RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

History Won’t Wash Away Torture’s Shame

by Jimmy McCarty 10-17-2008

According to a recent article in The Washington Post, the Bush administration has known and approved of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” i.e., torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, since 2002, and provided written approval of such techniques to the CIA in 2003 and 2004. For many this is not new information. What is new information is that it seems everyone involved wanted someone else to be held responsible if these techniques ever became public knowledge.

The CIA requested the memos approving of the methods from the administration because they were using them without any written approval and wanted to be sure the administration was not leaving them out to hang if there was ever a public outcry like there was against Abu Ghraib. The Bush administration apparently postponed providing such a memo for more than a year, and still issued only a couple of internal memos total that we know of thus far, to avoid any direct link to the torture at Guantanamo Bay.

Everyone seems to have known that what they were involved in at Guantanamo was wrong, illegal, and immoral, and that if what was happening there ever became public knowledge, there would be a public outcry. That is why the CIA wanted the administration to officially be in bed with them. That is why the administration tried to avoid any official link that demonstrated its knowledge of the torture occurring at Guantanamo. It is why Condoleeza Rice demonstrated hesitancy and reservation about the use of such methods, and why John Ashcroft declared, “History will not judge us kindly.” (Even though President Bush has repeatedly reminded us that history will vindicate him and his handling of the Iraq war.)

I am reminded of the story of Pilate. Pilate assumed that because he washed his hands he could remove himself from any guilt of the torture and murder of an innocent man — even though he knowingly allowed it to happen, and in many ways was directly involved in it. We all know, even as young children in Sunday school, that he was unsuccessful. Pilate is responsible for the torture and murder of Jesus of Nazareth, no matter how hard he tried to avoid public identification with his crucifixion.

When we knowingly allow evil to occur and have the power to stop it, we are guilty of that evil. Martin Luther King Jr. repeatedly reminded us that it is not the evil acts of bad people that perpetuate violence and evil, but the silence of good people to stop it that does so. Many good people remained silent when they had the power to prevent the United States from sinking to a low it had not sunk to in the past, instead of speaking out against it. Let us not be those people today.

Jimmy McCartyJimmy McCarty is a student at Claremont School of Theology studying Christian ethics, a minister serving cross-racially at a church in inner-city Los Angeles, and a servant at a homeless shelter five days a week. He blogs at http://jimmymccarty.wordpress.com/.

Categories: Human Rights
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • dave008
    Dear webmaster,

    This is Dave from Interracialmatch. I am the Marketing Manager. I am wondering if you have interest in running your own interracial dating site or work-at-home business. We would like to work with you setting it up.

    You can pick the name for your own interracial dating site, own the domain and brand. ( If you happen to have an extra related domain, that would be great) We take care of all the backend and engineering work. Also customer service work. You can earn money if you can get users registering at your dating site. (if you already have your account, so it would be quite easy for us to get started right away.)

    You don't have to worry that no one exists at your interracial dating site at the beginning. Your site will share hundreds of thousands of profiles with other interracial sites we have already set up. Your users can immediately contact hundreds of thousands of other users once they register at your dating site.

    You can earn money if you have users registering at your site. It is easy to
    get users visiting your interracial dating site by doing the followings:

    1. Invite friends, friends of your friends to visit your interracial dating
    site;
    2. Write blogs on popular sites. Think about how to promote your dating site in
    smart way;
    3. Create friend circle on some social networking sites to get to know more
    friends.;
    4. Use business card, fly sheet to promote your dating site when joining social
    activities; etc.

    If you are interested or having any other requirement and thinking, please feel
    free to let me know.

    Best wishes,

    Dave
    Marketing Manager
    http://www.Interracialmatch.com
    Email me: marketingmanager008@gmail.com
  • behindthecurtain
    I can handle it does not mean I agree with it. Maybe we are not communicating well with the English word with which I struggle constantly.

    "You were wrong to use that visual of a person whipping Christ."

    Please be more careful of your word choice. If I am wrong you must prove, (with some as you say) "logical" reasons.

