« From the mouths of babes • Home • Next Post »
On not redefining torture
September 22nd, 2009 Posted in Policy and PoliticsI had intended since I read it last week to post a link to Andrew Sullivan’s electrifying open letter to President Bush, and now I feel a little self-conscious about it since he linked to me just yesterday. His letter pertains to the systematic torture of prisoners sanctioned by the Bush Administration, and is obligatory reading for every conservative — and especially every conservative Christian — who supported what has been falsely characterized as tough but legal treatment of prisoners. Here’s an excerpt:
“Even those decisions that cost lives—of young Americans and countless Iraqis and Afghans—can be morally defended by Christians, in good faith and clear conscience, as a last resort. In fact, fighting terrorism and jihadism is, in my view, an eminently just use of military power, if that use of power is constantly subjected to scrutiny and reflection and revision.
But torture has no defense whatsoever in Christian morality. There are no circumstances in which it can be justified, let alone integrated as a formal program within a democratic government. The Catholic catechism states, ‘Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions… is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.’ Dignity is the critical word there. Even evil men are human and redeemable. Our faith demands that, even in legitimate punishment or interrogation, the dignity of prisoners must be respected. Our faith teaches that each of us—even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—is made in the image of God. To violate that imago Dei by stripping and freezing him, by slamming him against a wall, or strapping him to a board to nearly drown him again and again and again, to bombard him with noise and light until he loses his mind, to reduce a human being to a mental and spiritual shell—nothing can justify this for a Christian. Nothing. To wield that power is to wield evil. And such evil is almost always committed by those who believe they are pursuing good.”
I struggled to find an excerpt because the entire epistle is powerfully convicting. Read the rest here.
on 
on 
on 
10 Responses to “On not redefining torture”
By Jonny
on Sep 23, 2009
Tony,
Thanks for the post and the link. Dead on.
By Gray
on Sep 24, 2009
All that I can say is that if the facts presented in Mr. Sullivan’s open letter are true it will certainly stain President Bush’s legacy forever. Just stunning! I always felt that GW Bush was a decent man with conviction and fortitude. Perhaps fear and uncertainty created a series of events that could not be undone, I don’t know but my heart is heavy.
By Billy M.
on Sep 24, 2009
Tony,
My wife and I have been following your posts for about a year now and have been thoroughly enjoying them. It was bound to happen eventually, but I finally read a post that I didn’t agree with. In principle your argument sounds nice, but in the real world where true Evil exists, I believe that these measures are necessary – a necessary evil if you wish – and have saved hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent lives. I believe that these measures are the ONLY way to crack these men in which Evil resides. Their mission in life is the death of innocent men, women and children whose only crime is to not be Muslim. In this case I do believe that the ends justify the means. Thank God for our troops and the CIA. – Bill
By RockThrowingPeasant
on Sep 24, 2009
I wish you had picked a more credible critic. I will not ignore the argument made about the situation, but Sullivan really can’t be counted on for steady, reasoned reviews of controversial issues. He tends to purposefully avoid inconvenient facts and hyperventilates when a conspiracy is suggested (one recent exampled is the whole, “Is Bristol Palin really Sarah’s child” campaign he championed).
That said, the topic and issues are certainly worth debate.
My principle objection when people argue “torture” is that I find they cannot define it reasonably well. They will point to a dictionary and cross their arms, but that makes me feel as if their understanding of the concept of torture is superficial, at best.
Is torture to Tony the same as torture for me? Tony’s nerve endings, sensibilities and other physiological factors are different than mine. Tony may shrug off repeated blows to the stomach, but may find the pressure points in his head to be especially sensitive. I may not find purposefully confined spaces to be as terrible as prolonged exposure to the cold (I have been through SERE). Recently, a morning radio personality was waterboarded in a stunt and declared it “torture.” Well, for him, it may be. For KSM, it was less so (It’s also important to understand that seeing a figure of being waterboarded 180 times does not means he was put through the full process on 180 different days – the actual technique needs to be understood so we don’t misunderstand what it entails). In addition, people tend to purposefully misrepresent Japanese waterboarding in WWII as what we do today – it’s not.
My point is that we all have different tolerances and torture is, yes, subjective. However, can we establish some type of reasonably objective measure to ensure we can walk a moral line between extremely aggressive interrogation and torture? I think we can, though it still has subjective elements.
When thinking of McCain’s ordeal, it seemed obvious to many that it fit our concept of torture. When we hear about a man being sleep deprived, it is not as obvious. When a man is slammed against a wall, we may feel it is harsh, but not sure if it’s actually “torture.”
Here’s what I’ve worked out on the back of the envelope. If a person can recover most faculties and be physically stable after 30 minutes of the method stopping, it’s not torture. Bamboo under nails? You aren’t recovering after 30 minutes. Waterboarding? You are. Cold exposure? More than likely, you will recover. Prolonged sleep deprivation? Not likely. Slapped around? You’re over it. Beaten with a 2X4 for ten minutes? No way.
