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.