What Kind of Sermons Are They Hearing?
A couple of friends have posted this story on Facebook. CNN reports:
The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week—54 percent—said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified—more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.
I find these results disheartening. Is it really true that the more people are supposedly exposed to the story of an incarnated and crucified God, the more likely they are to support torturing others? (The outliers seem to be the mainline denominations who do not support torture as much as their evangelical and Catholic family.) I cannot think of any real Christian justification for torture. Over on First Things—a journal no one would consider a bastion of liberal Christianity—Russell E. Saltzman roots his rejection of torture in a human being bearing God’s image:
I’ve been trying, like many Americas, to think this thing through. There is the altogether practical question: Did torture help us? Did it make America safer? Was the information really good, helpful, in thwarting terrorists? Did it actually in fact spoil pending plots? Frankly, the evidence is mixed.
But I really don’t care. Whether torture “worked” or not as an interrogative tactic is far from the main question. I’m a pastor. I think as a pastor, which is to say as a parish theologian. I don’t care if these guys shrieked like little girls on the playground and blubbered out plots for everything from the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre to knocking over Bagdad candy stores as juvenile delinquents. Torture is morally wrong. It is morally wrong, theologically speaking, because it is an attack upon the imago Dei, upon the image of God inherent to every human life.
One could just as easily rooted a rejection of torture in the words and actions of Jesus. “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” (Lk 6.27) How in the world can we worship a savior who endured the torture of lashings, a crown of thorns, nails in his hands, and crucifixion and think that it is morally acceptable to torture someone else? For those who have ever asked, “What would Jesus do?” can you really imagine that Jesus would strap a person to a board and subject him or her to “controlled drowning”? In mounting a Christian defense against torture, one could have used Paul and Peter as well: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.” (Rom 12.17) “Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. It is for this that you were called—that you might inherit a blessing.” (1 Peter 3.9) I am outraged. I am outraged that my country would torture others and I am outraged that my sisters and brothers in the faith are more likely to support torture than the general public.
My Christian family’s support of torture is a terrible witness to the watching world.
I’m going to repost my comment from another blog. It seems like everybody is asking whether or not torture “works.”
I’d like to introduce a similar question into various other debates of life and death and see the response from both sides: Does assisted suicide work? Does abortion work? The “effectiveness” of torture is a red herring of the highest order.
God help us. I can’t believe the extent to which the church has apparently been blinded by the world.
Comment by Chase — May 1, 2009 @ 9:49 am
Good post Tyler… I don’t think much surprises anymore. Most American Christians have sacrificed theology and conviction for the sake of politics. It happens on both sides of the political spectrum, but in terms of raw numbers, conservative politics has become a more central value to most Christians.
Comment by Eddy E — May 1, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
I have lived most of my life within the Evangelical bubble. Speaking from within, Evangelicals are more likely than others to divide people into good people and bad people. Our emphasis on the sinfulness of humanity makes it easy if not common to set ourselves up against those who do not have a salvific relationship with Jesus Christ. We easily believe that other people are more evil than we are – particularly people of other faiths, and most particularly people of other faiths who militantly stand against our faith. Granted the circles I swam in emphasized God’s grace more than some others.
How hard is it to step on a bug? How hard was it to kill a “Jap”? I just listened to an old recording of Eleanor Rosevelt telling a joke about a soldier who just didn’t feel good if he hand’t killed any Japs that day. How hard is it to torture someone we believe to be a standout evil-doer among a class of heathen, evil people?
It should be harder than it is to treat the out-group inhumanely. I have argued in our circle of interlocutors before that Jesus specifically taught against the structural evil of the diminution of the out-group in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Would it be okay to torture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed if he were an American, someone who grew up in our home town, someone who graduated from highschool with us, who was in our wedding, our uncle, father or brother?
Comment by Bill Ekhardt — May 1, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
That’s certainly a discouraging poll, but I wouldn’t put too much stock in it. It asks a very vague question regarding a very specific (and complex) issue:
“Do you think the use of torture [undefined]against suspected terrorists [vague] in order to gain important information [about what] can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?”
Given that the controversy is over waterboarding a known terrorist with specific knowledge of an impending attack, I suspect that people assumed the question to be more specific than it was. I certainly read it that way, and my answer would be different if more specifics were included. I also question the comparison of waterboarding to flogging and crucifixion.
