Torture

[Risen Tree]

What is your definition of torture?

When is torture, according to your definition, morally acceptable?

When is torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, morally acceptable?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

What is your definition of torture?

When certain non Christian religionists take captives. As can be seen from just recent accounts, beheadings are the nice part.

When is torture, according to your definition, morally acceptable?

When certain religious texts not from the New Tesament are applied to captives.

When is torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, morally acceptable?

When certain countries called by a defined religion engage in it. The United Nations do nothing about it.

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.

UN – Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1​

Remember, the USA is a secular country.

 

[BelindaP]

Yay. Another torture thread.

 

[CaDan]

When certain non Christian religionists take captives. As can be seen from just recent accounts, beheadings are the nice part.



When certain religious texts not from the New Tesament are applied to captives.



When certain countries called by a defined religion engage in it. The United Nations do nothing about it.



Remember, the USA is a secular country.

tl;dr: Something other people do.

 

[Copperpennies12]

When the idealism of never torturing collides with the reality of the need to torture, torture ought to win out.

The sickening idea of torture is when it is used for an unjust cause. When an evil person decides to engage in certain behavior, he gives up the right to be treated humanely. Just as a man holding an innocent child at knife point in a hostage situation should be shot through the head (giving no other safe options), a person engaging in acts like terrorism should be killed for his acts and if worthwile, tortured prior to his execution to gain information that may save innocent lives.

Torture is not something to judge the torturer about (assuming it's for a just cause) but to judge the one being tortured. His blood is on his own hands.

 

[CaDan]

When the idealism of never torturing collides with the reality of the need to torture, torture ought to win out.

The sickening idea of torture is when it is used for an unjust cause. When an evil person decides to engage in certain behavior, he gives up the right to be treated humanely. Just as a man holding an innocent child at knife point in a hostage situation should be shot through the head (giving no other safe options), a person engaging in acts like terrorism should be killed for his acts and if worthwile, tortured prior to his execution to gain information that may save innocent lives.

Torture is not something to judge the torturer about (assuming it's for a just cause) but to judge the one being tortured. His blood is on his own hands.

Torture is always wrong.

While there may be occasional defenses of necessity, one tortures at one's own peril.

While we are contending for our own Liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men, and to him only in this Case, they are answerable.

 

[jayem]

It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

So if a law is passed that explicitly prescribes extracting fingernails, or electric shocks to the genitals, or waterboarding as penalties for crimes, or as a means of interrogating suspects, then it's not torture?

 

[CaDan]

It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

So if a law is passed that explicitly prescribes extracting fingernails, or electric shocks to the genitals, or waterboarding as penalties for crimes, or as a means of interrogating suspects, then it's not torture?

No. Those things are also evil, but they are not torture under the Convention.

 

[BelindaP]

I'm pretty sure that waterboarding is considered to be torture under the convention. We prosecuted Japanese soldiers for doing it after WWII.

 

[The Nihilist]

When the idealism of never torturing collides with the reality of the need to torture, torture ought to win out.

The sickening idea of torture is when it is used for an unjust cause. When an evil person decides to engage in certain behavior, he gives up the right to be treated humanely. Just as a man holding an innocent child at knife point in a hostage situation should be shot through the head (giving no other safe options), a person engaging in acts like terrorism should be killed for his acts and if worthwile, tortured prior to his execution to gain information that may save innocent lives.

Torture is not something to judge the torturer about (assuming it's for a just cause) but to judge the one being tortured. His blood is on his own hands.

So what's it like being just as bad as your enemies?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Torture is ALWAYS wrong.

Now guess at what torture (s) I am referring to?

 

[CaDan]

Torture is ALWAYS wrong.

Now guess at what torture (s) I am referring to?

Reading laymen's analysis of Constitutional arguments on CF?

 

[Penumbra]

What is your definition of torture?

When is torture, according to your definition, morally acceptable?

When is torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, morally acceptable?

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.

I think my definition of torture is consistent with the first part of the UN definition. I would simplify it as "intentionally causing severe pain or suffering for any reason". The last part of their definition is confusing to me, as though torture is not torture if a country legalizes it. Maybe I misunderstand, but as I read it, I do not agree with the last part.

I think torture is unethical in all circumstances.

-Lyn

 

[CaDan]

I think my definition of torture is consistent with the first part of the UN definition. I would simplify it as "intentionally causing severe pain or suffering for any reason". The last part of their definition is confusing to me, as though torture is not torture if a country legalizes it. Maybe I misunderstand, but as I read it, I do not agree with the last part.

I think torture is unethical in all circumstances.

-Lyn

Other Conventions cover this. See, e.g., International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Convention Against Torture is directed to a very specific subset of inhumane (and dare I say it, unChristian) acts.

 

[Penumbra]

Other Conventions cover this. See, e.g., International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Convention Against Torture is directed to a very specific subset of inhumane (and dare I say it, unChristian) acts.

I'm admittedly not that knowledgeable on the intricacies of international treaties. If other conventions cover it, why does this specific subset need to be addressed? Wouldn't it already be covered in more general treaties?

'unChristian' is not a word I'd use. Various religions condemn torture.

Yet many religions, including views by many Christians, contain torture in their doctrine. This could be temporary agonizing realms of existence like in Buddhism or Hinduism, or eternal pits of suffering as described by some Christians. These sadistic descriptions usually surpass any torture a human is capable of inflicting.

-Lyn

 

[CaDan]

I'm admittedly not that knowledgeable on the intricacies of international treaties. If other conventions cover it, why does this specific subset need to be addressed? Wouldn't it already be covered in more general treaties?

Certainly torture is covered in more general terms in other Conventions and treaties. The CAT, besides giving a short definition of torture, contains many sections on precisely how it is to be enforced.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

 

[Kid Fish]

In my opinion, a person must be physically maimed to be considered torture. The damage may be permanent, like Senator McCain suffered, or it could be temporary wounds that would heal.

Sleep depravation, exposure to cold or heat(without damage), loud noise, threatening dogs on short leashes, water boarding, and the like are not torture. In my opinion.

Is real torture ever justified? I can't say no. It would depend on the given situation and whether or not information was time sensitive and believed to be achievable through hard knocks.

As far as the concept that doing nasty stuff makes one as bad as their enemy, I find that a flawed and naive belief. Does one allow the high ground to dictate whether or not innocent lives may be saved? Again, I guess this is a personal viewpoint, but I can tell you I'll take the gutter and do whatever is necessary and I won't feel bad about it.

 

[b&wpac4]

Kid Fish, I assume you know that the teachings of the Catholic church differ with what you just presented?

 

[Kid Fish]

Kid Fish, I assume you know that the teachings of the Catholic church differ with what you just presented?

I do. I'm not saying I don't struggle with lots of things I think or believe, but such is my journey through life.

 

[b&wpac4]

I do. I'm not saying I don't struggle with lots of things I think or believe, but such is my journey through life.

I understand. Just wanted to ask.