View source for Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?

[[Image:Brainradio.gif|thumb|right|200px|"[http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz123084e194a8.html I must kill Frank Drebin]" ]]

"Coercive Interrogation" can refer to a number of methods currently being used in the War Against Terror.  Some are "minor"(e.g. sleep deprivation), others "major" (e.g. waterboarding, physical abuse).  Sometimes they are used to extract immediately vital information, sometimes for less immediate needs.
Where do Christian values intersect with these practices?

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12. Not consistent with waterboarding unless ye would that men should waterboard you. No exceptions made for hypothetical situations in which waterboarding someone would prevent a greater evil. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's all done with mind control through brain chip implants and  nowadays.  We've come along way since old fashioned waterboarding.  And that stuff was never needed, anyway.  Heroin in your breakfast Cornflakes does the trick, they'll sell their own mother for another bowl of Cornflakes.  Most of this stuff you read about waterboarding is just disinformation.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Is this a joke? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:08, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==No==

I just can't picture Jesus beating someone up to make them confess, or piling up naked prisoners and take a picture of it.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]


All I could think of when I read the question was... "forty lashes".  Although, I guess, they weren't asking questions, they were trying to get away with not executing him for the Pharisees purposes of silencing him.  How can anyone even mildly versed in the stories about Jesus even think this could be a debate? [[User:Human|Human]] 02:49, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Get people scared enough, and they can rationalize [[Holocaust|ANYTHING]], as long as it's being done to someone outside their [[Monkeysphere]]. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 02:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Transference==
This is not even relevant for argument. Christian values are inapplicable with coercive interrogation. As unrelated to Christian values as using a bayonet on someone or flying a civilian airliner into a building full of civilians. What is being attempted here is just another attempt to attribute coercive interrogation with Christian values. Maybe we can give the Christian value attribute to  ritualized decapitation, mutalization, use of human shields (non-combatants). But tell me honestly, which values did you use when someone came to murder you and your family because their  leaders ordered them too? Of course there weren't any exept the value of your life over your would be killers. It is only those that hold a hatred for Christianity who will use a war that someone else is waging to devalue it. It is absolutely just another way to make political rants about two things that someone has absolutely no knowledge about. This propaganda technique is known as TRANSFER (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938). This technique of trying to attribute something negative to an apposing religious view is only too common in the religion debate category and usually with all of the usual suspects.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:09, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:I do not see anyone arguing "Christian values support torture" or even "Christians torture".... seems to me that the question under discussion is "''ought'' Christians support torture" -- and the answer immediately presents itself, '''''Thou shalt not!!''''' for "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40.... it is better that we should allow ourselves to be the recipients of torture than to inflict it upon another, better that we should allow ourselves to be murdered than murder another.... for the torture of another is a sin that will not be washed off our hands, and those that condone it, in their hearts, words, or acts, are as guilty and as condemned as those who beat, burn, and humiliate, no matter the "value" of the information sought!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:06, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
::The debate question is whether coercive interrogation is consistent with a certain ideology. Meaning are the two compatible with each other? Nothing about torture is being mentioned here, by the way. Let's not misdirect on the topic of discussion. Also that Matthew 25:40 has nothing to do with the application of coercive interrogation techniques used to save lives during a time of war is only proving one of my points perfectly. Make sure that your not wanting to sin isn't an act of sedition that causes others to suffer for it. I hope you'll see the value of this information and to apply it accordingly.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:41, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::What you call "coercive interrogation techniques used to save lives during a time of war" are nonetheless "coercive interrogation techniques" (and if we are not talking about torture, then what do we mean?).... if someone were to demand that you renounce your faith and blaspheme against the name of God, and threatened to kill your entire family if you refused to do so, what would you do? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 21:04, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
::::I would've declared a war against terror on them. Oh, darn it, someone already beat me too it. I hate it when I have to make the same point over and over again. Look up 'coercive interrogation techniques' so that you will be able to tell the difference between coercion and torture. Also the differences between military combatants and religious marterdym would also be something to make a distinction between. Historically we haven't reach the point where we don't have to learn war no more.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:19, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::Besides, in that line Jesus was reffering to the poor. Not Terrorists who want to kill us. Besides who is ''really'' at fault The inhuman terrorist who desires the destruction of all that we Americans hold dear (and/or Americans), or the Intelligence Officer who seeks to prevent Terrorist attacks by any means necessary. I believe that in this case, the Ends surely justify the means. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 21:45, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: You're presuming guilt, Capercorn, and the only reason anyone is even pretending it's a legitimate argument is because noone has any idea what detainees' legal status actually is. If they're criminals, then they must be presumed innocent and be given due process (a fair and public trial) - this means no 'coercive interrogation'. If they're prisoners of war, they have to be treated in accord with the Geneva convention - again, no 'coercive interrogation'. Honestly, this shouldn't even be an issue. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)