news-record.com

I see that Leonard Pitts has some rather interesting comments to make on this story. I have to say -- I think he hit the nail on the head.

I would put myself in the "rarely, if ever" camp; however, I also sympathize with Thomas Sowell's point that terrorists who disdain the rules that keep civilization together can hardly complain when those rules are ignored in their treatment. Nor do those who torture terrorists to prevent more innocents from being killed "put themselves at the same level" as the terrorists, as some say. Executing the guilty is not the same thing as murdering the innocent, unless you discard all considerations of justice; and if you do that, on what grounds do you condemn torture? On the other hand, we often lack the knowledge of motive and deed which alone could justify torture. To prevent future terrorist acts, we would have to know that the person we torture has the will to commit such acts, or the knowledge of others so motivated. Also, those who see nothing wrong with blowing up others in the name of their god will use our torture against us in their propaganda. It's a complex question that eludes easy answers among the ideologically challenged.

I agree, Kuranes, extreme interrogation methods are justifiable to protect the precious and innocent from the murderous acts of those blinded by sin and error. God certainly spared no judgment on those who hated Him, his Law and His people in the OT; and Jesus prounounced vilent judgments to come on Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans for their unbelief and apostasy. So, severe judgment and warfare are clearly apporved and justified in the Scriptures - WHEN there is clear and sure evidence for its use.

To ply important knowledge from terrorists is not only justifiable, but necessary. WThere is only one way to deal with mature and implacable sin, bent on destruction. Whatever it takes! in such instances. Warfare (all lethal force) is a nasty business - and not for peacenik wimps. To wage a "nice" war is not only stupid, but delusional. Ask Samson, David, Saul or Judas Maccabaeus. Although Jesus came to advance the true warfare of the Spirit, he used military imagery, as did St. Paul, and John in Revelation.

The ultimate goal of the warfare of the Gospel/Spirit is the end of human physical war. Until that occurs, (no time soon, I think) we must wage just war, with whatever means required. Restraint and reason must also figure in, of course; but we must not fail to do what it takes to protect the innocent - EVEN if the enemy "uses it against us." Hooah! Yes, I'm a pro-military, just-war hawk.

I am amazed at the contradictions made in some of the posts above! How does one wage a "just war" with "whatever means required?" That is asinine, not to mention totally incompatible and incomprehensible!

Christians are to work towards peace at all turns, not using violent means at any point. Check out the Matthew 5-7. That is the clearest definition on how to live in harmony with one another and the world that can be found!

Shalom

Sorryu, Gadfly, but I never said that "extreme interrogation methods are justifiable to protect the precious and innocent from the murderous acts of those blinded by sin and error." Go back and read my post again, once you have wiped off your war paint and finished your target practice. Nor do we torture terrorists because of "sin and apostasy," but supposedly to protect the innocent. The God of the Bible is a worse terrorist than the Taliban, and favors religious freedom about as much (which is to say, not at all). Thank you for reminding us.
I do agree that a "nice" war is a contradiction in terms. Maybe that's why I doubt that a "just war" is even possible. The best we can do, if we must, is to wage a less unjust war than the other side.