is no paperwork or trail to follow.
Big guy--I wasn't saying that the terror networks are not organized! Of course they are! I was saying that the religious organization of Islam is decentralized and for the most part localized. Apples and oranges, big guy.
You earlier complained that Islamic leaders were silent about condemning suicide bombings and said you wanted to hear from an Islamic equivalent to a pope or archbishop. I said there's no such leader who can speak for a large percentage of the Islamic community like that.
Don't confuse the Islamic religious community with terrorist organizations. Of course, they're well organized, but they are not part of the religious structure of Islam itself. And no terrorist leader, unless he had a change of heart, would publicly condemn the actions that they are committed to, would he?
Perhaps I should make a further point. The terrorists don't speak for a majority of Muslims either. Daniel Pipes, hardly an apologist for Islam (he calls himself a neoconservatve, BTW, and he is not liked by Islamic organizations in the USA), has written that perhaps only about 10% of Muslims are committed to the Islamist agenda.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 20, 2008 11:41 AM
Posted by: Don | August 20, 2008 11:41 AM
I understand that the religious part and the terrorist part are seperate. But they are connected more than I believe we want to admitt. El Sadar is a religious leader and I would say a leader of terrorist too. He is to Islam what Fawell would be to Christianity if Jerry had stored guns, amo and bombs in Thomas Road Baptist Church and shot at people.
But there has been times when small/splinter radical Christian groups have gone out on a rampage against something or someone and leaders from churches to denominational groups have gone on record denouncding these people. I just don't see a lot of that in Islam and it concerns me. I know that the radical terrorist are less than what 10% of Islam and do not represent the mainstream. But the mainstream needs to start speaking up in a very direct manner against these terrorist groups and leaders. They are not helping their cause by staying silent. Unless they have to stay silent because they have been threatened.
Terrorists and evil and are threatening to US and most of the world. Evil has to be dealt with and defeated for the sake of all mankind.
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 20, 2008 12:44 PM
Unless they have to stay silent because they have been threatened.,/i>
And that's the key right there. Many are afraid to speak out because they fear that radicals will come after them if they do. The radicals oppose other Muslims who don't buy into their agenda as much as, if not more than, non-Muslim Westerners. Many who have spoken out have been threatened.
Posted by: Don | August 20, 2008 12:57 PM
Posted by: Don | August 20, 2008 12:57 PM
Many who have spoken out have been threatened.
OK - I understand this - so this just makes it just that much more important that we deal with terrorists and make them a paragraph in the encyclopedia. Now - how do we accomplish this? How do we marginalize them so that they no longer have the power to threaten people and in doing so remove their free speach rights. I want my Muslim neighbors and friends to be able to say what they want to and know that they will not be retaliated against by someone for saying it.
God is Good - All the Time
Posted by: big guy | August 20, 2008 1:09 PM
How do we marginalize [the terrorists]?
Good question. The only thing I know for certain is that our current methods aren't working. Rather, they're assuring more terrorists, not fewer. And that includes the whole torture thing, getting back to the main point of this thread. If we had actually wanted to breed a new generation terrorist, I don't think we could have devised a better method of doing that than what we have done, including Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, rendition, and all the rest.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 20, 2008 1:36 PM
Here is a quote which may pertain:
"Whenever I see a man, I must, of necessity, behold myself as in a mirror....Let a Moor or a Barbarian come among us, and yet inasmuch as he is a man, he brings with him a looking glass wherein we may see that he is our brother and neighbor." -- John Calvin
Posted by: prettytexasgal | August 20, 2008 1:44 PM
Here is another one:
"It is better to suffer wrong than to do it." -- Samuel Johnson
Posted by: prettytexasgal | August 20, 2008 1:46 PM
Big guy: "My personal opinion is that when asked some Islamic leaders will give lip service to denouncing terrorists - privately I believe that they might be pulling for them to achieve their goal."
If you believe this to be the case, then why do you want to hear them denouncing suicide bombings?
Posted by: carl copas | August 20, 2008 1:54 PM
Roger,thank you for the link.
Posted by: carl copas | August 20, 2008 2:00 PM
Posted by: carl copas | August 20, 2008 1:54 PM
'If you believe this to be the case, then why do you want to hear them denouncing suicide bombings?'
Because I have to believe that there are some out there that really believe that the terror that their brothers and sisters are causing all around the world is wrong and I want to be there to support them and if need be - protect them.
It wasn;t the Germans who caused the problems that lead to WWII, it was the Nazi's. I have to believe that their are Islamic people and leaders out there that only want to be at peace with the world.
It was the War Lords and the Emperor that caused WWII in the Pacific. I know that there were people in Japan that did not want to go to war.
We need to find these people and stand with them in the fight against terrorist and terrorism.
I try to see the best in people for the most part - that is just the way I am and the way I was raised. I have been slapped several times because of this paradyme but I also have found some wonderful people and for that reason - go ahead and slap me. It just means that I am one person closer to finding that jewel of a friend.
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 20, 2008 2:32 PM
Big Guy: "Because I have to believe that there are some out there that really believe that the terror that their brothers and sisters are causing all around the world is wrong and I want to be there to support them and if need be - protect them."
But if you won't take them at their word, then why does it matter?
Posted by: carl copas | August 20, 2008 5:11 PM
Posted by: carl copas | August 20, 2008 5:11 PM
But if you won't take them at their word, then why does it matter?
For the most part - I would but I would also verify when I could that what they said was true. This is my Mom in my - I always said that she had the Meloney Wilkes syndrom. She only saw the best in people even when their actions said something different. I have been burned and I know that it will happen again. But I have to try to find the good in most people and in that way help them become better people. If I had to I would stand in the gap for a moral Muslim that was being threatened by a radical. Then again - if in standing in that gap and I have a gun - I could use it if deemed necessary.
All the Time - God is Good
Posted by: big guy | August 20, 2008 8:39 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?