Quote:
Originally Posted by tooblue
Ultimately we are talking about killing another human being, regardless of the method. How can you moralize one method is preferred over the other when they would achieve the same result? I'm really interested in understanding the idea that for many it is OK to condone killing Bin laden using conventional military means but it is not OK to use torture to glean information to find and kill said individual. It's a fascinating incongruence.
Honestly, I am appaled by the idea of torture, yet I willfully give my full support to the military to hunt down and kill Bin Laden (as do you and Mike based upon the history of discussions here). The more I think about it I have to ask what is the difference? Is there a difference? This has lead me to the conclusion that the moment one engages in differentiation, one becomes what one wants to despise in the opening comments of this thread.
In other words, mike, you and myself are no different than Bybee, we just prefer not to use the exact same methods, but our methods are no less heinous.
|
I couldn't disagree more, Tooblue, and I really am shocked you have come to this conclusion. To say that because one would support the killing of a person in a war, they therefore must accept the torture of that person (and any other form of treatment of that person) is a non sequitur.
War is to be abhorred, but it may be, from time to time, necessary. Even so, while engaged in the conduct of war, certain ethical behavior is still required of us. We are not permitted to do whatever we fancy in a war to other people simply because they are on the other side of a conflict from us. As sad as the reality of war is, that does not give us a permit to degrade the human form or defile the temple of God however we see fit.
God has permitted war in many circumstances, so long as the was is being fought with righteous desires. I challenge you to find one single solitary example of God condoning torture or the debasement of the human body.