The Moral Cost of Torture

This blog touches on the central theme of the Bush Administration (since 9/11)...all is permissable in the name of confronting our fears!

Since 911, our president has used fear to: Turn back the clock on our personal freedoms; overturn much governmental oversite of the exectutive office, (much of which was instituted because of the abuse of power by the Nixon administration); and lose our country's identity as one of the "good guys."

Let me define that last statement. It may be naive, but I've always looked at the USA as standing for something. You know...truth, justice and the American way? We set the moral bar at a high level that all other countries had to try to match. Because of that, we had the luxury of being able to comment on other countries, (or nationalities), mis-treatment of their people and how the conducted their business...'cause after all, we were above reproach in ours!

But now that is no longer the case. The Bush presidency has been quite transparent is their total disinterest in how the world (either friend or foe) view us...or for that matter how his own citizens view us! We can now torture captured ememies, because if we don't they may attack us again! We can secretly monitor citizens' communications without a warrent or any oversite whatsoever...because if we don't, we may not know about future attacks on us! We can violate our rules of due process, (speedy trial, knowing specfic charges against us, right to face our accusers), because after all it's a time of war...the mythical war on terror, (which has no timetable, no borders and does not subscribe to our militaries rules of engagement, nor abide by the Geneva convention). And all this is done under the guise of protecting us.

Putting this into historical context, I'm betting you could find the same justifications made by the soviet union in the 1950's-1980's, for their use of all these same techniques to control their member citizens and nations.

They were the guys who wore the "black hats" for almost 50 years, has that mantle now passed to us? It's a scary thought, but have we now become this centuries "evil empire" to the rest of the world?

Yes, I know, we do a lot of good, both through governmental aid and personal/religious donations to humanitarian causes around the world, but that is all overshadowed by the bad we are doing in other arenas, (ex: attacking countries and occupying them without provication). Remember the old addage...it only takes one rotten (policy) apple to spoil the bunch!

So, here's to our next president really changing our governmental culture....not just giving it lip service.

(RJ Luedke is the author/illustrator of the Eye Witness graphic novel series)

In a New Kind of Christian you have several discussions about Christ's statement that He is the "way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." In the churches I have been a part of this is the mantra. Either accept Christ in the way we say you must or go to hell. Salvation by faith in our formula, not by faith in God.

It has always been difficult for me to discuss this with other conservative Christian friends, because to suggest another way to look at these verses is tantamount to rejecting Christ. Most want to say that this is the clearest statement in the Bible. Chist is the way, the only way, and we simply must bring everyone into the fold this one way.

But I think there if far more to Christ's statement than we allow. Christ was indeed saying that no one will come to the Father except for His death, burial and resurrection. It was the price God required for the sins of mankind. The only acceptable sacrifice, once, for all.

The blood of the cross flowed both directions from the cross. Back in time to cover the sins of those who lived before the cross, and forward in time to cover the sins of those of us who have lived since the cross, and it is totally in God's hands to decide upon whom He applies the cleansing blood. It is not left up to me or to anyone else on this earth. We don't pull God's chain by our religious rituals. God, who judges mankind by the secrets of their hearts, decides. To suggest that the only way one must accept Christ the way "we Baptists" or "we anything" say you must is to make too little of the body of Christ and of the love of God expressed in Christ Jesus.

Thanks for your book. I believe there are a lot of people out there who would like to be able to believe in a bigger God who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him will have God's life now and forever.

I think Brian should have a nice, long talk with Sam Harris, who justifies torture in his book The End of Faith. Then maybe Brian could talk to Chris Hitchens who want to bomb all the Muslims in the Middle East into submission. (These New Atheists are such nice guys!!!)

Hi Brian McLaren,

I like your books and now reading N.T. Wright: the Challenge of Jesus.

But what do you think of Michael Green?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Green_(theologian)

TO JACK BAUER:

When the apostles said to Jesus about a lot of the things that He said, "These are hard sayings", you know what, they did get that much. Jesus is Who He said that He is and that is God-Incarnate. I have a very simple job to do being the New Testament Moses and God will see me thru. Watered-down christianity is not christianity at all.

Something to think about: The Old Testament or the Jewish bible, whatever you wish to call it is God chosing and forming a people to make it safe enough for Almighty God to become one of us and by the obedience of a few to make it to manhood without getting killed.

