... I Live Next Door To A Country That Approves Of The Use Of Torture, As Long As It's The Good Guys Doing It, And The Bad Guys Getting It.
Fred has a couple of posts that resonated with me as I read them this morning.
I believe that torture itself is dishonorable. I believe that failing to condemn torture is dishonorable. I believe that condoning the practice of torture empowers our enemies and puts American lives at risk. And I believe that by embracing the immoral, counterproductive and utterly un-American practice of torture we make America more closely resemble the kinds of infamous and evil regimes we ought never to resemble in the slightest.
I believe that those who defend the practice of torture lessen America. I believe that the condemnation of those who condemn torture lessens America. I believe that Joseph Darby is a great American and that Jeremy Sivits is not.
But I can't believe that we've fallen so far that I actually have to say all these things. I can't believe that we have reached the point where statements like "Torture is bad" and "It is good to condemn torture" are seen as controversial.
Of course, the situational ethics people will be all over me for this. Here's a challenge for you, right up front. If you are a person of faith, please indicate how the teachings of Jesus would support your point of view. And, if you're going to tell me that the teachings of Jesus don't apply, please tell me why.
Eloquently put. A splendid rebuttal to last week's now infamous Go Daddy blog.
Posted by: topmate | June 26, 2005 at 01:22 PM
Of course torture is bad. The problem is that the definition of torture seems to be loosely defined lately.
I think today's pacifists need to recall these words of Jesus: Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his brother.
Posted by: Leslie | June 26, 2005 at 03:48 PM
Well Leslie's partially correct.
The problem is that the definition of torture has been redefined. As has the meaning of Gulag. As have many other words all so that a particular political agenda can be accomplished (or a particular political ideology be advanced).
The redefiners are those who have problems with Bush specifically, and with his policies on Iraq. You see, they'd rather we go back to 12 years of impotent UN resolutions and French, German, Russian and Kofi Annan making profits off of dead, maimed, hungry and suffering Iraqis.
The redefiners are also quick to forget that those guilty of committing crimes at Abu Grhaib, those guilty of treating hardened killers like frat boys at an initiation, are being punished, are being brought to justice. They also are quick to forget that the majority of prisoners are being treated so well, many of them refuse to leave when offered freedom.
They also conveniently forget what real torture is and what they call torture today isn't.
These Utopians (members of the Church of Gumby Jesus) decry the behavior of Gitmo prison guards who might accidently piss on a Quran while forgetting that some of the people being guarded think nothing of blowing up mosques (filled with Qurans). And then they want to talk about situational ethics.
I think Mike's question ought to be turned around. If you're a person of faith, why is it that you're so readily able to lie about what is or isn't torture, why is it that you look the other way while evil is perpetrated against innocents and while that breath has barely escaped you're launching attacks against evil that doesn't exist (and where it does, it gets ferreted out and punished)?
This is the same mindset prevalent in the late 1930's and into the 40's, where while Jews were being rounded up and sent to prisons where they were baked in ovens like Zionist brownies or experimented on while alive and without anasthesia or while they were gassed to death, the Christian pacifists were in their prayer closets decrying the mere thought of combatting this evil and in a reverse sort of humility (something I call arrogance) would question the Christ-likeness of those who dared to bear arms to defeat the Nazi scourge.
I call on you Mike and on your pal Fred to specifically substantiate charges made, to define torture specifically (and with great care because based on what I've read, "torture" is happening on many a college campus, and voluntarily) and to cite specific cases of torture that been have been "embraced by Americans".
I also can't help but think that some of you need to relive 9/11. Yes, it might take a minute or two to load, but some of you seriously need to take that time. It's more than obvious that you've forgotten.
More than obvious.
Posted by: Rick | June 26, 2005 at 05:57 PM
Rick,
How has "torture" been redefined, exactly? My dictionary (Collins, which [I suppose] fortunately pre-dates 9-11) defines it as:
1) to cause extreme physical pain to, esp. to extract information
2) to give mental anguish
As far as I can see from the reports, both seem to be true of the treatment of prisoners under US "care".
"those guilty of treating hardened killers like frat boys at an initiation, are being punished, are being brought to justice"
First, many of those in US custody have never been charged, let alone tried and found guilty of any offense, so let's have less of the "hardened killers". And treatment "like frat boys" is such a severe understatement of what's been going on (even under the official admissions of events) that it trivialises it. And there is serious doubt that those guilty of initiating, encouraging and condoning this behaviour are really being brought to justice - only a few of the small fry seem to be facing charges.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | June 27, 2005 at 03:37 AM
Mike wrote me to say that he had a problem with someone's language (over at my blog).
