I’ve been watching the flurry of posts and intense debates in comments on the issue of torture here, and wondering, frankly, “What’s going on? Why has this become such a hot topic here?” I’m almost tempted to say it is becoming like torture to read yet one more blog post on torture.
So, I’m curious. Can somebody help me understand how/why this has become such an issue of intense interest, at this particular time, on this particular blog?
January 11th, 2010 | 10:47 am | #1
I was wondering the same thing. I mean it is an important issue and I know it is an important issue to Joe but it seemed to just erupt here. I have stayed out of it.
January 11th, 2010 | 11:13 am | #2
I can’t comment on what initiated it (which is a big part of the “why now?” question), but I can say why I responded and why I will continue to participate in the dialogue if I think there’s something worth contributing that hasn’t been said.
1. It’s an issue of importance to major events taking place in the world.
2. People who oppose it often think their view simply follows from the gospel.
3. I think the right moral perspective leads to a different view.
4. I’m not a big fan of hiding from the truth, so if I think something is false and people are connecting it with the gospel, I want to say something.
5. I think it does damage to the gospel if we allow disagreements over gospel issues to become too closely attached to the gospel, so I think it’s good that we express our disagreements over less central issues visibly and openly and accept those disagreements as non-central to what our faith requires of us in being united with other believers. (In other words, to avoid the issue is actually to foster disunity, even if there are certain bad ways of conducting the debate that also lead to disunity.)
January 11th, 2010 | 11:25 am | #3
I can’t speak for all parties concerned, but speaking for myself, Christians have to make ethical decisions on a daily basis. Some trivial, but some momentous. And we need to have the right toolkit for make reasonable decisions, consistent with our Christian duties.
This includes our national policy regarding counterterrorism. I’m puzzled by why Rev. McCain finds this puzzling. It’s fine to post pretty pictures about Christian art and music, but that’s no a substitute for patiently working through difficult moral issues.
If Rev. McCain were an army chaplain or military chaplain, he’d need to counsel doctors, patients, family members, or soldiers on challenging moral issues in ethics and bioethics.
January 11th, 2010 | 11:34 am | #4
Thanks for the prayers. I’ve taken a turn for the better….
Torture: why this and why now?
I think the problem is a noticable lack of philosophical discipline among theologians and pundits. Specificially a tendency to emote/jump to conclusions without first pausing to DEFINE TERMS and then lay out the problem with respect to all the “therefores” that’ll come of a decision based on our presuppositions.
Some pundits (neither theologians nor philosophers) say torture is OK in the “war on terror” for the supposed good that can come of military actionable intelligence taken from people who are not classifiable as POWs or common criminals. The thinking goes that terrorists are like Pirates which classically had no human rights at all. End justifies the means thinking.
Many theologians and ethicists say, No, torture is never moral…
But because neither side have cared to DEFINE TERMS, BOTH sides have left the theoretical realm and entered the sandy soil of NYT “leaks” as to what the CIA SUPPOSEDLY has done to terrorists.
Both claim water boarding and “enhanced techniques” are methods of torture. One side is OK with them (because they “work”), one side is against them (because they consider these methods ‘torture’.
But without a definition, both sides simply include various methods in “a list” and then argue whether they “work” or not, and whether it’s OK even if they work/don’t work.
Meanwhile, to my knowledge, I’m the only one asking how waterboarding/other methods can possibly constitute torture based on the classic definition, and if the definition has to be modified so as to include waterboarding, how the new expanded definition can be kept from making formerly innocent people suddenly guilty of warcrimes?
Apparently no one has noticed this – so eager to jump into a fight over some outrageous thing.
So let’s get to the definition. Classically, the word comes from the root for “turn” or “twist” – i.e. torque. Usage in a machine known as the rack resulted in people literally being torn apart.
So the definition is any action which intends to inflict pain that results in the PERMANENT harm to a person’s body, mind, or soul is torture and hence, immoral always and in every circumstance.
If a soldier, cop, civilian, government agent inflicts extreme pain on any captive such that the person experiences PERMANENT harm (burns, crushed bones, amputated body parts, poisons, etc. that they’ll never recover from)…. that is torture, and THAT is intrinsically evil.