Comment by Timbo — May 2, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
Why do you question the comparison of waterboarding to flogging? Crucifixion may go a bit far since that is execution, but I think my theological point stands.
Comment by Tyler Watson — May 2, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
It was more a comparison of waterboarding to “flogging and crucifixion” than waterboarding to flogging or crucifixion. What Jesus went through is quite clearly different from what KSM had to go through. I am not convinced that KSM was tortured.
Comment by Timbo — May 2, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
How do you define torture? What would be considered torture?
Comment by Tyler Watson — May 2, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
That’s what I was asking on facebook. Clearly, flogging someone and then crucifying them is an example of torture. Whether waterboarding is or isn’t torture is what I’m asking questions about.
Comment by Timbo — May 2, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
I would also really like to know how you define torture, Tim. If water boarding might not fit your definition, and without further clarification, your definition appears to be astonishingly callous and inhumane.
Comment by Bill Ekhardt — May 2, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
Tim, apart from the conversation about the definition of water boarding (which I believe does meet the litmus test for torture), do you support the torture of known terrorists for interrogation purposes?
Comment by Eddy E — May 4, 2009 @ 7:08 am
I do not support the torture of known terrorists for interrogation purposes. I also do not have a problem with defining torture as an action which causes “severe pain or suffering” in the victim.
Comment by Timbo — May 4, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
As for appearing “astonishingly callous and inhumane,” I think the fact that the US has destroyed the image of God 49,551,703 times dwarfs any damage done to it by pouring 183 buckets of water on just 3 people. Greater outrage should be expressed for the greater injustice.
Comment by Timbo — May 5, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
There’s no need to ration the outrage! There is plenty to go around. We can be outraged about both!
Comment by Chase — May 5, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
I agree with Chase. I think bringing abortion into this discussion is unnecessary. I believe both abortion and torture distort the image of God.
Going to my original post, I am very disturbed that my brothers and sisters in the faith would support torture, period. I would hope that as Christians we would be the first to say that torture is wrong because we believe all are created in God’s image and Christ died for us all.
Comment by Tyler Watson — May 5, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
My thinking is somewhat in line with Timbo’s, in that the topic of torture has been, in my opinion over and under exaggerated by both persuasions. I feel the over and under exaggerations have left people with a lack of clarity and when they poll in such general terms there real answer is, no I do not feel I have heard enough evidence to admit that my country is guilty of the torture your talking about. Also I think people are slow to lump drilling hands, severing limbs, and removing eyes with placing a scary insect in a prisoners cell or playing loud foreign (American) music. It’s no different than someone who feels spankings are child abuse and equating that with tossing a child out of a moving vehicle. Both could be equated by this person as child abuse but to say they are the same thing is a little intellectually dishonest. I think that it is wise to acknowledge that we are all living inside a bubble to some degree, a luxury that was delivered by many brave men before us. However I think it would be a shame to summarize WWII by a quote of a quote from an un-named soldier. I would summarize (allied) Japan is a great testament to Americas unique ability to forgive and foster freedom, and a tribute to Americas ability to deny the lust for power and empire. War is absolutely hell, I think it would be naive to think we would not slip up and or have something negative to say about an enemy who we’ve watched blow-up our Friends.. I will admit water boarding sounds pretty close to Al-queda level definitions of torture, but to be truthful I haven’t heard the actual functions of the method from someone who’s giving an objective definition of it. I am not a theologian by any stretch but I’m understanding the imagio dei. I’m wondering what your thoughts were on Russell E. Saltzman opinion. Is there any biblical examples of sparing one enemy dei for the sake of say 6000 believers dei’s or visa-versa? To be out of order and to summarize my opinion of the CNN poll, I see this as another blatant attack on Christianity. They even made it a point to make it a racial issue with White Christians being the alleged “worst of the worst”. I feel the poll was designed through wording (as most know they can be) to shed christians, especially white Christians in a negative light (as in: as bad or worse than the enemy’s of freedom and liberty). CNN’s report trys to equate us to the enemy. However, this is no more true to me than equating the person who disciplines there child though spanking and the one who would through the child from a moving car.
Comment by Joshua — May 13, 2009 @ 9:48 am
Joshua, I’ll address your points in reverse:
1. I see nothing particularly wrong with the poll. Yes the term torture was general and undefined, which worries me more. I don’t think specifics are needed. I think the response from all Christians should be that torture is wrong, period. That we would ever say it is justified is deeply worrisome to me. I can think of no Christian justification for torture. If Christians think torture is justified, then I believe we do stand on a slippery slope to becoming like Al Qaeda. Our values should stand despite our enemies’ actions.
