1

In my younger, more idealistic days I never imagined that this conversation could ever be had among Christians. I was so very wrong. I have watched helplessly as one after another the benchmarks of what used to be everyday expections for those attempting the "imitation of Christ" were blunted and adjusted to meet other demands.

I caught the essay by Neuhaus when it was first published and give him high marks for holding the line.

The question we must answer has less to do with the subject of torture as to what is to be normative for Christians distinguishing them from the rest of the (presumably) non-Christian public square. Until that forum becomes the altar of the Eucharist we must know that when we exit the sanctuaries of our various stripes of the Faith, we are entering an even more sinful environment than the one in which we have just worshipped.

It is a serious mistake to imagine that what is normative for Christians can ever become normative for the world. Our mission is not to yield to the temptation to "adjust the moral compass" but to keep our attention trained on the plumbline.

2

Given the demographics of this country, that presumably should probably be "hypothetically". And, of course, in this case many of the people in favor of allowing harsher interrogation measures are Christian---famously so in the case of President Bush.

3

"in this case many of the people in favor of allowing harsher interrogation measures are Christians".....and this is a problem?

This is WAR! While war does not throw out morality, I think there are things which are permissible, Scripturally, in war that would not be otherwise. To paraphase a portion of Romans 13, "the government does not bear the sword in vain." Hmm. Sounds like something harsh to me.

Just my 2 pence.

4

Sad.
It's nice you have ethicists and professors willing to give you the time of day - but it is incredibly sad they are addressing what should not be an issue for followers of Jesus Christ.

If opinion journalists et al, take the place and authority of the Holy Spirit in our lives, we are in more trouble than I dreamed.

5

Senator John McCain’s proposal for banning all forms of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment of prisoners,

The problem I see is in definitions. Is forcing a man to squat on his haunches for hours torture? It's certainly painful and uncomfortable, but is it cruel or degrading?

And speaking of which, my experience in Marine Corps boot camp featured a lot of cruel and degrading experiences that had nothing to do with molding a Marine. Yes, the Corps has reformed a lot of those practices--mostly out of expedience, by the way, not any necessary moral concerns--but could they have been considered torture?

Yes, some things are obviously torture: pulling out fingernails, breaking bones--let your imagination run wild. What about sleep deprivation? Extremes of temperature?

I freely admit I don't have the answers, but until we can get to clearer definitions, I think most of this discussion is futile.

6

The Scriptures give the government the power to punish the evil doers, as a matter of fact, to even put them to death. Someone who deliberately blows up women and children, beheads the innocent, belongs to national army, do not submit to any standards of warfare, and has no regard for any human life has forfeited not only their claim for humane treatment, but also life. Reading one of the commentator he spoke as if Christians are in favor of this they are more concerned about personal life then doing what God requires. Of course this is begging the question. I would argue God has given the government the authority to carry out such actions to restrained the evil doers and promote the living of quiet and peaceable lives.

7

So you got a bunch of "authorities" together, who, collectively, from what I've read, have at best lowered the bar and eroded ethical standards in the only thing they haven't repeated from the progressive point of view.

And you ignore the host of moral sewers from the Bush regime; if torture's so good, why did Bush have to lie about it?

You even get folks singing the praises of a "ticking time bomb" scenario, when in fact, as the above link points out, that whole concept is bunk.

It is the immorality of the "conservative Christian" positions that most people of faith question.

You did a great job.

8

From an editorial in the Wall Street Journal: "All things being equal, we can't think of a worse human rights abuse than blowing someone to bits with a Hellfire missile. Yet no one objected when that happened to al Qaeda leader Hamza Rabia in Pakistan two weeks ago. If certain individuals can be ethically targeted for death in a war, then wouldn't the same hold true for rough interrogation methods? A strange code of morality would allow the killing of Rabia but not his stressful questioning to prevent further murders he might plan against innocent civilians."

Mumon: You even get folks singing the praises of a "ticking time bomb" scenario, when in fact, as the above link points out, that whole concept is bunk.

Actually, it's not. ABC news reported that 10 of 12 captured al Qaeda bigwigs all broke and confessed after short usage of the "waterboarding" technique. The 11th broke and confessed merely upon seeing the procedure.

9

tom:
ABC news reported that ...

Debunked here.

Moreover, as I've noted on my blog, and as others have noted, the "confessions" - such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed- were basically them telling their interrogators what they thought would make the torture stop. Remember the "al Qaeda- Saddam" ties "verified" by folks like Mohammed? Torture induced bunk.

In this day and age the only reason that people could support this monstrousness is, well, they're monsters.

10

Mumon,

Even if some you give you bad information it is no worst than no information at all. No one expects to use harsh treatment with every captive and no one expects to extract accurate information every time it is used.