The reasoning is that because a) the person held a captive is not an immediate threat to anyone and hence not an “unjust aggressor”. b) punishment for a crime is not served by disproportionate, lasting harm. Cutting off someone’s hand for stealing for example…. c) even if the captive tells you what information you want…. he’ll suffer for the rest of his life, far after the use of that knowledge….
As a Catholic, I agree with half the pundits: torture is always wrong, and can not be squared with ethical teaching.
But as a professional Philosopher I can’t agree with them in including water-boarding and other “enhanced techniques” reputedly used by the CIA under “Bush” as moral equivalents to ‘torture’ for the simple reason that they don’t fall under the definition of permanent harm.
No terrorist – that we know of – has been permanently maimed, brainwashed, or forced into sin – by the CIA under the direction of the Bush administration.
So while Jonah Goldberg and other pundits may THINK waterboarding is torture and torture is OK, they’re wrong. And why Joe Carter and others here may THINK waterboarding is torture and torture is wrong, they’re wrong at least on waterboarding because they can not or have not cared to define what constitutes torture per se.
All torture is a form of violence, but not all violence is torture.
Wounding someone in war (while attempting to kill them) is NOT torture. “Collateral damage” is not torture. Tazering someone, beating someone up….not torture. The intent might be to inflict pain, but the intent is not to permanently hurt someone, just to stop hostilities/disarm etc.
But in the realm of torture of terrorists (or pirates/other non-state, non-criminal persons who are unjust aggressors), things have become fuzzy because both sides have just avoided the all important definition.
Torture IS NOT moral from a Catholic point of view based on the dignity of the human person. One may not do evil so that good may come of it.
And any act that disproportionately harms a person, can not be legitimate.
So for example…while it’s ethical to kill an unjust aggressor in self-defense, it’s never been considered OK to mutilate the corpse. Nor is “unjust aggressor” a term wholly subjective in nature. Once a man drops his weapon and surrenders neither police, soldiers or civilian may then just shoot them.
Spanking a child may be legitimate, but breaking bones, starving them them can never be legitimate – such actions cause permanent harm.
A prisoner who is no deadly threat to anyone may indeed know a deadly secret that will potentially mean the death of many innocents. Still, this knowledge of his doesn’t constitute a permanent threat so torture DEFINED AS ANY ACT THAT RESULTS IN PERMANENT HARM TO A PERSONS’ BODY, MIND, OR SOUL…. is DISPROPORTIONATE to the threat to the common good of that secret.
If you crush, burn, gouge, fry the person for that information, even if he gives in and tells you the truth, he’ll forever be maimed. That’s not just.
But waterboarding (simulated drowning) while ghastly and panic-inducing, is not – at least as described by the papers about the CIA – wasn’t meant as a form of execution or as a means to inflict permanent physical, mental or spiritual damage. It was meant to produce a state of panic/fear of death/dread so that they’d admit of plots and tell the authorities what was still planned.
Now, I personally would neither inflict such a thing on others or willingly undergo the experience (almost drowning twice in my life is enough, thank you very much!) But almost drowning is not the same thing as drowning.
I’ve almost drowned. It’s absolutely terrifying. But it didn’t provoke permanent harm to me physically, mentally, or spiritually.
So….while intentionally waterboarding someone is a form of violence, I don’t see as a Philosopher attempting to define my terms, how this unpleasant ‘technique’ can be torture.
Unless we’re using “” quotes which mean “like” but not “= equal to” torture.
Listening to Obama say “let me be clear” while he speaks opaquely is “torture” (as in, “like” torture). But it’s not permanent so it is not the same thing as torture.
On the other hand, a lot of theologians think highly of themselves and their STD degree. And they think waterboarding is pretty serious, and think/emote that it ‘must be’ torture.
Fine, OK. But if so, even though it doesn’t inflict permanent damage, why is it torture? What about that technique or others makes it = torture?
