www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Anti-WaterBoarding Bill Vetoed.

Presidnt Bush has Vetoed a Bill outlawing Waterboarding.

WaterBoardign Bill Vetoed [news.yahoo.com]

I feel this was a mistake on the part of Mr. Bush in regards to this matter.

I agree, Zarove. No matter what one's politics, Christians should not support a form of torture. The ends do not justify the means for Christians.

What is waterboarding?

(I guess it's not standing on a board and riding waves or being pulled by a boat.)

It's an interrogation technique. A person is laid on their back, and water is poured on their face, making them think they are drowning, and hopefully forcing them to give up their information.

But I thought President Bush was prolife? Apparently, what makes one "prolife" is a matter of opinion. I deeply regret that I once voted for President Bush. I cannot vote Republican as long as they support the intentional torture of human beings.

Joe

Quite a disappointment from President Bush, whom I voted for twice. It is especially disappointing that his only defense is that it "saves American lives". Such a utilitarian - and short-sighted - way to look at things. A sad day for America.


I'm curious: do I assume correctly that you also cannot vote Democrat as long as they support the intentional killing of human beings?

That is a great question. I do not know the answer. Either I vote for neither (basically don't vote) or I hold that the playing field is level and vote for what I think is most prudential. Since I think that governmental use of torture is just as grave as the government's permitting people to get an abortion, I must then either vote on the basis of other issues or not vote at all. I can't personally use the argument that there are many more abortions than there are cases of governmental torture because that would be consequentialist. So I do not know what to do.

Joe

I feel likewise, and I'm not sure what I'm going to do.

I cannot vote for either possible Democratic candidate, because both enthusiastically endorses the killing of innocent children in the womb. However, to the best of my knowledge the Republican candidate at least implicitly endorses the torture of human beings, which is also intrinsically immoral (I realize McCain says he's against it, but I'm pretty sure he voted for this bill - someone correct me if I'm wrong).

However, I think I must disagree with your appeal to consequentialism. In this case, we are not asking which one is morally permissible for you to do - perform an abortion of ten children or torture one person. In that case, neither are permissible. We are determining prudentially which candidate would do less evil - the candidate who supports the murder of millions of innocent children or the torture of a handful of suspected terrorists. Again, both abortion and torture are morally evil actions, but I personally am going to consider McCain as the lesser of two evils precisely because I think abortion the greater practical evil in the world today.

Of course, I may end up voting for some quixotic third-party candidate (which I've done before). I don't see that as throwing away my vote, as who says we are required to vote for one of the two major parties?

Hello all,

While I do not think torture is good. But I do wonder how else can the officials get information that's critical to our national security from someone who refuse to give it? I mean, petty idle threats don't work. So what else?

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

The United States Intelligence Services managed to get quite a lot of information without torture before 9/11.

Regardless of it's success, torture is not compatible with being a Christian, and is of a piece with being pro-life.If we were a more prayerful people the need for torture wouldn't even exist.

About four years ago a Russian writer who name I disremember (my great granny's word)wrote an opinion piece about the effects of torture on those ordered to do the torturing-drinking, a dulling of consciousness towards violence leading to abusing wives and children being the most obvious responses. He wrote about his own torture sessions and how the guards begged him to talk, to make up something, anything because they couldn't stand to watch him suffer or administer the torture (it was supervised by administrators and head honchos so they couldn't fake it).

Recently a state executioner confessed his role in Virginia's state executions and he spoke of the psychological effect it had on him.

It's so easy to decide folks should be tortured or killed when you don't have to do it yourself. They're spiritually damaged by it also and those of us who support torture and the death penalty are responsible before Christ.

I don't think I'd want to face Christ at the judgment seat and say, "yeah, Joe was a state employee and I added death and torture to his job responsibilities. What? He beat his kids and the youngest suffered brain damage as a result. What? His wife miscarried because he almost beat her to death?Oh, that's too bad, but look here, his superb waterboarding techniques saved the lives of millions of people.I support special education and the wife can always have more kids, right? What are three lives compared to millions of lives?"

I don't think so.

I agree wholeheartedly with my sister's comments.

As do I.

[/quote]

I'm curious: do I assume correctly that you also cannot vote Democrat as long as they support the intentional killing of human beings?