    If one is offended by my referring to and equating Christ's passion in its brutality and scope to what may occur when torture happens- see it for what it is. I cannot embellish anymore something more horrid than the way it is portrayed in scriptures or pop entertainment.

    What your response to me is woefully lacking in clarity and purpose is compensated by your "God bless you".

    Anger is not bad if it's directed in the right direction, e.g.,

    Against torturing.

    Blessings in return.
  • Guest
    What does make me "angry" (not necessarily a vice) is when commentators like yourself make by inference "... are usually intellectually engaged ." that I and others are not intellectually engaged because we disagree.

    Well I will try this again . First I agree with your position on torture . Its wrong . Its morally wrong , and tactically from a military strategy it is ineffective . So logically your arguement and presumed positions and beliefs about me are wrong . I believe anger can blind a person . Also bibically it was said by God to be considered murder when it was in our heart . May not seem fair , but as Neuro was saying , ask Job about fair .

    The uncomfort i have with a person out side my faith is non existent . I do see at times when some outside our faiths , if you are a Christian , may not understand what we may be speaking to .

    I have tones my rhetoric down , was not picking a fight . You were wrong to use that visual of a person whipping Christ , unless you were purposely trying to shame your view and win . You were simply wrong from my view .

    I hope you can handle that , you said you could .

    God Bless you .
    Mick
  • Guest
  • neuro_nurse
    "If you conclude that the only action that be taken is the morally pure action; then no action is ever undertaken.”

    That is not my conclusion nor, as I understand Catholic morality, the conclusion of the Church.

    You would have to assume that there are actions that might be right or might be wrong given the circumstances; again, that's situation ethics.

    If you want to discuss the minutia of ethical decision-making I can’t indulge you.

    With regard to torture, as far as the Church and I are concerned, it is NEVER justified.
  • neuro_nurse
    I'm pretty sure I understand what you are saying and that, in large part, I agree with you.

    Faith, as I understand it, is personal - that is, the relationship between the believer and God.

    The actions of other people, who claim to have faith or be believers, don’t affect my relationship with God.

    I don't see a conflict between faith and rationalism, as long as one is not trying to reason away God.

    (This is one of the reasons I appreciate the Catholic Church, which considers science to be the study of the nature of God, rather than a contradiction of faith and belief in God – I’m married to a Southern Baptist who doesn’t share my acceptance of science as truth)

    IMO, politics has little, if any relationship to faith. Politicians are liars who use the words ‘faith,’ ‘belief,’ and ‘morality’ to manipulate those who don’t recognize them as manipulative liars.

    There was a time when I rejected faith and religion. I’m not a person who believes what I’m told – I have to discover the truth for myself before I will believe that it’s true.

    I searched for the ‘answers’ for years. I found that what I was looking for had been right in front of me the whole time.

    I “found” the answers I had been looking for because God wouldn’t give up on me.
  • letjusticerolldown
    I think I am not communicating very well. I was originally responding to your response to the ethical question posed by vp123. It seems you are taking my questions as an attempt to excuse unethical behavior.

    In simplest terms I am raising your last point that we do not act as perfect moral operators.

    So just as an evil action is not justified by a good outcome; neither is the action ruled out because it is imperfect. Because there is not a perfect moral operator.

    I am just noting there is a limit to the application of the teaching. If you conclude that the only action that be taken is the morally pure action; then no action is ever undertaken. And that too is immoral.

    To acknowledge the limits is to not dismiss the teachings. Part of apprehending truth (to the degree we can) is the recognition of its limits--otherwise we push it to where it is not true.


    Likewise good actions
  • behindthecurtain
    I'll support you emphatically that a good follower of teachings derived from any religion will bear better fruit than "let your conscience be your guide." Many choices I have made (not all) were influenced by Bible stories and sermons heard from many years in Sunday School and church.

    So, from a practical standpoint don't pitch out religion, too quickly- I agree.

    Contra wise to my view, (you discerned properly) saying particularly in the last conjunction-

    "I won’t defend the crimes and injustices committed by men within the Church over the last two millenia, but those actions do not affect my beliefs or my faith."

    Yet, it does affect my faith.There are too many irrationalists, perpetuating too many biases with attending agendas and so few detached thinkers calling the shots.

