Torture: A Crime that Requires a Verdict

by Jimmy McCarty 04-17-2009

Dear President Obama,

Thank you for making the four memos approving of and describing the torture done to children of God in our name public even though many pleaded for you not to. Thank you for letting me know that my tax dollars were used to torture those carrying God’s image. I have known we made helpless people think they were drowning for a while now, but now I know we kept some awake for almost two weeks straight. Now I know we put collars around the necks of defenseless people and slammed their heads into walls. And now I know we put people in boxes so small they couldn’t move and put insects in those boxes the prisoners thought could seriously injure them with no way of escape.

We cannot know what we need to repent of without knowing what sins we have committed. Thank you for letting me know. Now I pray that we as a nation ask for God’s forgiveness for what we, because of our fear and complacency, allowed to happen in our name and work to ensure it never happens again.

Thank you also for vowing that we will never do this again. As a Christian I know God declares these actions completely sinful. There is no theological or ethical justification for torturing another human being. In doing so we demonstrated that we place our faith not in God, or some abstract notion of justice or liberty, but in violence and power. These foundations will not sustain us. Those who live by the sword die by it, and I am now afraid that we have lived by torture so long that we will also die by torture. We must never torture again, and we must work to make amends for the sins we have already committed.

I am not in complete agreement with what you have said, however. You have said no one will be held accountable for the acts of torture because they were approved by the justice department. While I understand the premise of your reasoning, I think it is wrong.

Perhaps those interrogators who physically administered the acts of torture were following orders, but those who gave them were not. They made a decision to pervert justice. Those in the know have not apologized for their conduct or admitted it was wrong; in fact they have vehemently defended it. What they did was illegal according to multiple international treaties and laws. We have prosecuted people from other nations for doing the exact same things we did. We cannot sweep this under the rug. While it may be deemed unnecessary, or impractical, to prosecute all involved from the top down, someone must be held responsible. Those officials that perverted our previously agreed upon notions of justice must be held responsible.

There must be an independent commission of inquiry into the actions of the Bush administration. Everyone, from former President Bush and former Vice-president Dick Cheney down to the justice department, who made the decisions to approve of torture must be brought before the American public and be held responsible. It is the only way the rest of the world will believe we have discarded these evil methods and know we are no longer a nation that tortures. Not to do so is to be complicit in the cover-up of the ways we have sinned and the perpetuation of that reputation of us throughout the world.

It is a sad day in American history. May God have mercy on us.

Jimmy 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 jimmymccarty.wordpress.com.

Categories: Human Rights

hammerud

I'm not in favor of torture. What we did is not in the same category
of what Islamists do. Not in the same category at all. What was
allowed for the US to get information was run thru the Intelligence
Oversight Committee and the Justice Dept. This is an evil, fallen
world. My point is that we should not have any blanket prohibition to
doing the things that were authorized and now have been handed to the
Jihadists. Jesus did not live in unreality. He recognized the dangers
of a world with sinful men. Luke 22:36 is another reference involving
Jesus and the sword.

DavidHawkins

Let's explore the concept of using any means necessary to try and rescue my child should that child be kidnapped. What would happen to me if, in this country, I started grabbing people off the street and torturing them for information about my little girl? What would be the public and civic reaction if I picked up someone who looked like or had the same name as the supposed kidnapper and used whatever means I deemed necessary to compel them to tell me where she was being held? Would it matter to judges, the police, my neighbors if I tortured any innocent people? Would everyone walk away happy if my efforts hurt some who were innocent along with some who were guilty but ultimately resulted in finding my little girl? Is the ultimate answer for Americans that the end justifies the means? If that is our criteria for determining how we conduct ourselves then we share a common motivation with the terrorists. They also believe that their every act is justified by their ultimate goal. And since we have already thrown out morality or any higher concepts because they are inconvenient or unrealistic in this fallen world, victory will come down to who can be the most barbaric.