[/quote]

Yeah that sums it up for me. I don't think I can morally vote for anyone.

Converted Viking

It's not just President Bush who supports torture. Yesterday the House failed to overturn the veto of the bill, coming up 51 votes short at 225-188.

Oil prices continue to raise, the dollar plummets in value, home foreclosures increase in number, we're in debt to China, we have the highest rate of incarceration of any country in the world. We have embraced Godlessness and are reaping the harvest.

I'm afraid you're right.

I am contemplating not voting at all. Since I am already spiritually and moral disenfranchised from the process, I don't see why I should participate. I'm going to have to pray about this and think about this though. But I don't think that I believe in representational democracy anymore. The people simply can't be trusted because they do not vote as rational, autonomous individuals but they only follow the leading of the sophists in politics and the media. Most people should not have the right to vote.

I think it is an empirical fact that unless the government is officially Christian, we will end up with the kind of society that we have. Unfortunately, a constitutional monarchy with Orthodoxy as the official state religion is not viable anymore. We must face the fact that we live in a post-Christian world and that genuine Christian values are marginalized.

Joe

Part of what may explain why so many Republicans support the veto is how it was written and because of how the Democrats are framing and simplifying the issue to suit their short-term political objectives.

Terry

This bill is peripheral to the consequences of America's societal Godlessness.

Terry

That may very well be true. However, it does not remove their guilt.

Democrats or Republicans or whatever. The bottom line is this country is a mess because politicians on both sides of the fence do not have any sense of morality neither does that the majority of citizens in this country. The main goal I think I see in society is I don't care about anyone else all I care about are my needs.

The idea of what is good for society went out the window many many years ago. I am with Joe, I am disenfranchised from this political system. It aint moral folks.

Converted Viking

"Does not remove their guilt."

Can we really understand the exact nature of their moral guilt without knowing their conscience, their motivations, and the context of their decision to vote against overriding a veto?

Is this issue as morally objective as if the congressmen in question were to publicly support abortion?

Terry

Hi,



Then you do not get it.

We either believe that the human dignity of any person is a God-given gift nobody has the right to take away, or not.

If we do believe that, we cannot torture anybody for any reason, not even national security.

If we do not believe that and we believe national security ranks above human dignity, then well, we need to pursue national securty at all costs.

The real question is what do we believe and whether or not such beliefs are consistent with the Christian faith.

I have my answer, but I am pretty sure it is not shared by everybody on this forum.


Shalom,
Memo

Come on. Anybody should be able to see that waterboarding is a despicable practice--a practice for which we prosecuted Japanese after World War II.

No. However, it is a despicable, indefensible practice as far as I'm concerned. Votes against the bill were shameful. President Bush's veto was shameful. Votes agains overriding the veto were shameful.

There have always been exceptions, but as a rule, this has always been the case with politicians.

This is the real problem. Politicians will usually do either a.) what they think will please their constituency, or b.) what they think they can get away with. With the so-called "Religious Right" so solidly behind Bush, he can do just about anything he pleases, so long as it isn't something that will turn them against him.

For their part, they have bought his explanation regarding the use of torture because he is the one that's offering it, and they regard him as such a great Christian president.

Let us pray that they'll wake up and realize the power they could have over him (as his constituency) if they would only lose the hero worship.

(Maybe they won't be so starry-eyed about McCain--assuming he wins in November ...)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

"Anybody should be able to see that waterboarding is a despicable practice"

I wouldn't defend the practice nor judge those who support its conditional use without seeing the classified procedures which control the administration of what we are calling water boarding.

The ban would affect such a small number of detainees that I must wonder about the larger political issues at play; those on one side seem to have a stronger desire to negatively affect the image, the reputation, and the authority of President Bush than to seek just treatment for the detainees.

Terry

Dwight,

I respectfully disagree. Do you remember the Cold War years? I bet there were A LOT more torturing back then than nowadays in the post 9/11 world.

Do you remember the World Wars I & II? I bet there were a lot of torturing happening to get information.

I can go on and on. This subject has NOTHING to do with 9/11. It's been around for a long time.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

If anyone of you have conscience in not voting for candidates you feel to be immoral...then why not write yourselves in the ballot?

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Ha, that's a good suggestion.

Terry