2. There is a scene from John 11 when the high priest Caiaphas says, “You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.” (v.50) But, we should remember that this is the reasoning he gives to kill Jesus. I do not take it to be a divine affirmation that such a calculation is a general good, especially since the result of Caiaphas’ reasoning was the torture and murder of an innocent person. If anything, the Bible pushes us toward sacrificing ourselves for others, not sacrificing others for ourselves. Romans 5.8 says, “But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.”
3. Imagio Dei is Latin for the “Image of God.” In Genesis 1, God creates humanity in God’s image and that act is the basis for many Jewish and Christians beliefs that humans have an inherent worth that should be respected. I find Saltzman’s opinion persuasive. As I said in my post, I think there are a lot of other biblical and theological arguments to be made against torture. Another Christian perspective states that Jesus’ death to redeem humanity gives people an inherent worth, despite what evil we may create.
4. Yes, we live in a bubble to a certain extent, but I worry about the reasoning given by some in the previous administration that we cannot truly criticize the memos or interrogation techniques unless we were in their position. We do need to see peoples’ actions from their perspective, but that does not excuse the actions if they are wrong. I tried to temper my comments with an understanding that I am something of an outsider to these stories. At the same time, I do not believe that extenuating circumstances should remove the necessity to hold people accountable to our stated values and laws.
5. It is clear that our nation waterboarded three individuals multiple times and used other interrogation methods that we had previously ruled out of bounds. It is also clear that the OLC created new definitions of torture so that these methods could be used. I believe that this step was necessary to use the harsher methods because they understood that those methods were rejected under the Convention against Torture the US signed while Reagan was president. As Scott Shane reports, the US prosecuted waterboarding in war-crime trials after WWII.
Comment by Tyler Watson — May 13, 2009 @ 10:59 am
“If Christians think torture is justified, then I believe we do stand on a slippery slope to becoming like Al Qaeda.”
Slippery slope arguments are fallacies unless a clear causal link is established. If Christians (or anybody else, for that matter), believe that waterboarding terrorists is justified, it simply does not follow that they will likewise believe other things which al Qaeda thinks are justified.
Comment by Timbo — May 13, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Point taken and I should have been more specific. I do not think that Christians who support torture will therefore believe what Al Qaeda believes like marrying young girls is good or we shouldn’t educate women. But the question does remain, on what moral grounds do Christians have to say that the torturous activities Al Qaeda or any other group (e.g., Pol Pot’s Kmher Rouge) engage in are wrong if we support torture under certain circumstances ourselves? The slippery slope is not that we will become Al Qaeda in all its beliefs, but that we will lose our moral grounds to reject the activities of groups like Al Qaeda.
While I disagree with you on your position of whether waterboarding is torture, I do not want to conflate our terms. I am using the language of the study that says Christians are more likely to support torture (undefined activities) than the general population.
Comment by Tyler Watson — May 13, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
The slippery slope is still a fallacy. Just because people believe that waterboarding a terrorist is justified, it simply does not follow that they’ll have no moral ground to condemn the beheading of Daniel Pearl (how al Qaeda’s views on women came into this I don’t know). Even if I concede for the sake of the argument that waterboarding is always torture, it does not follow that there is no difference between doing that in certain circumstances and flying planes into the WTC for the sake of jihad.
Comment by Timbo — May 13, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Here is another place where we may be talking past each other or disagreeing. Let’s figure out what is the case.
I brought in Al Qaeda’s views regarding women in response to your point, “If Christians (or anybody else, for that matter), believe that waterboarding terrorists is justified, it simply does not follow that they will likewise believe other things which al Qaeda thinks are justified.” Al Qaeda’s views of women were examples of what Al Qaeda thinks. I was agreeing with your point that because we may torture does not mean that we will necessarily follow Al Qaeda in all their views.
Let me lay out my position more clearly.
1. I do not believe that we have to be morally pure to condemn the actions of others. I do not believe that anyone here has said this or has refuted it, but I think it’s important to get that out of the way for my further points.