    I could illustrate how this defiles the faith I once thought had value to change hearts and MINDS from all political spectres, and thus change the world. However, viewing the struggle of humankind's propensity for rule by emotion, devoid of reality- That once cherished certainty- "faith trumps all" has been destroyed.

    What freedom to finally see for myself after many years, there is a limited value in belief, only if rationality (given presumably by God) is not rejected.

    In our current political contest if one needs concrete examples of how "belief" can cloud thinking, there are numerous examples to which I will not allude.

    Why would I find solace in reliance upon authoritarian-based, patriarchal traditions which don't work as well as a humanist, rational paradigm?

    Greater thinkers than I have discussed this for millenia, without satisfaction.
  • neuro_nurse
    "I also do not believe catechism answers the underlying ethical issues."

    You shouldn't expect to find the answers in the few paragraphs from the Catechism I've posted. They were drawn from much more detailed sections related to the questions you've raised.

    "In fact, I do not think there is a systematic theology that can answer."

    Does that include Christianity? Studying God’s Word is, by definition, theology.

    "Arguments such as the "end does not justify the means" are very instructive for our lives -- but they are not an apprehension of full Truth -- and they are instructive on working towards a conclusion--but they are not adequate conclusions."

    I thoroughly disagree, but you don’t have to take my word for it. Most mainline Christian denominations reject teleologic ethics and favor deontology: right action.

    Yes, we are imperfect creatures, we are sinful. We’re not expected to be perfect and act as perfect moral operators – but don’t try to make excuses for bad behavior: God is not mocked.

    That is what the Church teaches.
  • neuro_nurse
    The "rules" are really pretty simple. Christ's teachings tend to contradict human nature - what Paul called the flesh.

    It only gets complicated when we start looking for those loopholes to satisfy those desires of the flesh.
  • letjusticerolldown
    Blessings today.
  • letjusticerolldown
    I appreciate the catechism. I am not looking for a loophole to torture; but I also do not believe catechism answers the underlying ethical issues. In fact, I do not think there is a systematic theology that can answer.

    The Answer was most revealed in the person of Jesus. The Word dwelt among us. And the answers are most fully worked out in the Body of Christ working out its salvation. And that, in its most perfected form here, is not 100% pure in intent, action or outcome.

    Yet we cannot cease to live, act, exercise dominion, struggle against sin and death, lead lives of peace, love God, love neighbor, do justice, love mercy or walk humbly with God.

    We live things out even while the consequences of sin plague our lives. Every president and every person makes daily decisions about our impure motivations, our broken actions and painful outcomes. Arguments such as the "end does not justify the means" are very instructive for our lives -- but they are not an apprehension of full Truth -- and they are instructive on working towards a conclusion--but they are not adequate conclusions.

    And that is OK.

    I would likely have to study thoroughly the teachings on conscience to more fairly respond to the Catholic Church's teachings on how to act as imperfect moral agents.
  • behindthecurtain
    Ah, yes, I was making an homonymic use of that word taze/taize to subliminally suggest the value of ecumenical communities and their value for law enforcement technigues ( a kinder, gentler, modus operandi).

    O.K., I wasn't you got me, I did mean "taze", like in "Taze him, Dano."
  • behindthecurtain
    Indeed, there are many written and unwritten edicts by the RC Catechism and implied or not in all scriptures. Where does all this lead us? If all the devoted of various religious sects actually knew the entire (I'll call it code) developed in their particular faith, would it make it any easier to follow?

    Granted, to those motivated to place their deepest faith in a "church's" pronouncements it will be a more comfortable, satisfying way to maneuver through life.

    You have my deepest encouragement and respect to do so.

    I guess life is complicated enough and I can't carry that much teaching. I feel like I need to consult the books on Tort law to see if my insurance policy is really protecting me.
  • carlcopas
    Presumably not "Taize"?
    :)
  • behindthecurtain
    Tried to say "taze" not take or shoot them."
  • neuro_nurse
    letjusticerolldown: "Is locking up a sexual predator beyond their criminal sentence inherently good or inherently evil?" “if I am the Father of the missing child and believe I see the man--am I allowed to chase, tackle, and pin him to the ground until the police arrive?” “Does the catechism teach that every evil outcome must be allowed to happen unless I can act with pure intent and pure action to stop it?”