A LOT of things suddenly would have to be included in the list of torture since they too are panic-inducing/fear of death/ghastly experiences.
Tazering people. Shooting to wound. Police using pressure grips to make people pass out… even going to jail in a crowded prison could be panic-inducing/fear of death creating.
But we do this all the time and up till now this has been considered merely a form of punishment on the one hand and a form of more humane disarming of unjust aggressors on the other.
Clearly though, if tazering someone is tantamount to waterboarding them and both are ‘torture’ which is always evil, then ethically we’d better start arguing for police to just shoot people.
Alternatively, if classic definitions can be unilaterally expanded to score political or ideological points…… well, two can play such games. But this isn’t a game. This is deadly serious. We owe the world a thoughtful response, not ‘a priori’ fuzzy thinking/emoting.
January 11th, 2010 | 12:41 pm | #5
I think JMR started it off with a post with which, by his own subsequent admission, no one but him agreed. So, there’s the spark.
The fuel, I think, is that people are generally not dealing with consistent positions, but rather gut impulses such as aversion to torture, or aversion to terrorists. And so there is ample room for half-arguments, nitpicking, posturing, and misunderstanding.
Also the terms are vague. We haven’t really seen a good definition of torture, necessity, etc.
And the discussion is superficial. Why does the preservation of a state have priority over individual liberties, and if it does, to what extent? No asking of fundamental questions.
And the Bible is no help for deciding what a government per se should do. We know what is asked of individuals, but not of that is practical stuff for people who have to govern.
January 11th, 2010 | 12:45 pm | #6
Adam,
I started this topic, because I am interested in it.
As for “nobody agreeing” . . . none of the commentators did, but I do not think this means nobody did (in general)!
January 11th, 2010 | 12:47 pm | #7
I think the way that it got here was through the following path:
1. A recent poll revealed that a majority of the people think we should waterboard the pantsbomber.
2. A discussion about the poll began at NRO, leading Marc Theissen to justify torture.
3. I took Thiessen to task in several posts on the First Thoughts blog.
4. JMR thought it would be worthwhile to port the discussion over here.
I agree, though, that it is torture reading (and writing) posts on torture.
January 11th, 2010 | 2:54 pm | #8
Thanks, Joe, for helping me understand the how/why of this stream. It has been a verbal waterboarding, I guess, that we have now experienced here.
January 11th, 2010 | 2:57 pm | #9
Steve, I regret you felt it necessary to exercise the “snarky option” when you said, “I’m puzzled by why Rev. McCain finds this puzzling.” I am puzzled that you would be puzzled about what I was puzzled about! I understand the importance of these issues, and how they have been the subject of national introspection, and…so on. I just have been wondering why there must be multiple blog posts on the same subject. I am almost tempted to suggest that FIRST THINGS should fire up a new blog devoted only to torture.
But, alas, set up a straw man, knocked it down, then accused me of advocating the straw man position you set up, for the sake of knocking down.
But I guess that’s the very definition of argumentum ad straw hominem! To which I can then only say, “Well played sir! Well played.”
: )
January 11th, 2010 | 3:34 pm | #10
Rev. McCain,
How did I set up a straw man? You seemed to indicate that all this talk about “torture” was a waste of time.
I’m genuinely curious about whether you believe Christians in general or Lutherans in particular should participate in this debate. Do you think Lutheran theologians have any specific moral guidance to offer on issues like this? Is it important for Lutheran theologians to offer concrete moral direction on the ethics of counterterrorism?
In my experience, your habit is to default to pious advice about “Looking to Jesus.”
But what would do if you were pastoring a church, if a gov’t (e.g. FBI, CIA) interrogator were a member of your congregation, and he came to you for counsel on the legitimacy and/or limits of coercive interrogation? Would you give him some criteria? Or would you tell him to listen to a recording of the St. Matthew Passion?
I’m not saying that you, personally, have an obligation to speak to this issue. Maybe you don’t feel qualified. Fine.
But you seem to have a problem with other people speaking to this issue. Do you think we should just let secular liberals and secular conservatives hash it out?