The "Good News" which the word gospel means is just that, the "Good News" not the good enough news that so many people seem to care about, good enough as in as long as I get to the "good place" well that's a crock.

By the way, I am not cynical about human nature, I'm a realist, open your eyes, the history of mankind speaks very eloquently about how we treat each other, don't you think?

God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof. It is important what you do and why you do it and also what you know. Something to ponder!

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom, remember God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TEDNJTM: "I cannot defend torture as moral act even though it is perpetrated for a moral purpose (saving lives)."

I would agree that you can't justify an act simply by giving it a moral purpose. But where I would draw the line would be (say) in torturing members of a terrorist's family to get to him, since this involves innocents. The terrorist is not innocent (here I'm assuming we're not talking about an Abu Ghraib situation) and that makes all the difference.

Jack,

For me -
it is not about bad cop/good cop. It is about morality and the virtuous life as often illustrated (for christians and others) by the life of Jesus. For some, it is about answering for their conduct to a higher spiritual power.

"urgency of the situation demands expediency - the ideal solution isn't the option." (be careful of utilitarian based arguments)

I disagree. I would be unable to defend that stance to the living, the dead, or my creator.

Kalid...........?

Your question is commonly called a "loaded question". In this case, it presupposes the victims (or anyone for that matter)will want to compare the lives of the dead with discomfort (not the topic issue of "torture").

Discomfort is a physical or mental unease that is internal to a person.

Torture (as spoken of in the essay) is an overt act of violence to another human being.

(Let's presuppose that the recipient of the torture has vital information that, if disclosed, can be used to save a million lives. Further, let's presuppose that the recipient of the torture has committed and would continue, if free, to commit the most heinous of acts against humanity.)

It is uncommon for discomfort (the noun) to be immoral.

An overt act of torture? I cannot defend torture as a moral act.

I cannot defend torture as moral act even though it is perpetrated for a moral purpose (saving lives).

An internal unease versus an overt act of violence - therein lies the difference.

I would hope anyone would be thankful that I did not insult their struggle for a virtuous life by giving in to a temptation to commit a violent, immoral act in their name.

Yes,the act will help relieve the discomfort otherwise felt by the torturer for not saving lives, but is that sufficient? Worse still, that would be committing an immoral act on your own behalf.

I would hope that anyone would be more concerned with their spiritual existence than their temporal existence, their virtuous life than an overt act of violence.

Torture?

You will always and forever be guilty;
even though your plea will be, "I did the best I could", for the reason that you did not do the best you could (but my morality is based more upon..... well. not "the ends justify the means").

You are likely more familiar with the following than I, but if not, you might enjoy a "look-see" of: virtue based morality, deontological morality, and consequentialism (ends justify the means).

TPMB: I take by this statement that you were never in the service and it seems that you have very little regard for the rest of humanity, is that correct?

You can't leave potential victims out of the equation. If you have 'regard' for the terrorists, you lack regard for the victims. Either way you're hurting somebody - it makes more sense to side against the terrorists since they are the guilty ones.

TPMB: Man has the capacity for some very unnice behaviour and the more that is chipped away, it can spiral very downward, very quickly especially when all sides are trying to outdo the other in their atrocities and calling them legal.

I'm cynical about human nature as well, but that just means we need to try harder to regulate the use of torture. You can't be so scared of this hypothetical spiral or real life abuses that you discard a useful weapon against terror. I found Amadou Diallo fiasco appalling, but I still think cops should carry guns.

Sometimes the urgency of the situation demands expediency - the ideal solution isn't the option.

Remember Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (would you be able to look his potential victims in the face and tell them their lives are worth less that avoidance of his discomfort?)? The urgency of putting a stop to the terror plots in motion justified the expedient of torture, just as a sudden, violent attack by a maniac would justify killing him if that was the only way you could react in time (the ideal being to disable him).

I would justify it to my Creator by saying, 'What else could I have done? I cannot let the innocent die when I have the option of extracting the information from one of the guilty. And the trauma and violence this evil man suffered weighs less upon me than the death the innocents would have suffered. It wasn't pleasant, but I can't shirk responsibility - *either way* you're harming somebody.'