In this day and age the only reason that people could support this monstrousness is, well, they're monsters.

The monsters are those who behead the innocent, who deliberately attempt to kill thousands of innocent citizens, and who believe it is god glorifying to kill the infidels whenever possible. How do you suppose these types of individuals should be treated, especially in the case where you know they have more information that could help to save other innocent lives?

11

Mumon:

Pardon me if I'm less than convinced by MediaMatters' "debunking." In typical MM manner, they're highly selective in what they "report" and are prone to cite only people who back up their position. David Brock is, well, a crock.

BTW, I'm not necessarily supporting waterboarding. My point only is that the argument that tortue "doesn't work" is not supported by the evidence. Even John McCain said torture worked on him.

But to repeat my first point, without defining our terms I think we're all just talking past each other here.

12

tom:

False, false, and false.

McCain in fact said otherwise (see the entry on my blog).

You're just repeating nonsense from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages.

Cite some credible source.

Really, otherwise, we'll just assume you're approving of the moral sewer that started with Watergate and death squads in Nicaragua, and continuing up to Plamegate, and spy-gate.

It's indefensible.

13

Ronnie:

The monsters are those who behead the innocent

The monsters are also those who used white phosphorous against innocent people.

The monsters are those who approved of Abu Ghraib.

The monsters are supporters of Bush.

Own it.

14

>>Own it.

Dumb.

15

I remembered an article I read a few weeks ago on the McCain amendment that resonated with me. Finally found it at National Review. For a lifelong registered Democrat, this VDH redefines the term, 'compassionate conservatism.'

By Victor Davis Hanson

December 2, 2005

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) recently proposed an amendment to a defense
appropriations bill in an attempt to plug loopholes in existing
anti-torture laws. The amendment, which President Bush opposes, is a good idea
for America--but not necessarily for the reasons cited by most critics
of the administration.

Contrary to popular belief, throughout history, torture has brought
results--either to gain critical, sometimes lifesaving, intelligence or
more gratuitously to obtain embarrassing confessions from terrified
captives.

The question, then, for a liberal democracy is not whether torture in
certain cases is effective, but whether its value is worth the negative
publicity and demoralizing effect on a consensual society that believes
its cause and methods must enjoy a moral high ground far above the
enemy's.

Nor can opponents of torture say that it is entirely foreign to the
U.S. military experience, at least from what we know of it even in
so-called good wars like World War II. There were American soldiers--sometimes
in furor over the loss of comrades, sometimes to obtain critical
information--who executed or tortured captured Japanese and German prisoners.
Those who did so operated on a de facto "don't ask, don't tell"
understanding, occasionally found it effective and were rarely punished by
commanding officers. Even so, soldiers never descended to the levels of
depravity common in the Wehrmacht or the Soviet and Imperial Japanese
armies.

There is also not much to the argument that our employment of torture
will only embolden the enemy to barbarously treat Americans held
captive. What a silly idea! Captured Americans have already been filmed being
beheaded--or shot or burned--and their mutilated corpses hung up for
public ridicule.

We know from both its professed creed and its conduct in the field that
Al Qaeda cares nothing for civilized behavior. Its barbarism is innate,
not predicated on any notion of reciprocity. Beheading and torturing
prisoners occurred before the sexual humiliation so amply photographed at
Abu Ghraib. U.S. soldiers already grasp what surrendering to Al Qaeda
terrorists would mean; they've seen other Westerners appearing hooded
and in jumpsuits on the Internet before losing their heads to choruses of
"Allahu Akbar."

Others argue that by employing torture we will only earn the censure of
the liberal, especially European, world. Maybe so, but once again,
Europe, the United Nations and international human-rights groups, for
reasons that transcend the war in Iraq, will fault the United States no
matter what it does.

Castigating our misdemeanors, while mostly ignoring the felonies of
real barbarians, seems to ensure these sidelined utopians a sense of easy
moral smugness. We see that in regard to Guantanamo Bay. Europeans
fixate on American interrogations of captive murderous terrorists but
remain silent about thousands who have been killed, tortured or forgotten in
Fidel Castro's gulag a few miles away. Iran, North Korea, Serbia and
Saddam Hussein's Iraq tortured and executed tens of thousands without
much fear that either the United Nations or the Europeans would spend
their own lives and treasure to stop such endemic barbarism.

There is also a danger that once we try to quantify precisely what
constitutes torture, we could, in the ensuing utopian debate, define
anything from sleep deprivation to loud noise as unacceptable. Indeed, we
might achieve the unintended effect of only creating disdain for our moral
pretensions from incarcerated terrorists. They would have no worries of
suffering pain but plenty of new demands on their legalistic hosts,
from ethnically correct meals to proper protocols in handling their
Korans.