2. I don’t care what the ends of the actions regarding torture are—whether for jihad or saving lives. As Saltzman stated, “Torture is morally wrong.” Torture is a case when I do not think that the ends can determine whether the means are just. It, like terrorism, is of itself an action of such total evil that it cannot be justified. I understand, Timbo, that you have made it clear elsewhere that torture is wrong—we merely disagree on a definition of torture.
3. If I am reading you correctly, you seem to be saying that while torture is wrong, we can condemn Al Qaeda because of the goal of their means are evil while holding less condemnation on the US because of the goal of our actions was to save lives. I think torture, regardless of intentions, is so evil that it demands the utmost condemnation. I understand my position on torture is harsh. Given my position, I do not see categorical differences—on the moral issue of torture—between groups willing to torture others.
4. In my view, it helps then that when we condemn the enemy for torturing people, that we do not torture the enemy. To demean the image of God through torture is akin to demeaning the image of God through beheading, because in either case, the image of God is demeaned. We may not be morally pure, but I think it is valid to question our moral authority to condemn Al Qaeda for certain actions when we are willing to take similar actions. If Al Qaeda is rightly condemned for devaluing human lives because of beheadings, torture, etc., with what moral authority do we Christians have to condemn them if we say it is OK to devalue a terrorist’s life if the circumstances are right? Again we do not have to be pure, but our ground is certainly shakier by our willingness to sin similarly.
5. My main point through the post and comments has been that Christians’ willingness to say it is OK to ever torture shocks me. How Christians can support torture in any case is beyond my imagination. I know that such a statement can appear condescending and for that I apologize if I have offended any. I do not intend to condescend, but to voice my anger. I do not apologize for my anger on the matter. I have tried to stay within the theological realm, though I know my arguments have bled into the political.
Comment by Tyler Watson — May 13, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
I think we are more talking past each other than disagreeing, though we do disagree on a few points. The main point I’m making today is that even if you categorize the actions of al Qaeda and the US as torture, there’s still a difference within that category, and this undoes the moral equivalence you seem to be arguing for in your slippery slope. I am not trying to dispute your categorization of waterboarding and beheading as torture. The point I am trying to make is that there is a difference between those two practices which gives one ground to condemn beheading even if one waterboards (and even if this is torture on your view). Speeding is illegal, but one who drives 80 in a 65 zone is different from one who drives 120 in a 65 zone. The person driving 80 is speeding, but driving 80 does not make him as much of a maniac as the one who drives 120. You seem to be saying that because the US has driven 80 by its use of waterboarding, it is as worthy of rebuke as KSM having gone 120 by his use of beheading, simply because both are speeding. This is a fallacy. Although both fit the category, it does not follow that there is no ground from which a person going 80 can rebuke a person going 120. They are similar on the level of genus, but different on the level of species.
Comment by Timbo — May 13, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
I think we have different opinions on the matter. I don’t think we’re speaking past one another. My position is, if torture is wrong, why not condemn it as so? Why create levels or shades of sin? As I said, ends and intentions do not factor into my condemnation of the acts of torture. If Al Qaeda tortured someone, then those actions deserve condemnation. If the US tortured someone, then those actions deserve condemnation. Amount and degree have little to do with it. I would agree that there are worse forms of torture, but to a certain extent, I don’t care. Torture is wrong, no matter what form it takes. All torture crosses the line.
I am condemning the act. Those who torture more often and/or more harshly obviously deserve to be chastised greater than others, but any one act of torture demands rebuke. Again, I come from this theologically. Sin is sin and deserves rebuke.
For what it’s worth, I thought I made it clear that I brought in beheading as an example of demeaning a human being’s worth. I don’t consider beheading torture, I consider it murder.
Comment by Tyler Watson — May 14, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Tyler, I am not willing to refer to waterboarding as “the speck” and the atrocities of 9/11, beheading, etc., as “the log.”
Such delineations miss the point. (We might, however, add that the person going 80 mph kills others by collision every day across the US).
Theologically speaking, to sin is to be deserving of death and hell. It is of course arguable that some sins might be perceived as more destructive/evil, but each sin is evil by definition and therefore mandates a desert of separation from God. Although a person guilty of waterboarding might assert a truth proposition that logically holds water when it condemns beheading as manifesting a great form of evil, to do so is a different issue entirely (it is an issue of identification, of determining just how badly on the moral continuum a certain human action misses the mark of holiness). Still, as such it does not remove guilt for waterboarding. The fallacy here is that of the smokescreen or red herring: the introducing of an irrelevant matter into the discussion. Yes, we can point out greater evils, but “pointing out” does not remove (or have anything to do with) the fact that we are also guilty of torture and evil of a different kind.