I found this from a reader with a long-standing liberal orientation who seems just as perturbed at the language used by some.
'Nazi', 'Gulag', 'Nuke'...
Let's add 'Torture' to the list...
Posted by: Rick | June 27, 2005 at 06:37 AM
I totally agree that the ridiculous hyperbole of "Nazi", "Gulag" etc. are inappropriate and unhelpful. However, that's precisely because they are not accurate descriptions but excessive terms used for their emotive pull. By contrast, what is going in in Abu Ghraig and Guantanamo Bay *is* torture by any reasonable measure.
Like you, I deplore hyperbole - but I do so precisely because it hardens people when they hear what's really going on, because they assume that it's more hyperbole. As your poet said:
how dare you use those words
turn them cheap and trivial
wear down the bone of their meaning
to disparage what is merely bad
how dare you bring us closer to forgetting
what evil is
closer to repeating the past.
If we lose sight of what evil is, we are in danger of repeating that evil ourselves.
If we lose the ability to call evil evil, we are in danger of losing the ability to do anything about it.
If we close our eyes, in the name of expediency, to the misdeeds of our representatives, we lose any right to assert the moral high ground, for we have become the terrorists we accuse others of being.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | June 27, 2005 at 07:05 AM
John,
No one is denying that there's been some abuse. And the perpetrators have been punished. But the vast majority of what goes on in these prisons is something other than torture. You say you deplore hyperbole yet Fred's initial post is hyperbolic in the extreme and you seem to agree.
Why?
Are you saying that America is routinely and systemically torturing prisoners? There's no evidence to support that. None.
And then to say that listening to rap music is torturous... isn't that hyperbole... (granted, in the sarcastic sense, rap music is indeed... painful... but torturous? C'mon...)
It is ludicrous... almost as ludicrous as this, which I find to be related to this discussion. In the eyes of some, spanking is torture (and if not torture, then certainly criminal in their view)... do you agree with that too John?
Do you see where this is taking us?
Posted by: Rick | June 27, 2005 at 07:24 AM
Rick,
Is "some abuse" acceptable? Have the perpetrators been punished? If so, we would expect that the abuse would have stopped, but the reports keep coming.
Of course, the "vast majority" of what goes on in prisons is not torture - but only (if I may) because one cannot torture someone 24 hours a day. any torture is unacceptable and should be greeted with howls of dismay across our society. Sadly, the best most people can seem to manage is a grunt of indifference. And that is the target of the original article above! Torture is unacceptable - no ifs, no buts, no maybes. If there has been torture in our prisons, there shouldn't be just a few prosecutions of low-level guards. There should be in-depth investigations, governmental oversight, huge shakeups in the monitoring and training systems, removals of high-level staff from their positions for failure in their duty.
Am I saying that the USA is currently routinely torturing prisoners? No, because I cannot know whether it is still going on. I would say, though, that the USA has been routinely torturing prisoners - and prisoners, be it noted, who have never been charged or found guilty of any crime. And that the USA is guilty of trying to cover this up rather than to root it out. And that there has been little evidence of a change of heart in the way prisoners are to be treated.
Is rap music "torture"? To a muslim from a country not exposed to western music then, yes, constant exposure to rap would be torture - it (or portions of it) represents the very worst elements of the western society that Islam correctly diagnoses as morally bankrupt. It certainly counts as "mental anguish in the definition I found in my dictionary. (And I say this as someone who quite likes a lot of rap.)
I'm also interested that you've not engaged with the definition of torture I gave. After weighing in with your main assertion that it had been "redefined", I still see no evidence of how you believe that this has happened.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | June 27, 2005 at 07:46 AM
John,
I think this Wall Street Journal piece does a pretty decent job of articulating the point you see me failing to make:
Posted by: Rick | June 27, 2005 at 08:23 AM
I find it interesting to see that this thread has pursued such a wild tangent. Mike asked this to be referenced in terms of faith - pro or con. Instead it has turned into a vitriolic and myopic rant from Rick.
Jesus did not come to support the regime of Rome (America). His presence among us was a counter-intuitive brush with a graceful merciful God who suggested (commanded even?) that we love our enemies, sacrifice our freedom for that of another and lay down the sword of vengeance.
The charge that all Christians did nothing in the face of the Third Reich is a gross overstatment. Rick, you decry redefinitions but seem ok with selective memory. Yes, many in the church turned a blind eye. But many. MANY, of them were they who hid Jews under floor boards and in pantrys at the risk of their own lives.