So we might as well admit that by foreswearing the use of torture, we
will probably be at a disadvantage in obtaining key information and
perhaps endanger American lives here at home. (And, ironically, those who
now allege that we are too rough will no doubt decry "faulty
intelligence" and "incompetence" should there be another terrorist attack on an
American city.) Our restraint will not ensure any better treatment for
our own captured soldiers. Nor will our allies or the UN appreciate
American forbearance. The terrorists themselves will probably treat our
magnanimity with disdain, as if we were weak rather than good.

But all that is precisely the risk we must take in supporting the
McCain amendment--because it is a public reaffirmation of our country's
ideals. The United States can win this global war without employing
torture. That we will not resort to what comes so naturally to Islamic
terrorists also defines the nobility of our cause, reminding us that we need
not and will not become anything like our enemies.

16

Mumon

The monsters are also those who used white phosphorous against innocent people.

There were no innocent targeted with white phosphorous, but instead the ones who were beheading the innocent.

The monsters are those who approved of Abu Ghraib.

No one approved of the stuff that happened at Abu Ghraib. Those who were found guilty were punished. That is the big difference, the ones you are defending would do 100s worst to any group of non-Muslim they captured.
The monsters are supporters of Bush.
Now we see your true colors. No real arguments were presented here, but instead just a rash of name calling.

17

I agree with John Ballard. Neuhaus is right.

18

Mumon: You're just repeating nonsense from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages. Cite some credible source.

Okay, how about from John McCain's own autobiography. Is that authoritative enough for you? Your problem is you actually believe what you read on MediaMatters, even though David Brock is a proven liar.

Anyway, here's McCain's own words, from Faith of Our Fathers. It picks up right after he was shot down and captured:
------

"I thought they were bluffing and refused to provide any information beyond my name, rank and serial number, and date of birth. They knocked me around a little to force my cooperation."

The punishment finally worked, McCain said. "Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant."

Recalling how he gave up military information to his interrogators, McCain said: "I regret very much having done so. The information was of no real use to the Vietnamese, but the Code of Conduct for American Prisoners of War orders us to refrain from providing any information beyond our names, rank and serial number."

The episode wasn't the only instance when McCain broke under physical pressure.

Just after his release in May 1973, he detailed his experience as a P.O.W. in a lengthy account in U.S. News & World Report. He described the day Hanoi Hilton guards beat him "from pillar to post, kicking and laughing and scratching. After a few hours of that, ropes were put on me and I sat that night bound with ropes."
"For the next four days, I was beaten every two to three hours by different guards . . . Finally, I reached the lowest point of my 5 1/2 years in North Vietnam. I was at the point of suicide, because I saw that I was reaching the end of my rope."

McCain was taken to an interrogation room and ordered to sign a document confessing to war crimes. "I signed it," he recalled. "It was in their language, and spoke about black crimes, and other generalities."

"I had learned what we all learned over there," McCain said. "Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."

19

Oh, and forgot to include this point ...

I've read MediaMatters' and others supposed rebuttal of this, but they all leave out this crucial line from McCain himself:

"I had learned what we all learned over there," McCain said. "Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."

Ergo, torture works.

Now, also to go back to my original point, I do not support torture for many of the other reasons cited above. My point solely is those who claim it doesn't work are wrong. And despite what The Raven says, some unpleasant things are not torture. I would not count stress positions and sleep deprivation among those. They are not brutal, nor are they dehumanizing or degrading. If they were, then Marine Corps boot camp was torture.

20

It's nice to know that evangelicals believe torture should be used by moral people very rarely and only to obtain life-saving information.

Does this mean you are renouncing the doctrine of hell, God's eternal torture chamber of horrors, where no useful information is ever extracted?

Oh, I forget, your God is above such moral obligations.

21

"Does this mean you are renouncing the doctrine of hell, God's eternal torture chamber of horrors, where no useful information is ever extracted?

As C.S. Lewis aptly pointed out, the gates of hell are locked from the inside. More good info here, for those who truly care and are not just out to score cheap debating points.

http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/hell.html

22

As others have pointed out to me when I mentioned that C.S. Lewis rejected inerrancy, C.S. Lewis was not a theologian. His view of hell as voluntary is certainly more appealing than the version preached by most Christians, but I find no basis for it in the New Testament.

23

I've made this point elsewhere, but I'll make it again here ...

... if we allow the McCain ammendment to define torture, then there is less likeliehood and incentive to undergo the risk and expense of sparking a terrorist's life.

Meaning it just becomes less complex and just about effective to shoot first and ask questions later.

In other words, either we preach the sword of the Lord and all that goes along with it - or we practice total pacifism. Problem is, most people, especially Christians want to have it a little of both ways.