What is most shocking is the manifestation of the desire to support party in actions that run contrary to a person’s known Christian beliefs. “Love your enemies” “Do unto others” “Pray for those who use and persecute you” “Turn the other cheek” ...All in one way or other were/are violated by the US torture program (if Obama secretly continues these tactical programs to his day, there is no moral defense for it). ...The Republican Party has long since called itself the ‘Christian’ party, but I am suspicious of any who would try to define waterboarding as outside the sphere of torture so as to not be morally implicated by committing deeds unChristian. My inclination is to hold that people argue in such ways because the party that administered these programs is their “team”. (If the other political side had done such, there would be rioting in the streets!) ...Unfortunately, what this goes to show is that it is not morality that is at stake but pride in one’s team.
Comment by NJ Thompson — May 14, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Tyler, you’re misunderstanding me if you think we disagree on most of what you’ve written. I am only disputing the slippery slope argument you were making. Since you acknowledge that “there are worse forms of torture,” you have accepted that the moral line could be drawn differently, and the fact that it could be, even if you don’t care, stops the slippery slope. Of all the arguments you’re making, the slippery slope arguments are fallacious.
I’m deeply perplexed by your statement that you don’t consider beheading torture. Does the severe pain that the person goes through prior to death simply not count because that person dies? If so, doesn’t this illustrate the ambiguity regarding the word torture? If you are unable to declare that kind of severe pain as torture, on what basis can you rebuke me for saying that it is unclear whether the controlled waterboarding constituted torture?
Comment by Timbo — May 14, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
I still fail to see the fallacy. There may be worse forms of torture just as there may be worse forms of murder, but like all murder, all torture crosses the line. Here is the slippery slope: what stops a nation or group from employing harsher forms of torture or to use more torture more often when they have already crossed the line? Usually we say that our values and laws will stop us from employing harsher forms of torture or from torturing at all. What happens then if we rewrite the laws and go against our values so those harsher methods can be used? I think we do have stops in place, like laws, a free press, and investigations. These stops are good, but they depend on moral people keeping and using them and holding others accountable. If the stops are brushed aside or ignored, what good do they serve? I am not so concerned that the US is currently heading down the slippery slope at this moment, but unless we repent of our actions, unless we adhere to our values as a nation, then we do run the risk of sliding. We have the time to repent before we commit further sin. This requires that the citizenry condemn torture. When polls show that people are willing to say torture is sometimes justified, what stops our leaders from following suit?
I’ve been working with an understanding that after torture, the person is being tortured to get information from them and is alive afterward. That has been the case in the US’ use of waterboarding. I admit that this is a narrow definition of torture and that torture can encompass much more. I will retract my statement about beheading since I can see instances in which beheading can be used in a torturous way—e.g., beheading someone for punishment, threatening beheading to coerce a confession, or beheading a third party to get a confession.
Comment by Tyler Watson — May 15, 2009 @ 9:26 am
What would make it clear to you that waterboarding is torture?
Comment by Tyler Watson — May 15, 2009 @ 9:30 am
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
Comment by Timbo — May 15, 2009 @ 10:07 am
“What would make it clear to you that waterboarding is torture?”
Non-fallacious arguments.
Comment by Timbo — May 15, 2009 @ 10:10 am
That’s unhelpful, dismissive, and I’m a little offended. The link you posted writes, “This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps.” I believe my concerns of further actions are not out of bounds. If we are willing to torture, what keeps us from further torture in the future seems germane to me. Could you show why this is a fallacious comment? Could you show me why my concern is invalid?
Your last comment makes no sense. I have not argued that waterboarding is torture because we would slide down to Al Qaeda’s level if we continued to waterboard. I have argued waterboarding is torture on other grounds. I am asking you, since you have stated that you are not convinced waterboarding is always torture what would the conditions be that would make it torture?
