RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Torture: What Part of ‘Do Not Repay Evil for Evil’ Don’t You Understand?

by Ryan Rodrick Beiler 04-17-2009

There is much to be disturbed about in the recent revelation of the Bush administration torture memos. But one aspect of this conversation I find profoundly troubling is the comment by the current Director of National Intelligence, Dennis C. Blair:

Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing … But we will absolutely defend those who relied on these memos.

The implication that definitions of right and wrong depend on the climate — meteorological or political — is one that should make Christians who believe in bibilical standards of morality shudder.

This reminds me of a conversation I had shortly after 9/11 among a group of politically diverse Christians. One person expressed how over the years he had come to believe more in nonviolence as the obvious interpretation of Jesus’ teachings — but now that the terrorists had struck, he was reconsidering.

What disturbed me was not that he might have an interpretation of “blessed are the peacemakers,” “love your enemies,” and “turn the other cheek” that was different from my pacifism. I’m used to that. Many Christians of good faith interpret these teachings differently. What disturbed me was that he was changing his mind because he now felt threatened. Perhaps, as a white male American citizen he had never felt such vulnerability before.

In hindsight, I’d like to have asked him whether Martin Luther King should have reconsidered nonviolence when KKK terrorists blew up black churches. I’d ask him whether Gandhi should have reconsidered nonviolence when the British massacred peaceful protesters. Or Tutu, when the South African government jailed, tortured, and murdered his countrymen.

Followers of Jesus need to know right from wrong both on the bright, safe, sunny days of peace as well as when they’re in the valley of the shadow of death. And our trust is in God for our security, not waterboarding. As scripture teaches in Romans 12:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” No, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

If we do otherwise, we become the evil we deplore. Or at the very least, we delegate it to the CIA.

When it comes to questions of right and wrong, “either/or” thinking can sometimes be dangerous, and our life’s circumstances always cause our values and ethics to evolve over time as we learn and grow with new information and experiences. However, the notion that standards of moral behavior can be cast aside when we’re in danger is not one that I find support for either in scripture — my standard for such questions — or in international commitments to human rights, the world’s legal standard.

Though I understand the political calculus, I am disappointed that in regard to this issue President Obama has said “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.” When it comes to truth commissions, I believe in a “No Torturer Left Behind” policy, including those who approved the techniques. The “just following orders” defense just doesn’t cut it when it comes to war crimes. Just ask the Japanese soldiers we prosecuted for waterboarding during World War II.

But ultimately, I do have confidence that it is God’s standard of justice that the perpetrators of these crimes — whether terrorism or torture — will ultimately face.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web Editor for Sojourners and a freelance photojournalist whose work can be seen at www.ryanrodrickbeiler.com.

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)

  • great article mate.

    thank you.
  • electriclady281
    If we are not going to prosecute CIA agents who engaged in torture, because George Bush's lawyers told them it was "legal," then why are the soldiers (the lowest on the military/governmental totem pole) who carried out the scandalous torture at Abu Graeb in prison for those acts??????? Am I alone in thinking that there's a double standard being used here???? It would seem logical that the soldiers would be pardoned and that all upper echelons of this disgraceful American behavior be held accountable?
  • Nathan Bedford
    From Bugliosi's book:

    "Mr. Bush, at the time you ordered this nation's military forces to invade Iraq on March 19, 2003, did you believe that Saddam Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of this country? If he said yes, again he could be asked what U.S. intelligence agency or member thereof or document did he rely on that said or suggested this. And he of course could not name any such agency, member thereof, or document. (This line of questioning from that point would establish this 'belief' of Bush that Hussein was a threat came only from him and his coconspirators. If he said no to this question, this would be tantamount to his pleading guilty to the 4,000 murders, since if a defendant kills another without being in imminent fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, the legal defense of self-defense fails..." {Page 164}
  • JamesM
    Vincent Bugliosi makes a very strong case for that in his book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." SisterMarie

    I seriously doubt that Bush had the mental faculties to arrive at the requisite mens rea - culpable state of mind.
  • JamesM
    A common tactic is to resort to name calling when there is nothing that can be brought up to dispute the substance, as LV has so aptly demonstrated here.
  • jonabark
    I can't find this comment online so am responding briefly with e-
    mail. In a very long post I once outlined degrees of force or
    warfare, their motives and methods, that have been used historically
    and their respective degrees of success. As far as I know no society
    has abolished all force(to me the natural progression is local
    citizen intervention, police manpower, non-lethal weapons, lethal
    weapons) in order to stop and possibly incarcerate those engaged in
    criminal acts. We do see many societies that have far less violence
    than the US with smaller or similar police forces and far less
    incarceration. I do not feel that a commitment to nonviolence
    requires that one renounce a lawful and well monitored police force
    with clear rules for the use of force. I do not condemn people for
    defending themselves against invasion or criminal violence, and
    understand philosophical differences in this regard. I find this
    position to be very common among peace activists, though there is a
    range of philosophical positions.