As for Peter, I wonder if it was as easy to get a sword back then as it is to get a gun today. But regardless of how he got it or when, Jesus didn't give him an attaboy for his hack work. He told him to put the sword away, then stuck the ear back on the hapless victim. Jesus did that even though the man had come to take him to his death. Hmmmm, what example should followers of Jesus glean from that?

To extrapolate just a little further, in the subsequent passion play, who were the torturers? Soldiers and government officials who believed their actions were justified by the end result. It was the high priest of Israel who said, when launching the plot to kill Christ: It is better that one man die than the whole nation perish.

Br3n

Another day, another article about someone who has been an interrogator. Major Matthew Alexander, author, with John R Bruning of How to Break a Terrorist: The US interrogators who used brains, not brutality, to take down the deadliest man in Iraq personally conducted 300 interrogations of prisoners in Iraq, refused to participate in torture and abuse and forbade the team he commanded to use such methods. And he is particularly dismissive of the "ticking bomb" argument often used in the justification of torture. He says he faced the "ticking time bomb" every day in Iraq because "we held people who knew about future suicide bombings". Leaving aside the moral arguments, he says torture simply does not work. "It hardens their resolve. They shut up." He points out that the FBI uses normal methods of interrogation to build up trust even when they are investigating a kidnapping and time is of the essence. He would do the same, he says, "even if my mother was on a bus" with a hypothetical ticking bomb on board. It is quite untrue to imagine that torture is the fastest way of obtaining information, he says.
To read more of what his experience taught him, go to: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-...

Br3n

Hammerud and others who share his position would do well to read former F.B.I. Supervisory Agent Ali Soufan's recent article in the NY TIMES. Among other things, he outlines how enhanced interrogation techniques gained no useful intelligence that couldnt have been gained from regular tactics. He also describes his own discomfort at what was happening and outlines the differences of opinion between the FBI and the CIA. The article can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23sou...
More important to me is what happens to the moral standing of those who torture. Remember, following World War II, we hanged people who waterboarded. And now we want to say it's OK if WE do it? I don't think so.

Beevo

I thought I was the queen of snide...but you take the prize. congratulations
I relinquish my crown!

Beevo

It is a fact that we prosecuted and I believe may have executed people after WWII for the use of waterboarding.. if we meekly accept having this done by our own peple we are surely such hypocrites we should have no standing in the world for anything.
So, we had better stop and deal with this before we move on.

judithod

What is the purpose in releasing the memos? To make the Obama administration appear moral and to make the Bush administration appear immoral? Fingers can always be pointed--at Saddam for murdering on the average of 5000 people per month for 20 years, at the terrorists (or whatever the Obama administration now labels them) for murdering 3000 people on 9/11, at the Castros for imprisoning so many, at the inhumane treatment of women in Muslim countries. . . . All of the latter are "children of God" too. And aren't those terrorists who were tortured still alive?

pawheel

Is torture wrong? Yes. Most people would say what you want to hear to make it stop.

What would I do if I had someone who knew where my daughter was? Probably beat them with the handle of my 38 revolver till they told me. But I would expect the law and Jesus to punish me for it.

We are still finding out things the Bush admin did (more torture than originally uncovered, may have listened in on Congressional Committee communications), and who knows what else.

What would be a good reason not to torture? How about when we tell other counrtries it is illegal and expect them not to torture our soldiers? How many Iraq citizens stopped defending the U.S. and even turned against us once the Abu Grahib news came out? How many citizens of other countries turned against us once we arial bombed innocent people to death? That last one was off topic, I know . The CIA calls it blowback.

scat

It seems to me that the issue of torture should be a simple one for Christians. The teachings of Jesus are quite clear that we are to love those who despise us, that we are to treat others with kindness. For some, maybe this is the fork in the road where you have to decide whether to follow God's will or our own . I see physical torture, all physical violence as a failure to follow God's will, a failure to come up with better solutions than violence. For me, a commitment to God's will is a commitent to follow it even when it's difficult. It's that commitment that gets me past those times I might do something I would later regret.

dlowen

If we want to call ourselves Christians, I believe we should act as Jesus did and furthermore instructed us to do. I seem to remember that doing what He did got Jesus crucified. I don't recall Him saying that following Him won't lead us down the same path, quite the contrary, He promised us that "In this world you will have trouble." Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of the world hated Christians for following Jesus instead of for being judgmental, arrogant, and downright mean?