Comment by Tyler Watson — May 15, 2009 @ 10:35 am
I’m sorry that my posting of the link was offensive, dismissive, and unhelpful. My purpose in posting it was to help explain slippery slope arguments. The example of Darrow’s argument is particularly relevant:
“If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools, and the next year you can make it a crime….Today it is the public school teachers, tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lectures, the magazines, the books, the newspapers.” Although he doesn’t say this, there is an implicit “where does it stop?” in his statement. Similarly, in your previous comment(s), you seem to be saying that if waterboarding is permissible yesterday, harsher forms will be permissible tomorrow, and even harsher forms will be permissible in a few months. As much as I understand the concern in asking where it stops, it is a non-sequitur to say that it goes from waterboarding to harsher forms, or that a person going 80 will be going 120 soon, or that censoring evolution leads to the inquisition. These are all fallacious. I raise the point in part because I think most of your arguments are good. But the slippery slope argument you have been making isn’t one of them.
I will try to write out my reasons for saying it is unclear that waterboarding is always torture tonight. I apologize for the snide remark that I left in response to your asking the question.
Comment by Timbo — May 15, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
I accept your apology. You understand my concern about what is permissible now and what may be possible in the future. But I think the matter of Darrow’s argument is making non-sequiturs as does the evolution to inquisition statement. I do not see my argument as a non-sequitur—and this may be another place of disagreement. I am not saying that we will by necessity start using worse tactics. We have crossed the line and legitimized the practice and that concerns me greatly. Given the definition of torture that the Bush administration created, the defense that we cannot criticize them because of the extenuating circumstances, and the fact that they have not admitted to doing wrong, I do not see appropriate stops. What stops us from continuing the practice? Why is that fallacious? This is one of the questions raised when we sentence a convicted felon. We ask, given that he has killed already, what is the likelihood that he will kill again and what can we do to prevent it? Is it a fallacious argument to state that because he has murdered already we should lock him up in part because he might murder again? I am worried because I believe we have crossed a line. I want us to get back on the other side of it.
Comment by Tyler Watson — May 15, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
“What would make it clear to you that waterboarding is torture?”
I believe that waterboarding can be torture, which has been defined as inflicting severe pain or suffering. What is unclear is that waterboarding is always torture. To refute this all I have to show is one instance of waterboarding that does not inflict severe pain or suffering, and I think that can be found in the fact that we waterboard troops for training purposes. The Attorney General has said that waterboarding our troops is “not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them.” And this is not a former Attorney General, but Obama’s own AG Eric Holder, as cited here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjAwY2M0ZjljYjAzYzFiYzljZjNkNDY1YTE1YmVhMDU=. I doubt you will be convinced that intent is relevant. But if it isn’t, then you will be committed to saying that we torture our own troops for training purposes. You will also be committed to saying that the waterboarder is automatically guilty of inflicting severe pain or suffering even if he didn’t mean to, in which case the waterboarding of Hitchens would be a crime despite the fact that the waterboarder intended no prolonged harm and Hitchens asked for a second round. I would think that if the pain was severe enough to count as torture, he wouldn’t have asked to try it again. Had he done that, perhaps I’d be more open to the notion that waterboarding is always torture. That he asked to go again, though, is another reason to think that it is not always torture. Severe pain or suffering is not something people volunteer for, unless they are masochists; severe pain or suffering is not something we inflict on our own troops for training purposes, for why would we cause prolonged harm to our own special forces? If waterboarding can be done without inflicting severe pain or suffering, then waterboarding is not always torture. So, to make it clear that waterboarding is always torture, you’d have to convince me that we willfully cause prolonged harm* to our elite special forces, that Christopher Hitchens is a masochist, and that Keith Olbermann is a sadist for proposing that Sean Hannity get waterboarded (I am most open to being convinced that Olby is a sadist).
*I am taking prolonged harm to be the same as severe pain or suffering, as in the UN law on torture according to this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243020964825531.html.
Comment by Timbo — May 17, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
Whether waterboarding can be performed in a way that doesn’t constitute torture doesn’t seem to be relevant to the discussion of whether the government can torture or not, unless you’re also suggesting that the government has the ability and will to (a) discern when it is or isn’t torture and (b) care. So far, there is no evidence of either.
Also, appealing to Hitchens to argue that waterboarding is sometimes not torture is kind of disingenuous considering that his conclusion after being waterboarded was the opposite. In fact, he said, “if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.”
Comment by Chase — May 17, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
“Whether waterboarding can be performed in a way that doesn’t constitute torture doesn’t seem to be relevant to the discussion of whether the government can torture or not”
I was answering a question that Tyler asked.