24

Raven

"When an Arab man with any backbone and self-respect looks at a picture of Lynndie England dragging a naked Arab around on the end of a leash, when he sees how we abuse and degrade and humiliate and rip the semblance of humanity off of their impoverished souls in the most institutionalized, brutal fashion imaginable, when they see pictures of their fathers, brothers and children hooded and stood on crates, burned with cigarettes and beaten without cause, raped with glowsticks and forced to masturbate in front of videocams, then they are going to want to hurt somebody."

I seem recall that Jesus gave the thumbs up to those sorts of sports in his famous "Fraternity Prank on the Mount" sermon.

25

We should start randemly pulling people over on the highway and tortoring them. Eventually we're bound to catch some turbun-wrap head guy who knows Osama and guess what we could save a thousand or even a score of peoples lives.

So someone has nightmares for the rest of there life or goes blind. You can't tell anyone that's not better than a tank of frozen embryos getting tipped over by some womyn's rightist with hair armpits.

26

Check out a funny site dedicated to the absurdity and satire nature of saying “It’s All George Bush’s Fault!"

http://www.itsallgeorgebushsfault.com

I hope that you don't think this is spam. I really do think that you'd appreciate a site like this since we share the same idealogy.

Regards,
Notta Libb

27

Thanks for hosting this important forum. In my view, this is a watershed issue for both the United States of America and for the Evangelical movement in America. I fear greatly that both will fail with serious repercussions. The United States will fail in upholding the very values that have made our nation a shining light of hope in this cruel and bloody world. Evangelicals will fail our duty both to Christ and to the culture in which we serve. If we do, we will not only do irreparable damage to our image, but to our actual identity. America, especially, will have lost its credibility as an agent of mercy among the nations. But, worse, the very people who clamor so loudly for America's status as a "Christian nation" may support or at least facilitate America's abandonment of the very Christian values we supposedly hold dear. Make no mistake, the sanction of torture represents a radical break with American military ideals and the tolerance of this by Evangelicals would represent a radical failure to speak prophetically to our nation. Our "culture of life" message will be reduced to hypocritical rhetoric at the very moment in our nation's history when it is in fact most imperative.

It is true that there are difficult matters here. How do we define torture? (I thought John Jefferson Davis did an outstanding job of this). How do we enact useful and relevant laws regarding it? These are difficult . But the basic question of torture should not be difficult for Christians, and Christian leaders must speak clearly to the nation about it. If our response is one of technical jargon and situational-ethics equivocation, we will lose our moral high ground (such as we still have) -- and we may deserve to lose it if we do not. This is especially true, given that Evangelicals have encouraged the idea that we stand as the power behind the Bush throne. Do we write blank checks to our culture-war allies? And if we silently consent to officially sanctioned torture, who are we to complain about "the barbarians at the gate" of our treasured Christian culture?

I am the son of a multi-generation Army officer corps family. My father and grandfather, both distinguished wartime commanders, instilled in me the belief that America must not merely win her wars but must do so in a manner that retains our great values. They believed that life was not everything, but that the way of life was more important. When I was a young combat officer, my instructors and commanders taught that we would not torture -- not merely because it is ineffective (and McCain is right about this) but also because it is ignoble. American soldiers are not brutes, we believed, but honorable defenders of human life and dignity. We did not teach the kind of situational ethics that says that our own survival justifies any behavior. We admitted that torture happens in war, but we stood against any official sanction of it and we exercised our authority to suppress the cruel employment of deadly force.

When I was teaching leadership at West Point in the early 1990's, a news report emerged of Serbian soldiers who had entered a convent and proceeded to rape and murder the nuns there. My cadets were outraged. But I informed them that they and their future soldiers would be capable of performing these very acts under the right circumstances, and that it is the duty of American officers to stand against the evil in human nature especially when enflamed by the zeal of hatred and the lust of battle. The photographs of Abu Graib bear this out. Abu Graib was not merely a failure of policy or of oversight. It was a window into what our young men and women are able -- and even eager -- to do when our depravity is enflamed by war, unless leaders set a clear moral and ethical tone and enforce it with brave dignity. As our young people grow up in an entertainment culture more and more satiated with gratituous violence, the danger of barbarity will grow dramatically worse.

When I became I Christian, I learned that the value of human life is not measured with a utilitarian yardstick. Mankind's dignity stems from the image of God that we bear. What Dr. Jefferson's article defined as "methods of interrogation that use severe force, pain, or coercion, and as such threaten to undermine the inherent dignity of the person created in the image of God" should be simply unthinkable for Christians. And we must say so clearly and forcefully.

Moreover, I learned from the Bible that human nature is corrupted by a terrible depravity. Therefore, especially when required by duty to employ deadly force, it is imperative that Christians place clear limits on permissible behavior. To equivocate on this issue is to commit a grave folly that can only have terrible results.

The official government sanction of torture -- for the first time in American history -- is a defining moment that threatens to set a new and barbarous precedent. It is not an isolated issue, but a door. Will we keep it shut, voluntarily restraining our self-interested behavior for the sake our our virtue, our national purpose in the world, and (for Christians at least) our faith in God? How terrible it is that a government so strongly supported by Evangelical Christians should facilitate the argument that the words "In God We Trust" really should be removed from our currency. For if we still are trusting in God, we will not sanction (much less demand) wartime actions that cause hell to rejoice and heaven to weep.

28

Mr Phillips,

Would you bite, punch, kick, and even kill if necessary, to prevent an intruder that came into your house from harming your wife and kids? If so how is that any different? As a matter of fact it is probably worst than the government doing it, because God explicitly gives it authority to use the sword on the evil doer. Furthermore, is it also not a concern for those created in the image of God that we think those who do not honor life(i.e. terrorist) are not worthy of it themselves?

29

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your question, because I think it sheds light on the issue. The situations you envision are vastly different from that of a disarmed prisoner who is under our control. I fully support the right to self defense (and defense of one's family and home) as well as the government use of the God-given sword (which is why I was a combat officer for 13 years). I am not opposed to prisoners of war being charged under law and executed, when warranted. But these are vastly different situations than the dehumanizing and cruel use of violence on a person who is no longer capable of doing harm. Also, I fully agree that it is not easy where to draw the line between interrogation and torture. But the question of the need for such a line in a way that rules out acts that justify the term "torture" should not be a doubtful moral issue.

Thanks again for your question and I hope my reply clarifies your reading of my comments.

30

Paul,

I failed to address your final question: "Is it also not a concern for those created in the image of God that we think those who do not honor life(i.e. terrorist) are not worthy of it themselves?"

The Bible does not teach that those who do not honor life are not worthy of it themselves. The human dignity of every person stems from the image of God granted by our Creator. In fact, this is why murder is so heinous a sin in God's eyes and why it is worthy of being punished with death -- not because murderers have lost their created human dignity, but because the sin merits that level of punishment. In Genesis 9:6, the Lord tells Noah that the reason those who shed the blood of man must be put to death is not because some people do not have the right to live but because "God made man in his own image." It is the nature of the sin that requires punishment with death.

May the Lord bless you.

Richard D. Phillips

31

Mr. Phillips,

The situations you envision are vastly different from that of a disarmed prisoner who is under our control. I fully support the right to self defense (and defense of one's family and home) as well as the government use of the God-given sword (which is why I was a combat officer for 13 years). I am not opposed to prisoners of war being charged under law and executed, when warranted. But these are vastly different situations than the dehumanizing and cruel use of violence on a person who is no longer capable of doing harm.

As a matter of fact the situations are not vastly different at all. First of all your classifying the treatment as ‘dehumanizing’ can be equally used against the death penalty. The Scriptures grant the governing authorities the power to use the sword!! What is more ‘dehumanizing’ or ‘cruel’ than that? Waterboarding? Physical torture without death? Second it seems you are arguing it is ok in your defense of your family because the individual still has the capability of doing harm. But, isn’t a captured terrorist who has participated in the planning or knowledge of an attack they may kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people still capable of harm?

Also, I fully agree that it is not easy where to draw the line between interrogation and torture. But the question of the need for such a line in a way that rules out acts that justify the term "torture" should not be a doubtful moral issue.

If the government has been given the authority to use the sword(i.e. kill), I don’t see how some physical pain( I wouldn’t be in favor of long term physical damage) is wrong or immoral especially for someone who we know is guilty or arrogantly admit to guilt.

The Bible does not teach that those who do not honor life are not worthy of it themselves. The human dignity of every person stems from the image of God granted by our Creator. In fact, this is why murder is so heinous a sin in God's eyes and why it is worthy of being punished with death -- not because murderers have lost their created human dignity, but because the sin merits that level of punishment. In Genesis 9:6, the Lord tells Noah that the reason those who shed the blood of man must be put to death is not because some people do not have the right to live but because "God made man in his own image." It is the nature of the sin that requires punishment with death.

Yes, I agree. My wording was not exactly accurate, but I think the point still stands. If those who take innocent life merits their own life is taken, why is physical punishment to save innocent life immoral in your book?

Thanks for you time.

32

tom :

I guess you don't want to know the rest of what McCain said, did you?

There's no question which side you'd have been on when some guy from Nazareth was gettin' crucified.

Geez.

33

Mumon

I know what the rest of McCain said. I've read it.

Now, let's revisit the original point: You (and others) have said torture doesn't work. A lot of evidence says it does, including the testimony of a man who has been tortured. Remember McCain's words: 'Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."

That does not mean one supports torture. I don't. I was only refuting a point you (and others) have made.

BTW, you're rapidly approaching Larry Lord and Windbag's talent for the facile, non sequitur cheap shot.

34

"I had learned what we all learned over there," McCain said. "Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."

Ergo, torture works.

Does it?

Didn't McCain also say that he signed a confession that was written in his captor's language, that he could not read?

He signed a confession that he could not read! He had not clue what he was signing - he didn't care.

His breaking point only meant that he was willing to sign anythig that they put in front of him - whether it was the truth or not.

Was it truth? We don't know.

Does it work? That depends on whether or not you want a confession to anything - or whether you want the truth.

35

I don't think anyone is arguing that torture(i.e. some form of physical discomfort) will work every time or it should be used every time. However, I think to say it will never work is specious. Futhermore, there will be instances where the information that is given can be validated.

36

Paul,

Again, I think important distinctions need to be made. You argue that a captured prisoner can still do harm because he has information about planned attacks. But that person really is not a threat, since he is under our control, after all. What you seem to mean is that since he is now at our mercy we have the ability to coerce him into actions that are advantageous to our defense. Through torture, we might get him to divulge information about planned attacks. Sure, but that is not keeping him from doing us harm. It is forcing him to do us good against his will. But why stop there? Why not torture him into a statement denouncing his terrorist organization? That, too, would be advantageous to us. But why stop there? We could torture him into denouncing his religion. That might be advantageous. But none of these actions involve stopping him from doing us harm -- he is no longer able to do so. They all involve using physical or psychological cruelty on a disarmed human being so that we might gain an advantage in our good cause. Oh, but is it still a good cause at this stage? Why have we labeled him a terrorist in the first place, except that he uses his deadly power against the unarmed and the helpless. Have we not then occupied our own definition of terrorist when we do what the terrorist does?

By the way, in saying such things, I am not making any accusation against President Bush or our government. I do not know enough about actual situations currently under debate to make such a charge, nor is that my intent. My intent is to debate the moral issues regarding the intentional use of torture from a Christian perspective.

37

I think one more perspective on this is important. Jesus told us that we should do to others as we would have them do to ourselves. This tells us to put ourselves in others' positions when we are making moral decisions.

So the question might be put this way: How would I consider the following scenario: 1) I have engaged in violence that I consider to be an act of war in a just cause; 2) I am captured and am now at the mercy of my enemies, on whom I am no longer able to inflict physical harm; 3) My captors suspect that I have information about planned activities on my side; d) they inflict physical and/or psychological torture so as to force (the operative word is "force") the information from me by breaking my resistance. Is it not likely that I would conclude from this that these people are worthy of my hatred because of their cruel use of the power they held over me when I was defenseless? Is that how I would want to be treated if I was a prisoner of my armed opponent?

Let me just observe that this scenario is the opposite of that experienced by enemies of the United States in every war prior to this one. It has been part of our wonderful history that the first-hand experience of our imprisoned enemies has always led them to respect and admire us. They found that the terrible things that had been told about us were not true, but instead that we are a generous and humane nation, so that our strongest allies tend to be those who were most recently our enemies.

But, some will reply, this war is different because these are terrorists and not soldiers. No doubt, there are some differences with respect to this war. But the human dimensions remain, and it has always been at the human level that America has most won admiration and trust.

Moreover, let me point out that the North Vietnamese justified their torture of American soldiers on the grounds that in their view we were terror-bringers who did not deserve protection as soldiers. If the families of our soldiers did not accept that justification, we cannot expect the families of our prisoners to accept such a justification from us.

Finally, I am proud that to date our Army is still punishing soldiers who engage in torture. My point is not to disparage our fine armed forces, but rather to combat this idea that we as a nation should accept the necessity and the acceptability of torture.

38

Mr. Phillips,

Again, I think important distinctions need to be made. You argue that a captured prisoner can still do harm because he has information about planned attacks. But that person really is not a threat, since he is under our control, after all. What you seem to mean is that since he is now at our mercy we have the ability to coerce him into actions that are advantageous to our defense.

You seemed to think if the person is not currently carrying out an action they are not a threat or responsible for a certain action. If I participated in the planning of an activity that will kill many or if I know about a planted bomb that will kill innocent people then I’m responsible for that harm also. One does not have to directly carry out the event to be held equally responsible or guilty of the harm.

Through torture, we might get him to divulge information about planned attacks. Sure, but that is not keeping him from doing us harm. It is forcing him to do us good against his will.

But of course he is equally guilty of the harm though indirectly. Also the issue is not so much to get him to do good, but a matter of justice being carried out by saving the lives of the innocent.