January 11th, 2010 | 3:52 pm | #11
Adam said:
I disagree with gusto. The Bible may not dictate what to do on 11 Jan 2010 at 2:51 PM, but there is no question that it lines out the moral principles for ruling justly, including how to conduct war.
I’d be glad to line that out if there’s really any disagreement with that.
January 11th, 2010 | 4:01 pm | #12
Steve, you are on to me! I think Christians should simply listen to J. S. Bach all day long and look at pictures of Jesus.
Seriously…and for the last time:
I was genuinely curious how/why this fifteen-plus stream of posts about torture has happened here. Joe Carter provided a clear and helpful answer.
You have just responded with obnoxious and insulting remarks.
You are obviously spoiling for a fight, but you’ll have to take your aggression out somewhere else. Consider setting up more straw men to knock down. That may help.
And, I do apologize if my posts containing God’s Word, beautiful paintings, and music and my urging people to look to Jesus have offended you. You’ll have to understand. It’s just kind of what I do. Call it an occupational hazard, if you will.
: )
January 11th, 2010 | 5:29 pm | #13
Rev. Paul T. McCain:
“It is becoming like torture to read yet one more blog post on torture.”
But when I respond by saying “I’m puzzled by why Rev. McCain finds this puzzling,” you reply by saying “Steve, I regret you felt it necessary to exercise the ‘snarky option’ when you said, ‘I’m puzzled by why Rev. McCain finds this puzzling.’”
So why is it “snarky” for me to say I’m puzzled by why you find this puzzling, but it’s not “snarky” for you to say that you find it torturous to read one more post on torture? Can you explain the essential difference?
“You have just responded with obnoxious and insulting remarks.”
No, I simply posed a series of questions. You’re the representative Lutheran here. What’s wrong with asking a Lutheran what Lutheran theology has to say about ethical issues raised by counterterrism, including coercive interrogation? Why do you resent the opportunity to answer that question? Would John Warwick Montgomery resent that question?
If you think Lutheran theology has some detailed guidance to offer on this controverted issue, why don’t you share it with us? Why is that an unreasonable request?
Wasn’t that the point of Joe Carter asking you to join this blog? So that you could bring a Lutheran perspective to the discussion?
BTW, Montgomery and I have corresponded in the past. If you resent me asking you what Lutheran theology has to say on the issue at hand, perhaps I should ask him instead and post his answer on my own blog.
“You are obviously spoiling for a fight, but you’ll have to take your aggression out somewhere else.”
You’re the one who’s ratcheting up the aggressive rhetoric, not me.
“And, I do apologize if my posts containing God’s Word, beautiful paintings, and music and my urging people to look to Jesus have offended you.”
So why don’t you explain how God’s word and looking to Jesus furnish moral concrete guidance on counterterrorism? How does that cash out?
It reminds me of an old book by Tom Skinner, If Christ Is the Answer, What Are the Questions?
January 11th, 2010 | 5:41 pm | #14
Steve, you may be right.
January 13th, 2010 | 3:43 am | #15
Frank,
Please go over the evidence for me. I tend to see two lines of “Biblical” evidence:
1) Selective borrowing from the Old Covenant (e.g., taking the general principle of being able to execute people, but applying it selectively, for murder, but not for adultery). This is problematic on historical, theological, and exegetical levels.
2) Odd, out-of-context exegeses of Paul’s statements on Rome, the thrust of which was “lay low, don’t revolt, and you’ll be left alone.”
Christians today look at these passages through the lenses of Constantine and Westphalia, but I think it would be extremely difficult to argue that Paul felt he had any sort of positive prophetic message for how government should govern (and certainly not how Christians should be involved!). If he did, the things he didn’t feel the need to comment upon are considerable.
(There’s a snarky comment to be made about Christian marriage books and these kinds of arguments, but that is for another time.)
Anyhow, if the two-day lag between comments hasn’t snuffed out the post, I’d be interested to hear your evidence.
Adam
January 13th, 2010 | 10:18 am | #16
Paul, it’s probably because everyone has 24′s next season on mind. Sorry, I couldn’t help the joke.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact