Torture

Just because it's been so long since anything happened on the Theological Discussions Forum, I thought I'd post something that might spark discussion. :)

What do you all think about torture? Is it ever justifiable? If a terrorist knows about a plot, can we violate their human rights in the effort to try to obtain life-saving information? What about the government's use of water boarding, where the government makes prisoners think they they will be drowned if they do not give up information, when in reality the government is not going to kill them? I have heard multiple viewpoints on this, but I was hoping to hear what y'all think.

I don't know… I think that God has placed the government in power to administer justice and protect the helpless. So I would say it is totally acceptable for the government to do that if it means savings lives.

^I don't know much about politics though…^ :)

I believe that the government has this power biblically; As said in Romans 13, the government bears the sword, and isn't a terror to those that do good, but to evildoers. So, as long as someone is a criminal (terrorists are), then the government has the prerogative to punish them according the laws which are in place. If someone is a murderer (many terrorists), then they no longer have rights to life, they are condemned, according to God's law. Any torture, however, should have specific goals, and limits set forth by law; otherwise it might become a means of wrongful vengeance, or entertainment, etc. for the pleasure of those administering the torture, instead of serving the purpose of preventing further harm to others.

I entirely agree with MilesChristiSum.

Just to parse out your answer a bit then, to what extent does human rights play into all of this? To an extent, criminals who commit murder deserve death for their actions, but does this give the government the right to, say, hold a burning candle flame under their feet and slowly move it up the body of the criminal as the body burns away until they die (sorry for the detail, but I am trying to make an important point)? Many in history have held that such torture is NEVER acceptable, even for criminals, and that fundamental human rights are violated by such practices. What do you think about this?

Also, United Nations law forbids the practice of torture (which is why America does not officially label it as such). Such torture would be unlawful then on the part of the United States. Would you say that we have the right to torture anyway?

You try to draw a line between acceptable torture and unacceptable torture. It seems to me that you are saying that the end justifies the means. If torture is a violation of human rights, though, how can we argue that torturing to save lives is worth that wrong? In other words, what exactly is that line between wrong and right, and can that be justified Scripturally? Can we inflict purposeful pain and death on someone not necessarily worthy of it (a criminal, not a murderer) if he has information that could save the lives of thousands? Where do we stop?

I am just trying to draw out your answer, as this issue tends, in my experience, to defy simple, general solutions. I tend to agree with your position, but I did want to see what you thought about the specific questions I ask above. :)

Human rights must have an origin; for our worldview, that origin Is God, who has revealed his will through his word. In the old testament law, capital punishment was ordained for certain lawbreakers, such as murderers, rapists, etc. And the same punishment was given to those who gave false witness, as the crime deserved of those they accused falsely. I believe that this sets the standard for criminalizing the withholding of knowledge which leads to harm coming to others.

I believe that if the US, holds the UN to be their authority, then the US is biblically obligated to abide by their laws until they are no longer under the UN's authority. I say this, because I do not believe that torture of criminals for extracting of useful information, is given in the bible as a instruction to governments.
I do not necessarily think, however, that the UN is on the right track of making Biblical human rights laws.

So, if any torture occurs, it must serve a specific point, burning someone to death with a candle, will not likely be the most efficacious route to obtaining any information. I do not think that torture is a violation of any human rights, as long as the measures taken match the crimes committed, and the seriousness of the situation.

Waterboarding is considered torture, so is burning someone to death, one, is used for extracting information, and the other is used for inflicting pain, and vengeance. I am not familiar with the specifics of water boarding, but it is my understanding that no lasting damage occurs, while burning someone up with a candle, even if stopped fairly early in the process, in the case perhaps of having obtained the required information, lasting rather irreversible effects are the result.

If a criminal commits a crime, certain rights are taken away, if it is driving drunk, they lose driving privileges; if it is some crime perpetrated against others, they lose their rights to freely associate with others, e.g. restraining orders, prison, etc.; if it is murder, they lose their rights to life. I believe the pattern should follow with other rights as well.

Deuteronomy 25:2-3

1. And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number.
2. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.