    The US needs to outlaw handguns and automatic weapons. If we had
    started this in the 60's there would be far less violence in our
    society. Let's start now. These weapons are making our society more
    dangerous and provide an easy means to lethal crimes..
  • Nathan Bedford
    "How about putting the "Commander in Chief" himself on the stand?
    I can handle that."

    Vincent Bugliosi makes a very strong case for that in his book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." I strongly recommend this book to anyone who has any doubts about the legal foundation for the prosecution of former (or present)administration officials.
  • justintime
    Professionals are deputized to remove violent criminals from society preferably alive and with the minimum force required.
    It's what we already do.
    Anyone have a problem with that?

    The job would be a lot simpler if we didn't have hundreds of millions of firearms circulating anonymously throughout our society.
  • jonabark
    What makes it a witch hunt? The Red Cross, AI, Human Rights Watch, The New Yorker, have all published very strong and detailed statements alleging widespread criminal abuse of prisoners. The Navy and FBI reported many instances of torture including prisoners beaten to death. The fact that you voted for the people that initiated these policies does not constitute evidence that they are innocent of serious crimes.

    If you think my opinions have a political base, you are completely mistaken. I believe the continuation of extraordinary rendition by the Obama administration is equally unconstitutional and criminal.
  • justintime
    You wish, LV.
    I wouldn't count on it, though.
  • Lord_Voldemort
    Like I said, that's what the Spanish papers are reporting. Garzon can order an investigation, that's not the same as ordering an arrest or reaching a verdict.

    The Spanish government's reaction to Garzon's order is likely to be "go suck an egg" or whatever the equivalent would be in Spanish. They went through that circus with Pinochet, only to have him return to Chile.

    What makes you think anything different will happen here? Barack Obama has sworn off prosecutions here, and much as I disagreee with him I doubt he'll play along with a Spanish prosecution. They won't want a rerun of the whole Pinochet business while cheesing off the US.

    Spanish crank. Grandstanding judge. Political idiocy. Legal morass. All full of sound and fury, signifying not much. Someone will eventually file an appeal. The government will stand aside. A higher court will squelch the whole thing. The End.

    LV
  • jonabark
    Torture was policy; that has been made clear. Your contradiction flies in the face of a great deal of actual evidence, It is my understanding that the judge involved is the judge who brought Pinochet to trial, so you may be wrong also about the progress of this case.
  • justintime
    The New York Times calls for the impeachment of Federal Appeals Court Judge Jay Bybee for his involvement in drafting the infamous 'torture memos'.

    The Torturers’ Manifesto
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19sun...

    That investigation should start with the lawyers who wrote these sickening memos, including John Yoo, who now teaches law in California; Steven Bradbury, who was job-hunting when we last heard; and Mr. Bybee, who holds the lifetime seat on the federal appeals court that Mr. Bush rewarded him with.

    These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him. And if the administration will not conduct a thorough investigation of these issues, then Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable. If that means putting Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales on the stand, even Dick Cheney, we are sure Americans can handle it.

    How about putting the "Commander in Chief" himself on the stand?
    I can handle that.
  • Lord_Voldemort
    That's what the Spanish newspaper El Pais is reporting. But what would a Spanish paper know about a legal process in Spain?

    As a general rule, I support the prosecution of torturers. I am opposed to witch-hunts however, and this looks more like one of those.

    LV
  • squeaky
    Strawman. Either we believe torture is wrong, or we don't.
  • justintime
    NYT update on legal action proposed by the Spanish National Court:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/world/europe/...

    ...the decision on whether to begin a criminal investigation of the six officials will be made by an investigating judge. In this case, that is likely to be Baltasar Garzón, who has ignored opinions of politicians and law enforcement officials before. Spain’s best-known judge, he gained international fame by achieving the arrest of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London in 1998.

    Lawyers in Madrid said that a new complaint was being prepared on behalf of five former Guantánamo detainees who are either citizens or residents of Spain, a move that would likely provide a new twist in the proceedings.

    This NYT story is at odds with your claim and torture prosecution isn't going to go away, as you hoped it would, LV.

    Spanish crank?
    hogwash

    Isolated occurrence?
    double hogwash

    Have yourself a nice day, LV.
  • Lord_Voldemort
    Yes, but how exactly do you propose to remove criminals from society without the use, or at least the threat, of violence?

    LV
  • justintime
    How about a reference to your claim, LV?
    And what is your position vis a vis prosecution of torturers, torture lawyers and those at the top of the chain of command?
  • Lord_Voldemort
    Actually, the Spanish Attorney General and the Chief Prosecutor have recommended that the court not pursue the case. As a consequence, the case is not likely to go forward.

    Basically what happened is some Spanish crank filed a criminal complaint and a judge refused to throw it out immediately. But without the support of the (Socialist) Spanish government, the case will stall. As it should. Torture, under even the broadest definition, was an isolated occurrence, not general administration policy.

    Have a nice day.

    LV
  • junglecat
    It is not that we have a class of citizens who are above the law, but rather that we have a class of citizens who are the law.
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