WWJT? (Who Would Jesus Torture?)

lomagirl

I've been reading about the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo and their responses to the torture and disappeance of their children. They would not accept reconciliation. They want justice. I read about the horrible things that were done to people in Argentina, and it's easy to think- that's in the past, that's an oppressive government. A true democracy wouldn't do that. but, evidently it has. Letting in a little bit of evil opens the door for a whole lot more.

letjusticerolldown

If the release of the memos allows a 'turning of the corner'--what we have now is an open door--not a resolution of all the issues.

A problem with government is that it is an imperfect system, run by imperfect officials, representing imperfect citizens, in an imperfect world, with imperfect means, imperfect goals, and imperfect partners. And that is the best case scenario.

But it 'wakes up in the morning' on days like 9/11/01 -- and suddenly there is evil in the skies and fear on the streets -- and uncharted territory. And too many (including our courageous Congress) ask the President to take over the ship, write the rules, and take the ship to 'safety.' Not recognizing this abdication of responsibility opens the door to a much stormier ride.

I think Leon Panetta and others were right in assessing the release of the memos makes the exercise of imperfect governance more difficult - in a tactical sense. It makes guiding the ship in a storm more difficult. But fundamentally I believe Obama to be right. It is impossible to steer the ship when the lack of direction, fundamental values, and moral chaos feeds the storm of anarchy.

But now we must answer the questions. Including Congressional action.

hammerud

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe, if we don't want to use these
techniques, we should elect new members of Congress and in the
judiciary to not allow such things. I think both approved it.
Anyway, have a good day Squeaky.

WaveTossed

Not only is torture against the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ: On a really practical matter, even if you aren't a Christian and don't wish to follow Jesus Christ: torture doesn't work. Instead of getting relevant information, what you get from the person being tortured is what you want to hear in order to end the torture -- it might not be true at all.

I agree with Scat: "As a former interviewer/interrogator, I found the best way to get people to unload their secrets was to put them at ease, get them to trust me, and be smarter than they were. Grease theskids properly and people will spill thier minds. Often it's really just one bit of information that you need and they don't even realize they gave it to you.

"All this talk about water-boarding and other physical methods sounds like people who don't really understand what they are doing.

"It seems we haven't got past the idea of physical violence as the answer to all our problems. I think Christians are supposed to champion solutions that are smarter than that."

squeaky

Yes--I saw that, and thanks for reminding me about it because I was going to respond to that point.

There is a huge stretch between lying and torturing, and using lying as a justification for torture is a major leap in logic.

Lying to someone during an interrogation seems, based on Scat's testimony (did you read his post?--I reiterate that he offers actual expert opinion as someone who has actual experience in the matter and thus his opinion should have a great deal of weight), I wouldn't doubt that lying is used, and probably to far greater effect than torture.

Again, if your daughter's life is on the line, you want the interrogator to use techniques that actually work. Oddly, the technique that God Himself would seem to turn a blind eye to (lying) is probably far more effective than the technique for which there is no Biblical justification (torture).

And speaking of interrogation techniques that don't work--last weekend I watched one of those 48 hours mystery programs on CBS. The show was about that young American woman in Italy who is accused of murdering her roommate. One person who had been interrogated by the prosecutor in her case had been interrogated in an unrelated case. He testified that he had gotten to the point that he would have confessed to anything they asked him to just to get it to stop. In her case, one of the co-defendants, and the likely sole perpetrator of the crime, denied even knowing her through hours of interrogation. He finally said what they wanted to hear, and now her life is on the line.