It’s not a perfect system, but it works for me. So, how does a Christian reconcile it? I don’t know, but I wonder how a Christian can rationalize war (the purposeful action to end a life violently), but not measures short of violently ending a life, especially if the person recovers within a half hour (or less). In the end, I served my country without regret. Part of that pledge entailed going to the Middle East, Bosnia, and Kosovo and being a part of an organization that bombed, shot, and destroyed lives. My salvation is in His Hands and I will know when I know.
By Jonny
on Sep 24, 2009
How does a Christian reconcile it? I think the suggestion that a Christian should make such reconciliation is, at best, misplaced. Whatever happened to blessing those who curse us and praying for those who persecute us?
“The soul cannot know peace unless she prays for her enemies. The soul that has learned of God’s grace to pray, feels love and compassion for every created thing, and in particular for mankind, for whom the Lord suffered on the Cross, and His soul was heavy for every one of us.
The Lord taught me to love my enemies. Without the grace of God we cannot love our enemies. Only the Holy Spirit teaches love, and then even devils arouse our pity because they have fallen from good, and lost humility in God.
I beseech you, put this to the test. When a man affronts you or brings dishonor on your head, or takes what is yours, or persecutes the Church, pray to the Lord, saying: “O Lord, we are all Thy creatures. Have pity on Thy servants and turn their hearts to repentance,” and you will be aware of grace in your soul. To begin with, constrain your heart to love enemies, and the Lord, seeing your good will, will help you in all things, and experience itself will show you the way. But the man who thinks with malice of his enemies has not God’s love within him, and does not know God.
If you will pray for your enemies, peace will come to you; but when you can love your enemies – know that a great measure of the grace of God dwells in you, though I do not say perfect grace as yet, but sufficient for salvation. Whereas if you revile your enemies, it means there is an evil spirit living in you and bringing evil thoughts into your heart, for, in the words of the Lord, out of the heart proceed evil thoughts – or good thoughts.” ~St. Silouan
By JB
on Sep 24, 2009
Is there probable cause to beleive the subject has reliable and valuble information? Is the coercion conducted by professional interrogators? Is it more likely than not that the techniques will not permanently injure (emotionally or physically) the subject?
If we didn’t have Khahlid Shiek Mohammed in custody but knew where he was and had sent a “hellfire” missle down his chimney, would anyone have protested (except at the loss of valuble information)?
JB
By RockThrowingPeasant
on Sep 25, 2009
Jonny, you have some excellent points. I think we’ve all struggled with the question, “Is Christianity a suicide pact?”
I suppose as we pray for our enemies and the unlovely, we should also make time to pray for our servicemen who struggle with finding a balance between defending their (and our) families from future attacks and living Christ’s message.
By Jonny
on Sep 25, 2009
RTP,
I did my time in the infantry of all places but ultimately found that I could not take the life of another created in the image of God; I exited as a 1-A-O.
That said, I do think there is room in the Kingdom for soldiers and thank God for those who have defended me and mine from harm, but I think it also true that the “better way” for Christians is that of pacifism. Rulers and magistrates in the early centuries of Christianity deferred baptism until their deathbeds because they knew that their hands would be stained with the blood of those they executed or against whom they caused war to be waged. Many soldiers who converted from paganism laid down their arms as a result of their conversions and were immediately martyred. Today, Orthodox Christian priests are prohibited from hunting and, if they take the life of another human, even if by innocent accident, are stripped immediately of their priesthood. Soldiers who take the lives of others in combat are traditionally barred from the Eucharist for many years. These things should indicate the seriousness with which the Church treats the taking of human life.
Indeed, we ought pray for ALL. St. Isaac the Syrian tells us that a merciful heart “is a heart on fire for the whole of creation, for humanity, for the birds, for the animals, for demons, and for all that exists. By the recollection of them the eyes of a merciful person pour forth tears in abundance.” I know for certain that I don’t have one of these kinds of hearts, but I pray that one day God grants it to me– to pray for the whole world with my whole heart. While my heart remains hard, I simply ask with my lips, along with the rest of the Church, every day in Vespers “for the peace of the world . . . And for the President of these United States and all the civil authorities of this land. And for the welfare of our armed forces. And for all of our fathers mothers and brethren absent from among us. And for those who hate us and those who love us.”
By John
on Sep 26, 2009
I remain unconvinced; if Mr. Sullivan said the sky was blue, I would want to look outside and check first before agreeing. Reading the article, I concluded that Mr. Sullivan is hinging his argument on the point that “simply because they are human beings—was protection from inhuman, degrading, abusive treatment or the infliction of “severe mental or physical pain or suffering” in order to procure information.” I completely disagree with that proposition as Mr. Sullivan appears to understand it. Human beings who do evil actions do not automatically deserve to be shielded form the consequences of those actions. One consequence is that society may compel the disclosure of information that may save lives. I would agree that moral behavior should include everything that can be done before resorting to physical or psychological violence, but I do not agree that such violence is always and forever off limits. Being serious and moral does not consist of standing by while harm comes to innocents. Being serious and moral does not mean accepting the death of innocents as somehow less weighty than the responsibility to the guilty who bring about those deaths.