I think there must really be other issues for you here other than torture in itself as a mere tool in the war against terror. Fears that it cannot be monitored easily since it is used in organizations such as the CIA, suspicions that CIA types would be predisposed to abuse it, etc. A fatalistic belief that it must be abused, etc. But this just means we should focus attention on regulating torture to avoid abuse. To do without it when our enemies use it, when our subways and other public facilities are so vulnerable would be madness.

As a cynic when it comes to human nature, I have no doubt that there will be (and are) bad cops, but I'm still glad the force as a whole is there.

TO JACK BAUER:

You wrote, "Remember - it's really the suspect's responsibility for the torture he's undergoing. He can end it at any time by revealing what he knows to his captors.", I take by this statement that you were never in the service and it seems that you have very little regard for the rest of humanity, is that correct?

This world is going to be a much sadder place to be when absolutely all manner of common decency are completely abandoned for the sake of sheer survival.

Man has the capacity for some very unnice behaviour and the more that is chipped away, it can spiral very downward, very quickly especially when all sides are trying to outdo the other in their atrocities and calling them legal.

As you should know just because something is right does not mean it is legal and just because something is legal does not mean it is right.

Take care, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom. God's Plan is unfolding and night will be upon us when it gets here, be ready. Thank God for the dawning of the seventh day.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Jack,
My moral duty is to gather data.
My moral duty is to preserve lives.
My moral duty requires me to be creative in the techniques I use to gather data.

My moral duty does not require me to become less than human by torturing another because of expediancy, stupidity, ignorance, or any other reason.

I wouldn't torture and I cannot support torture by others.

I couldn't justify it to my creator; certainly not by asserting a set of unquantifiable assumptions that led to a dubious conclusion.

Please explain again how you would justify to your creator your acts of torture; then, please tell me the source of you moral values.

Thank you.

What a complete load of RUBBISH!!!

If the stakes are high enough, and you are certain enough of your suspect, you have a moral duty to try to avert casualties by torture, if that's your only option.

People aren't thinking - they hear the word 'torture' and they get an image of Lynndie England or something. But it's not an either or situation.

Remember - it's really the suspect's responsibility for the torture he's undergoing. He can end it at any time by revealing what he knows to his captors.

And for goodness' sake, don't rely on a lightweight llke McLaren for your thoughts on this. Victor Reppert and Steve Hays are duelling it out on:
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com
and
http://triablogue.blogspot.com

So far, the formidable Steve Hays is mopping up the floor with Reppert.

Mclaren,

Are you saying that torture is morally defensible in some cases (e.g., overt torturing? torturing covertly but not defending it?)?

Why do you not state that:
TORTURE IS MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE IN EVERY CASE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PERPETRATOR OR THE OBJECT OF THE TORTURE.

Frankly, I have a hard time taking anyone who claims there is any religious or humanistic justification for torture seriously.

Waterboarding is torture. Torture is WRONG. Our elected leaders, by using waterboarding, are implicating ourselves in these wrongful acts. It is our duty to call on the government to stop. NOW.

An Episcopalian

If Bush tortures people,its because God told him too. So don't blame our prez.Blame that bloodthirsty God that everybody worships;the same God who saw the the WTC fall down on 9/11 and didn't lift a finger to help.The same God who ignores tsunamis,earthquakes
volcanoes,hurricanes,tornadoes,floods,fires,and all other horrors including the holocaust.
Then again,maybe there aint no God.

"Torturing secretly and then seeking to defend torture as a valid moral option only hardens us in a monstrous identity."

Excellent comment Mr. McLaren; thank you for this. Even if torture "worked" in the sense of producing useful intelligence (we know it doesn't) it would still be morally indefensible because of what it does to us as a society.

Regards

A Hermit

JoeT:
**perhaps if Bush had read a bit more in his military history class...**

Too many big words in the textbook and not enough pretty pictures.

perhaps if Bush had read a bit more in his military history class in Guard training he would have been puzzled that McCarthur prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding his boys, and would never have considered using it on them (even given what we thought of the Japanese at the time). case closed.

Bush: The United States of Bush Does Not Torture

I have heard him say this. Haven't you?

He looks us straight in the eye and says this.

Of course, if Bush says it is not torture, it's not torture, right?

Your quote from Nietzsche is exactly right. If we practice terrorism to fight terrorism, then we become what we fight.

In Viet-Nam we reached a similar nadir when a soldier observed, "we had to burn the village down to save it."