But why stop there? Why not torture him into a statement denouncing his terrorist organization? That, too, would be advantageous to us. But why stop there? We could torture him into denouncing his religion. That might be advantageous. But none of these actions involve stopping him from doing us harm -- he is no longer able to do so. They all involve using physical or psychological cruelty on a disarmed human being so that we might gain an advantage in our good cause. Oh, but is it still a good cause at this stage? Why have we labeled him a terrorist in the first place, except that he uses his deadly power against the unarmed and the helpless. Have we not then occupied our own definition of terrorist when we do what the terrorist does?

Remember above you said there are important distinctions to be made? Well, I hope you realize that no one is advocating torture in each and every scenario where we capture a terrorist. No one is advocating torture for any and every possible advantage. As a matter of fact I don’t think it should be used against other national militaries that adhere to some standard(i.e. not deliberating blowing up women and children or beheading innocent peace workers). Even against the terrorist I only think it should be used against those we know have information(e.g. Zarqawi and his high ranking officers) . I just disagree that any use of physical pain is immoral. As a matter of fact I would say it is more immoral to let innocent citizens by the hundreds or thousands be killed, just like it would be immoral for a husband to let his wife and children get blown to pieces because he wouldn’t want to inflict pain on criminal.

By the way, in saying such things, I am not making any accusation against President Bush or our government. I do not know enough about actual situations currently under debate to make such a charge, nor is that my intent. My intent is to debate the moral issues regarding the intentional use of torture from a Christian perspective.

Granted, and I likewise am not trying to defend or protect the government, but instead be consistent to biblical principles.

39

Richard writes: "Jesus told us that we should do to others as we would have them do to ourselves. This tells us to put ourselves in others' positions when we are making moral decisions.

So the question might be put this way: How would I consider the following scenario: 1) I have engaged in violence that I consider to be an act of war in a just cause;"

Let's think about this. Can anyone imagine Jesus (at least in his first incarnation) engaging in violence that he considers to be an act of war in a just cause? How about Paul?

If there were ever a just cause for war it would have been the war for Judean independence from Roman domination. Yet Jesus taught submission. Paul taught obedience to an evil dictator.

When the Jews did mount a rebellion in 66-70 AD, what did the followers of Jesus do? They ran away.

What did the Christians do in 135 AD during the rebellion led by Simon bar Kochba? They refused to fight.

According to one of the foremost evangelical scholars of the early church, Everett Ferguson, virtually all Christians were absolute pacifists for the first 250 years of Christianity.

Can you imagine Jesus taking up arms in 1776 to fight the British?

Which side would Jesus have suited up for in the Civil War?

Would Jesus have enlisted in the Marines or the Army for the current war in Iraq?

Do evangelicals realize how bizarre it is for them to promote Christianity one day and a "just war" the next?

40

Ex-Preacher,

The problem with your position is the data of Scripture. We are told to obey the king, and that the king is given the power of the sword. Now, this does not mean that we blindly offer allegiance to the secular power, but surely it indicates that in a world of wars Christians who serve as citizens or subjects will need to participate in this kind of civil obedience. One might easily point to the high esteem in which certain believing centurions were held. One also might point to the fact that by the time of Marcus Aurelius, much of the Roman Army consisted of Christians -- who were highly esteemed for their obedience and devotion to duty. Both your example of Christians who did not serve and my example of Christians who did serve can be accounted for by sociological considerations, and therefore these examples do not tell us what the Lord desires. But the Scriptures do tell us what the Lord desires. Moreover, Christians have long realized that the sixth commandment not only cannot rule out all taking of human life (since the Bible demands this from its earliest records), and also that fulfilling the sixth commandment requires defending those who are wrongly at risk. Therefore, the very thing I am arguing for is an approach to the use of deadly force that is in keeping with the 6th commandment -- one that defends life and does not perform violence without proper cause.

My argument here has been that prisoners who have been disarmed do not put us in a situation in which we rightly take their lives (unless they are convicted of capital crimes -- but that would not warrant torture). I arrive at the position I have advocated here by considering the whole counsel of God's Word. Jesus' Messianic mission certainly did not call for him to serve in a military capacity, but he did tell his disciples that henceforth they would need to wield swords in order to be good Christians. Moreover, as for my argument from the Golden Rule, I would take no offense at another person (even another Christian) taking up arms against me in the pursuit of his God-ordained civic duty.

41

Dostoyevsky: "If God is dead, anything is permitted." Christian advocates of torture: "If God exists, anything is still permitted." Christianity shades off into ethical nihilism. But then, these are strange times.

42

I was glad to see The Raven and Larry Lord in these comments talk specifically about some of the actual torture practices that have come to light that have used by the Bush administration.