“unless you’re also suggesting that the government has the ability and will to (a) discern when it is or isn’t torture and (b) care. So far, there is no evidence of either.”
On the contrary, the released CIA memos, from what I have heard, show that they did make an effort not to cross the line into torture, so they did care about discerning whether or not they were inflicting severe suffering on KSM.
As for Hitchens, you are right, he said that it was torture, and I weigh that in thinking about whether waterboarding is torture. But, at the same time, it puzzles me that he would experience something he considers torture and then ask to go through it again. That may not be worth a bit in your book; it is in mine. I doubt that anybody would choose to be flogged, and furthermore want to go through it a second time. That, for me, makes it unclear that the act of waterboarding constitutes torture every single time. Hitchens’ statement contradicts his actions during the experience, in my book.
You are certainly free to disagree with me on this point. But it seems to me that if there was no conditional by which waterboarding may possibly be justified, there would be outrage at the waterboarding of Hitchens as much as at the waterboarding of KSM. If it’s wrong under every possible condition, then it was wrong to do it to Hitchens, even if he consented to it.
Comment by Timbo — May 17, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
“If waterboarding can be done without inflicting severe pain or suffering, then waterboarding is not always torture.”
This is the point in dispute. I am completely skeptical that waterboarding can be executed in military situations (and yield the desired results) without committing the antecedent of the above conditional statement. If waterboarding did not inflict severe pain or suffering, I am highly skeptical that it would work as a coercive tool in prying information from enemies intent on our destruction. Looking at things from a commonsensical angle, the fact that waterboarding indeed inflicts severe pain and suffering would in fact be the reason it is effective in training troops (more on this below) as well as frightening prisoners into confessing desired information. The threshold of pain must be intense enough to coerce the confession, to induce a complete betrayal of both cause and one’s military fellows… and so interrogators therefore must toe the line of pain infliction to the place on the continuum where a prisoner feels his only and best remaining choice is betrayal and confession. (That the confession of information he offers is factual is a different subject entirely, and whether something like waterboarding is both effective AND moral is another consideration entirely as well). A little water up the nose is not going to get it done when these individuals are willing to strap bombs to their stomachs or run airplanes through sky scrapers… It’s gonna take a lot of water.
“Severe pain or suffering is not something people volunteer for, unless they are masochists; severe pain or suffering is not something we inflict on our own troops for training purposes, for why would we cause prolonged harm to our own special forces?”
The issue from here on out becomes one of context (I remember the concept of “context” as being incredibly important to at least one of the discussants here). Let us say that a man, for whatever sadistic reason, forces his 12-year-old daughter to tread water in the icy Atlantic for 2 hours – mind you while naked and posing as shark bait. The man imposing this excruciatingly painful task against her will would rightfully find CPS on his front doorstep. However, the same very task is imposed upon Navy SEAL candidates, who willingly take on such circumstances. The intent is to determine the overall pain tolerance and strength of the men attempting to pass BUD/S tribulations. Without question, the icy water and corresponding hypothermia, fatigue, and fear of death are painful in both cases. In the case of the daughter, the imposed suffering is considered child abuse, while the SEAL candidate opts to embrace such great suffering as an indicator of his military qualification. Thus, in the case of the SEAL, we find a refutation at one and the same time of the claim that “severe pain or suffering is not something we inflict on our own troops for training purposes” and that only masochists volunteer for severe pain and suffering: the SEAL proves his worth through willingly enduring such pain and danger. (If the test were not excruciatingly painful, the test would fail to certify that the SEAL candidate is capable of immense pain tolerance).
The difference in context (between US military training versus the interrogation of a known terrorist) reveals a great deal as well: the US military authority imposes waterboarding on our special forces who willingly sign up for such procedures as part of personal training and endurance trials, as preparation for and simulation of what might be imposed by the enemy, an enemy that chops off the heads of United States’ servicemen. If the Navy SEAL cannot endure the above oceanic scenario, however, he is taken out of the water and sent home, having failed the tribulation, but not pushed to the brink of death except in his own choosing. In all such cases the ability to decline further pain is afforded. There is, of course, no such friendliness offered in the context of the imprisoned terrorist. We inflict this pain against his will and with the aggressive intent to coerce – hopefully with the more water poured comes the eventual breaking of his will – and it is in such light, in such a context, that the entire debate must hinge.
Comment by Confession Context — May 18, 2009 @ 11:22 am