I think the point that people will say whatever you ask them to say under the right pressure is very sobering--and if your daughter's life depended on getting good information, why would you want the interrogators to use techniques that could potentially send them on a wild-goose chase, and thus waste valuable time?

hammerud

Joanna -- My point is that in this evil world (as described by Jesus)
certain circumstances could arise where what would otherwise clearly
be wrong actions apparently can be excused. I put the things the CIA
did in that category, but I do agree that it could be open to abuse.
These techniques were, however, cleared by both the justice department
and, I assume, the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committee.

hammerud

Squeaky, in another response on this blog I pointed out how Rahab lied
to save the spies under Joshua. Lying clearly is condemned in
Scripture, and, yet, in this circumstance God evidently did not
condemn the lying of Rahab. Rahab is mentioned as a hero of the faith
and is in the lineage of Jesus. There are other instances where acts
of lying are not condemned in the Old Testament, although lying, in
and of itself, is condemned. My point is that in this evil world (as
described by Jesus) certain circumstances could arise where what would
otherwise clearly be wrong actions apparently can be excused. I put
the things the CIA did in that category, but I do agree that it could
be open to abuse. These techniques were, however, cleared by both the
justice department and, I assume, the Congressional Intelligence
Oversight Committee.

I think in the realities of the evil in this world, absolute
commitments to never do certain things that could save innocent lives,
although probably well intentioned, is naive.

JoannaCW

Yes, I think we are basically on different pages, and both of us can construct examples and quote Scriptures to defend our positions. I am beginning with a fundamental conviction that it is better to risk suffering evil than to do evil. (This is not the same as being passive in the face of evil.) I'm also beginning with a conviction that to deliberately damage another person's mind, body and spirit is evil and I can't imagine a circumstance which would justify this. (I agree with you that in some cases lying may save lives and be less evil than telling the truth to someone who intends to do harm--plenty of examples from the Holocaust etc.) I don't think I can be argued out of thee convictions. I doubt it's helpful to try to argue you out of the basic premises that make you believe that in some circumstances torture is justified. I don't intend to try. If you're willing to post them I'd be interested in seeing what they are; I would like
to undesrtand the other side better.

squeaky

I don't see anywhere in the Bible, though, where torture is advocated.

I know we are in a sin sick world, but to advocate sin to combat sin just doesn't fly. I just don't see anywhere where Jesus allows us to be relative about such issues.

Also, as far as interrogation techniques, it seems that the input of an actual interrogator should be very seriously considered. When a profession interrogator says torture is not effective, it seems that right there should end the discussion (see scat's comments at the top of the thread if you are in the community pages). Which begs the question, if your daughter's life hangs in the balance, wouldn't you prefer the interrogator use techniques that work?

hammerud

Joanna - I guess we're just on different pages on this thing. Horrible
stuff happens in this sin sick world, and there is such a thing as
evil. I don't like the idea of any kind of torture, but I don't like
a lot of the evil that goes on day after day either. I just don't
agree with the idea of an absolute commitment to never do this or do
that under any conceivable circumstance. I agree that the scenario I
described is highly unlikely and theoretical, but not impossible. My
point is that in such a circumstance I would not want to have
eliminated an option that could rescue my child. The government is
responsible for national security, and, in this day of craziness,
government needs to be able to get information. Some of these guys
they captured, from what I understand, had information that they
divulged after some of these techniques were applied that saved lives.

Just another thought: Torture is not a good thing, lying is not a good
thing, but there are situations in the Bible where an individual lied
to save lives that were not condemned by God (Rahab and the spies is
one, and there are others). In fact Rahab is listed in Hebrews 11 as a
positive example of faith. If Rahab held an absolute commitment to
never lie it would have led to the death of the Israeli spies. God
does not condone lying, but He did not condemn it in Rahab when she
was confronted with that particular circumstance. Just a thought.