War is an uncreative, knee-jerk reaction. It is easier to pick up a gun than it is to come up with another solution. I find it both tragic and amusing that Rick would suggest we need to relive 9/11. Why? So we get riled up enough to pick up our guns? Perhaps Rick, to turn the table and use a horrificaly painful rhetorical device, you might consider that 9/11 held other lessons. That the American Dream is a nightmare to some, that the consumption it mandates comes at the expense of others and produces an excrement that is never dumped on home turf but always exported.
Mike asked whether Torture is justified or not, and to justify that answer in terms of faith. I can't imagine something being further from the teachings of Christ. Torture is a denial of dignity, it is a affirmation of our own belief that we are right and good and God is on our side - it has always been the tool of the tyrant. Christ did not come to establish America but to establish His kingdom - a Kindgom characterized by redeemed people who render mercy, love, grace, and justice not retribution and vengeance.
Rick is clearly an intelligent person and he clearly feels very strongly about his country (I assume he's American). But it's clear he has other priorities than those of Christ. We are arguing something here that is so rooted in worldview that if any intelligent dialogue is to be had the ground work is far from being done.
From a purely utilitarian perspective, I offer this. GWB picked up the sword of vengeance immediately after 9/11 and in doing so has guaranteed that the cycle of hate continues to spin. America specifically will be embroiled in war for the coming decades as the children whose parents were killed in anti-terror strikes rise up in vengeance. GWB made a statement - he said "we are strong". Good for him. I learned in the schoolyard when I was 7 that the strongest bullies were the ones that carried the least in their braincases. They act quickly, they are burdened by arrogance, and they have no foresight. They are uncreative, unkind, and self-protective in the extreme.
I also learned that great leaders are only judged great in hindsight and I might be wrong about GWB's character. I might even be wrong about the fruit of his actions. But that they are contrary to the teachings of the Christ he claims to follow seems self-evident.
Either way, Rick, I respect your right and responsibility to have an opinion about these things. I'm curious to know if your faith, whatever that is, informs your opinions on these matters.
If we make each other the enemy, then 9/11 was a spectacular success. Keep that in mind folks. Let's approach this with a little humility and a little laughter.
Posted by: david | June 27, 2005 at 08:57 AM
David,
If what I've posted is a mypic rant, what in hell is Fred's post that Mike reacts to? A soliloquy?
America is Rome now eh? Maybe you want to talk to Robert about that, I had the distinct impression he had a different perspective.
America is Rome... and we're now supposed to take David seriously... if America, that bastion of freedom, liberty, that protector of the same, where some die in the attempt to live here, where others are indifferent and where the two can coexist without any problems, is Rome, what pray tell (and in hell) is Canada? Greece? Please...
I don't doubt that Jesus said what David attests Him as saying, after all, it's sourced in Scripture. Yet Scripture seems to testify to God the Father's, shall I dare say, violent confrontation with what is deemed evil, over and over again... but we must deny those Scriptures or lessen them in the light of what Jesus said (to a particular audience in a particular time).
We must also deny or dismiss or deride the Pauline scriptures (are they Holy?) that suggest that God uses governments as His agent of wrath to confront and punish evil-doers.
We should also deny or dismiss or deride those Scriptures that paint Christ as warrior, that say that he came not for peace, or where this something-other-than-Gumby Jesus decried the wolves in the world and who spoke of the doom that would come to those who did not listen to His apostles. None of these characteristics fit well with the meek and mild caricature so many of you are enamored with.
I'm amazed that David would imply that my faith has not informed my opinions. Then again, not really. The new fundamentalists are the Religious Left who while decrying the narrow ways of the Religious Right walk their own narrow way and deride those who refuse to walk similarly.
My faith in Christ is strong if it can be defined as a longing and desire to know Him and be known by Him.
My carrying out of that faith is flawed however in that I'm human and that I live in a world filled with evil (and yes, sin... something many of you refuse to even acknowledge unless it's in the sense that someone like myself is not believing or behaving as you are... then that is certainly, in your view, sinful).
I'm challenged by Christ's call to love your enemies but I'm just as challenged by his call to do many other things that are damned near impossible. Who here has not been angry with a brother? Who here has not lusted in his heart? Who here has the respect (and dare I say love) for The Law as Christ did? Are you folks reading all of the Beatitudes or just those that support your preconceived notions?
You want to love Osama Bin Laden and hug him into the kingdom, go for it. I want to love his potential victims and save them from having their heads chopped off or dying in a skyscraper at the hands of this man (and his ideology) that summarily represents evil.
Did Christ mean Osama Bin Laden and those who think like or follow him while killing innocent men, women and children ought to be loved into doing what's right, into behaving like Billy Graham? I think it curious, don't any of you, that in the same passage where Christ tells us to love our enemies, he also tells us to be perfect as He is perfect... I ask each of you, is that possible?