Also the bill of rights says, Punishment should not be cruel or unusual.

Our troops get water boarded as a part of their training, and personally I think its a great way for us to get information.

and there are certain crimes (Like rape) the Stocks (and a variety of other less extreme torture) would be a great form of punish mint for. (not to mention being more effective then jail)

Would someone please define "torture"?

I think if someone has crossed the line of rape or murder, you can do whatever is just or fitting.

I know waterboarding must be a horrible thing to endure, but I don't think they should stop at that. For people like these jihadists, much more creative and painful was, (if necessary) should be used to extract information and punish.

I think if someone has crossed the line of rape or murder, you can do whatever is just or fitting. I know waterboarding must be a horrible thing to endure, but I don't think they should stop at that. For people like these jihadists, much more creative and painful was, (if necessary) should be used to extract information _and_ punish.

Such as the worst torture of all…

Listening to a Top 40 Country music radio station.

I think if someone has crossed the line of rape or murder, you can do whatever is just or fitting. I know waterboarding must be a horrible thing to endure, but I don't think they should stop at that. For people like these jihadists, much more creative and painful was, (if necessary) should be used to extract information _and_ punish.

Such as the worst torture of all... Listening to a Top 40 Country music radio station.

slaps you

Here is a definition that I found for torture:

The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.

It seems to me a good definition, or, at least, it fits my own general understanding of the word. I agree with MilesChristiSum that torture seems to be acceptable in certain scenarios. However, I am still caught up on the question of ends-justifying-means. Personally, it is very hard for me to get over the fact that torture is the purposeful infliction of severe pain on someone to get them to do something they do not want to do. Yes, criminals who have done wrong have their rights taken away, but how far exactly does that extend? Because they are murderers, does that give the government the right to inflict severe pain in return? Now, this is not to say that capital punishment or other governmental punishment (like lashes) is wrong. It is indeed Biblical, but that pain is given to punish a deed, while torture is meant to force someone to do something or to extract information from them. Something inside me is uncomfortable with a government who tortures a murderer to death when it could just as easily use a firing squad. In other words, my understanding of human rights is such that torture seems to be, at its most basic level, wrong, even for criminals.

But then, I wonder if it can be right to save lives? What if we would have to cut off all an informant's limbs in order to get the information, even if that informant has not done anything and is just trying to protect his family (who will be killed if he reveals the location of, say, the nuclear warhead)?

Again, I believe think that torture can be right to save a city from destruction, but then I think there is present the question of "ends justifying the means." How certain can we be before we torture? How guilty does the individual have to be before the government can inflict severe, long-lasting pain on them?

I think if someone has crossed the line of rape or murder, you can do whatever is just or fitting. I know waterboarding must be a horrible thing to endure, but I don't think they should stop at that. For people like these jihadists, much more creative and painful was, (if necessary) should be used to extract information _and_ punish.

Such as the worst torture of all... Listening to a Top 40 Country music radio station.

Yes! this is truth! hopes Abigail doesn't slappeth us!

Over the years, horrible governments have tortured innocent people to death for their pleasure or punishment. This is very wrong. But punishing a man who tortured and killed innocents in the way he hurt other people is right. eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

And who is deserving of torture? God knows. It's when governments are given authority like that that things go wrong. People are naturally evil. Everyone is born a demonic sadist capable of doing all sorts of evil. It's up to you to decide, screw that, I'm going to do what's right. But if you cling to that dark side, and practice its crafts, (such as killing innocent people) you have relinquished your 'human rights'.

Maybe I'm miss understanding you or maybe it was a type o. But you just said:
"It is indeed Biblical, but that pain is given to punish a deed, while torture is meant to force someone to do something or to extract information from them"
and the definition (which is a good one) says: …inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment… or…

Would you say that torturing a Drug Cartel to death would be justifiable? or maybe Adolf Hitler?

How I see it. you can put someone on the rack becuse you want information out of them, you could put them on the rack because you just want to see them in agony, or you can put someone on the rack because they deserve to be there.
All are torture. If they deserve the torture the first two are Ok, other wise torturing them is wrong.