Another view of the portraying torture controversy

It is wrong for the media to explore, even in a "socially responsible" way the use of torture - ever. The reason for this is simple. One cannot prepare oneself for "situations" where one "must" do something that is morally wrong or sinful. Let us use the extreme example that a "terrorist" knows of the location of a weapon of mass destruction that is about to be used and could kill millions of people. Yes, it should be illegal to use torture ever, and EVEN in that situation. To save the world as a moral people, wrong must be wrong, illegal must be illegal, and sin must be sin, even in dire and extreme circumstances. However, the "saving grace" in such a situation is that the top decision maker (and I do mean the top) can make a determination to break the law and sin, in order to, in this one case, save the people.

For example, if this was the case and people knew FOR SURE that a terrorist knew of a nuclear bomb about to explode, it would be the responsibility of the President or the top military person to be notified and to make a one off decision, just as they do in any true crisis. One cannot justify torture in any case in advance. And it remains a wrong act, both criminally and sinfully, to do so even in the most extreme case. Part of being a leader, however, is to be the one to make the personal and professional decision to break the law and sin, given an extreme crisis.

That is why the media is doing a disservice and is propogandizing to their viewers when they explore "what if" scenarios. Torture is always wrong and always sinful. A person who is the chief and must make that decision is making the decision to commit a crime and to sin. That is his or her rightful decision to make. They must then answer for that decision. Justice, both earthly and heavenly, will - as it always does - weigh what has occurred and then decide penalties or justification. So no one should ever take it upon themselves to ever say torture is right or justified, or portray those "decisions" because the premise is wrong. Torture is never right. However, all people have to make a decision in a crisis point in their lives and take responsibility in a criminal or soul threatening context. A decision to torture is a commission of crime and a sin, and must be the responsibility of the top military commander or civilian leader.

I do not believe there would ever truly be a "missed opportunity"(on the scale of the potential nuclear bomb, for example) though the use of this principle. These black and white scenarios are more the basis of fiction. The reality is that terrorists hate America because some of them perceive that many Americans have abandoned God and morality. The moral high ground must be regained by America, or it will be at its peril. I actually think that there is less likelihood of these extreme situations ever occurring if we re-occupy the moral high ground and refuse to endorse torture. I think terrorism loses recruits in the long and short run, and less recruits equals less real risk.