Let me put this more bluntly and plainly (if I can). We, as believers, strive to live a life worthy of the calling. Some are quite successful in that striving but most, in my view, are not. Faced with the inevitable distractions and disturbances that are common in this fallen, sinful and yet to be redeemed world, we screw up, mess up, make shitty decisions and suffer the consequences. Are we (who fail) then doomed to hell? Seriously, are we? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
I don't know with certainty that my position is the right position Scripturally because frankly, I see things now in Scripture that before I would gloss over, or dismiss myself... but who here doesn't do the same? At least now (finally), I'm being honest about it. You want to call that a myopic rant, feel free. If you think that this doesn't inform my opinions, well... you're about as wrong as wrong gets.
The bottom line is that there is much about Jesus Christ that we don't know. And there's much about how to live that we don't know (if we're to be honest with our selves and each other). In our day to day circumstances in the workplace, in our homes, with out family, friends and coworkers, the beatitudes seem practical, sound and easier to live out.
Then again, how many of us live in circumstances where Uncle Bob might strap on a bomb belt and walk into the midst of the a family reuinion and blow himself (and many of us) up? Did Christ mean that we're now to welcome all Uncle Bob's who behave similarly into our gatherings? Does turning the other cheek now mean that all our skyscrapers and our future Pentagons ought to be painted in bulls-eye red so that we can live up to the letter of Christ's new commandment (and not the spirit)? How practical is that?
My faith (that David chooses to belittle by using the phrase "whatever that is") does in fact inform my opinions... but my experiences, my intelligence, my ability to rationalize and yes, my God given ability to recognize good and evil are also all good teachers and I consider God to somehow be involved in them each and that has taught me that I can't embrace legalism when dealing with Christ. Yes, He came to fulfill the Law and yes, He summarized that Law by stating that we should love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves... yet why is that some of you who are so quick to tell fundamentalists that they can't define that summary in a restrictive way especially if you disagree with how they say we're to live out that summary, how is it that you're now attempting to tell the rest of us how to live out our lives?
Too many of you are assuming, in my less than humble view, that your views of who Christ is and how Christians are to live out their lives is the preeminent view. Too many of you have become that which initially you abhorred.
In your zeal to dismiss and belittle a narrow view of God and living out His ways, you've replaced that narrowness with a new narrowness...
... it's your way or the highway... it's "love your enemies" as you define "love", as you define "enemies"...
I simply think that you folks are the ones with the myopia...
... I'm simply the "liberal" fighting your fundamentalism.
Posted by: Rick | June 27, 2005 at 10:52 AM
OK, Rick - rant over, I hope. I'm still waiting for your answer to how "torture" has been redefined. I'm still waiting for your answer to why we should allow torture (or even mistreatment) of prisoners who have been found guilty of no crime. And I'm still waiting for your answer to why only small fry have yet been punished, given the evidence that a lot of abuse has been going on in these prisons.
I'm not in any way questioning your faith. I acknowledge that we have different perspectives, but that is part of being human. Let us, perhaps, learn from one another.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | June 27, 2005 at 11:19 AM
Sorry, boys, but I guess I need to point something out.
Just as the church is not supposed to be conformed to the world, I'd hope that the US would not set its standards for treatment of prisoners by what is acceptable to other nations, or what ends up being expedient for "national security" on any given day.
Has everyone forgotten that we're supposed to be "the good guys" in this battle? That as the flagship of democracy, we're suppposed to be upholding a higher standard? If that's not true, what are we fighting for? What are they dying to preserve?
I don't think that 9/11 justified what happened at Guantanamo anymore than Pearl Harbor justified the treatment of Japanese in US internment camps. History has already shown us that the latter was evil.
I have to believe that the founding fathers whose spirit gets invoked so frequently in quasi-patriotic fervor did not fight and sacrifice and die so that we could fritter the rights they fought for away by things like the Patriot Act.
I'm concerned that the definitions of "torture," "democracy" and "freedom" are all in jeopardy. And it scares me.
I wish I had a good answer - but I don't. However, I do know that there is a big difference between "questioning the direction in which our country is headed" and being anti-American, just as I believe that not supporting this war does not mean I support opening the doors for every mad bomber who wants to walk in. And just because we are "one nation under God" doesn't mean that anything we can justify doing to protect that nation is God's will.
That kind of extreme black-and-white thinking may play well on Fox News - but I'd hope we don't all have to sink to that level in our discussions.
Posted by: Steve F. | June 28, 2005 at 02:31 AM
Steve - As a Canadian, hearing that from an American gives me more hope than you can know. Thanks for writing that. Thanks for being part of the solution.
Posted by: david | June 28, 2005 at 10:33 PM