With all the phony hypotheticals about ticking nuclear-bombs and sophomoric comparisons, advocates of torture are reluctant to say, yes, I favor repeatedly bringing a suspect to the point of drowning as a means of interrogation.

Richard Phillips' comments here impressed me as a meaningful application of Christian principles to real-life situations. The reason we have laws of war, including international laws against torture, is because they put some limits on the destructives of war. The death rate among German and Anglo-American prisoners of war in the west in the Second World War was radically lower that that among German and Soviet prisoners in the east. And that's basically because the Geneva conventions were largely honored by both sides in the west, and by neither side in the east.

I've made more detailed comments on the symposium essays at:
http://thebluevoice.blogspot.com/2005/12/christian-right-on-why-jesus-wants.html

I just want to add that when Christians defend the torture practices of the Bush administration, the acts that they are defending, based on what we already know, include the following. Sterile phrases like "taking off the gloves" are convenient evasions of what is really being advocated.

Those practices include: waterboarding" (near-drowning); prolonged sensory deprivation; sleep deprivation; constraining victims in painful positions for extended periods to cause excruciating pain; physically abusing children in front of their parents; various forms of humiliation including forcing victims to crawl around on dog leashes, stripping them naked and forcing them to urinate and defecate on themselves; various forms of sexual abuse and violence including vaginal rape of females and anal rapes of males, including young Iraqi boys; releasing a dog onto a naked victim with his hands bound qand allowing the dog to rip out chunks of his flesh; extensive beatings; deprivation of food, water and medical care. The violence has caused death in a number of known cases; this is also known as "murder".

43

Thank you, Richard D. Phillips for your good words. Yours is an example to follow. The civility and patience of your comments are rare qualities in comment threads. I took the liberty of capturing your first comment on my blog in case I want to refer to it later.

44

Mr Phillips,

You keep using this line of reasoning, but it is obviously flawed.

My argument here has been that prisoners who have been disarmed do not put us in a situation in which we rightly take their lives (unless they are convicted of capital crimes -- but that would not warrant torture).

I responded to this above, but in case you missed it I will respond above. Just because a prisoner is disarmed and captured it does not mean he is incapable of harm to the innocent. For example, if I have planted a bomb that will go off at a set time and you capture me after that point. I am still able to carry out harm though I'm physically restrained. Likewise if I participate in the planning of a major attack. You capture me, but the plans are already in motion. I know of those plans and my revealing the information could prevent the death of many. Am I not still capable of the harm and equally guilty as those who carry them out?

Grace and Peace

45

You've been blogged:

http://www.blogs4god.com/node/984

Tried to email you, got bounced!

46

Time to read all the comments is not available so I will just state that hopefully somebody has already made the arguments I make below. And even if somebody has already, it likely still bears repeating:

1. Information obtained through torture is not reliable.

2. Information obtained through torture is not reliable.

3. Information obtained through torture is not reliable.

This "principle" is always true, whatever the justification advanced that inhumane treatment is morally permissible.

So whatever "price" is paid, the circumstances are always such that the torturer has "overpaid."

47

I am against torture too, but it is interesting to see the relativists become absolutists and the absolutists become relativists on this issue.

Hypothetical:

A dirty bomb explodes in NYC killing a million people. They capture the one responsible who claims that other bombs are is set to go off in Boston, LA and Chicago the next day. After that, all he says is Allah akbar. Under those circumstances does any one out there think that torture would not be justified in obtaining information?

48

Terence,

I think the problem is that the relativists are absolutely relativist while the absolutists are relativey absolutist.

49

Re:

"I am against torture too, but it is interesting to see the relativists become absolutists and the absolutists become relativists on this issue."

My torts professor used to say: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Or something to that effect.

Anyway, a hypothetical may be crafted to rationalize inhumane treatment in extraordinary circumstances, but the information obtained is still not going to be reliable.

Yes, once in a while you may get the truth from torture, but, similarly, a bad gambler can hit an inside straight when the pot is small.

Both are "plays" with a negative expectation.

50

" I think the problem is that the relativists are absolutely relativist while the absolutists are relativey absolutist."

I guess that you are aware that "absolutley relativist" is a contradiction in terms.

Concerning the hypothetical, I believe that this country faces a greater threat of nuclear attack then it did at the highth of the cold war, yet I still would not advocate torture as a matter of policy.

Since 9-11 I read a true story about a situation where the CIA
could make no progress until they fooled a terrorist into thinking that he had been deported to Saudia Arabia. When faced with his Arab interrogators and the liklihood of real torture, he revealed his secrets. The lesson? Forced exposure to rap music doesn't get results but in the case of real torture, the threat is greater than its execution.

51

All:

Not really wanting to get involved on this thread, but it would be worth taking a look at: http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/world/13501345.htm

Grace, open eyes

Happy New year to you all

Gordon