    CCC: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.” 2265

    CCC: “Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.” 2266

    letjusticerolldown: “Can one separate the moral nature of the intent, from the act, from the outcome? Can one do right out of evil (or mixed) intent?”

    CCC: “In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action.” 1752

    CCC: “A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means.” 1753

    letjusticerolldown: “If the only justified human action is one that is of 100% righteous intent, 100% pure good in the act, and 100% good in it outcome -- then it is but by God's grace that we live.”

    CCC: “Justification has been merited to us by the Passion of Christ.” 2020

    CCC: “We can have merit in God's sight only because of God's free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man's collaboration. Man's merit is due to God.” 2025

    (this may come as a shock to those who think that the Church teaches salvation/justification through works – you’ve been misinformed)

    Those are good questions which are not completely answered by the few paragraphs I posted. If you are really interested in the Church’s teachings on morality, the compete text of the Catechism is available online. I suggest you start with The Morality of Human Acts. http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chp...

    I warn you in advance, if you’re looking for some loophole through which to justify torture, you won’t find it in the Catechism.

    Torture is a Moral Issue: a Catholic Study Guide. http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/stoptorture

    Pax Christi
  • behindthecurtain
    letjusticerolldown-

    And I was only attempting to demonstrate to some who feel (like torture advocates) that the safer, empathetic position for me is to recognize our inability to know everything when we attempt to respond to evil.

    Much like cops, who daily play God, dispensing execution over suspects when they take or shoot them, many innocent, vulnerable and confused.

    Personally, I'm frequently frightened when I see 25 squad cars and 30 paramilitary-clad cops descend upon a house or one suspect like stormtroopers called out to a international incident. It appears that it's not "cops need to protect themselves against all those dangerous suspects."

    Rather, it's citizens of the U.S.A., be afraid because if we (law enforcement post 9-11) deem you suspect we literally have licence to kill you and without cause (we can sort it out later), but YOU ARE dead!

    Again, it troubles me when I see so much weight given to authoritarian institutes that the balance is tipped too far, IMHO. Of course, my nature overall rejects overt machismo for its own sake in law enforcement, national initiatives and well, just anything.

    Good dialogue all around, thanks all.
  • neuro_nurse
    I don’t think we disagree at all.

    There are plenty of people out there who are all too willing to let themselves be told what to think and what to do, and too many people out there who are aware of that and are all too willing to use those people. It’s not just restricted to religion, of course.

    That is why I voiced my concern about the dangers of autonomous interpretations of scripture. The people with the most dangerous ideas about God’s will tend to be on the fringes but, unfortunately, some of them have been elected to public office.

    You mentioned justice as one of your concerns. I am, or at least, I try to be, highly motivated by the sense of justice I learned from being raised Catholic (parochial school through 9th grade). My ‘liberal’ politics are a direct extension of the Church’s teachings on social justice.

    Of course I understand your concerns. Although Christ is the head of the Church, churches are full of and run by sinful women and men. Religion is authoritative, and abuse occurs everywhere. I won’t defend the crimes and injustices committed by men within the Church over the last two millenia, but those actions do not affect my beliefs or my faith.

    Pax Christi
  • letjusticerolldown
    I would want everyone to leave me alone and pronounce me good.

    Or I might feel like I deserve to be shot and end my life.

    Or I might want to be arrested and hope the person chasing me is a 71-yr old on dialysis with a central line in his arm that he must protect who will only grab my shirt and not let go.

    i.e. I have no clue. The possibilities are endless. Yes the suspect is a person of complete human dignity worthy of love; and very likely the perpetrator of great evil. Very much like a few of the elderly in my state who have been charged with heinous Klan crimes in the 1960's.

    I was attempting to raise the issue of the impossibility of pure human goodness with the simultaneous obligation to act ethically and restrain evil.

    I attempted to answer your question and would happy to have your reflections.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008