Torture

---

This site has moved to robert.williamsonline.us.

---

Jonathan Fox is disturbed by my defense of, shall we say, ACLU-unfriendly interrogation techniques.

Some of his characterization of my position is not entirely fair. For example:

justify any means necessary to obtain it

That's not entirely fair. My reaction was to this article. Consider some of the horrific ways we torture these prisoners:

* kept standing or kneeling for hours [Just like manufacturing line workers in the USA!]

* held in awkward, painful positions [OK, depending on just how bad this is, it could be considered torture, but it's still not like they are ripping off their fingernails]

* deprived of sleep with a 24-hour bombardment of lights [Reminds me of college]

* Sometimes, female officers conduct interrogations, a psychologically jarring experience [Gasp! The monstrous Americans!]

I don't really think this is torture in this specific case. But, the general question - and the real point of our disagreement - is:

Robert, are you trying to say that “the ends justify the means?” That’s certainly what it sounds like.

My answer is, "sometimes". It depends on both the ends and the means. I am not suggesting that any good end justifies any dubious means. I'd also say that there are some means that are never justified. But in general, the more important the ends, the more means are justified. If you're trying to catch a pothead, not many "unusual" means are justified. If you're trying to stop a repeat of 9/11, then I think quite a bit of means are justified.

Laws recognize that in some circumstances one is morally permitted to do things that would not be justifiable in other circumstances. For instance, in times of war God's people used assassination (Judges 3-4 especially) against their opponents. In Texas, anyone is authorized to use deadly force in order to stop a fleeing criminal in certain crimes, or to prevent a specific set of crimes.

I believe this is an analogous situation. These are the evildoers. They are terrorists! They are out to get us. We're not persecuting them; we're fighting them to protect ourselves. They are our enemies; they are vile criminals. They attack churches, office buildings, nightclubs, embassies, and so on. These are not simply political opponents, common criminals, or ordinary military combatants. God's law and man's law recognizes that it is just to treat them differently.

Fighting wars and stopping crime are not polite endeavors. The British were horrified in the late 1700s that American revolutionaries didn't stand in formation and politely exchange fire with the soldiers. But that mentality seems to have disappeared along with the 1700s. It is a normal practice to employ unusual techniques - which would not normally be acceptable - in some situations.

For example, in fighting terrorism, we would probably all agree that espionage is justified. But what is espionage? Isn't it lying? Probably breaking and entering? Theft? All these are parts of espionage, but we understand that these means are easily justified by the ends of stopping terrorism.

What about sabotage? Fomenting insurrection? Assassination? These are all fairly common and accepted methods of waging a war. Tell me that you wouldn't have put a bullet through Hitler's forehead if you could have stopped WW2 and the Holocaust. And while none of these are torture, I think the differences are differences of degree, not of kind. An effective war against this type of enemy will necessarily involve doing things that one wouldn't normally do in a war.

Jonathan quotes Luke 6:35-36 ("Love your enemies") and writes I live in a Kingdom with a different set of rules. No “eye for an eye,” no “tooth for a tooth.”

Lex talionus was (is) the divine law of God and I'm not going to criticize it, although I can certainly criticize the way it was being misconstrued and misapplied. That was the law of the Kingdom of God as it was manifested then.

I believe in turning the other cheek. I believe in loving my enemies. I don't do it so well, but I believe in it. But I don't think Christ was giving a national defense policy at the sermon on the mount! His teachings were for the individual and for the church, not for the state. I believe you are misapplying His teachings by putting them in a context He did not intend.

there are definitely some occasions when war is thrust upon us by necessity.

How can you accept that it is sometimes necessary to kill thousands of soldiers and civilians with bombs and bullets, but balk at the thought of causing terrorists physical and psychological discomfort, pain, and injury? What kind of moral calculus is this? It's better to kill many marginally involved soldiers and relatively innocent civilians than to mistreat the real culprits?

But even war becomes necessary, it is never desirable.

Are you suggesting that we think torturing terrorists is fun? I think it falls into the "necessary but undesirable" category.

I refuse to believe there is anything acceptible about stooping to the same activities you despise in your enemies...How do we take the “moral high ground” against terrorism if we practice and condone the same activities of torture and brutality that we condemn as evil in them? We can’t. Use the tools of evil for too long, and you too will become evil

It's not "torture and brutality" that we condemn as evil in the terrorists. It's the slaughter of thousands of innocent people all over the world to advance a religious and political agenda. That's not even remotely similar to our interrogation techniques. Our soldiers and intelligence agents are not remotely comparable to terrorists!

Even if we were ripping the fingernails off terrorists to get information, that's nothing like detonating a bomb in a nightclub in order to kill westerners. It's nothing like shooting up a Christian church because of the religion practiced inside. If we were engaging in terrorism, if we were gleefully destroying mosques filled with worshippers, then yeah, that would be comparable and we'd be hypocritical. But we aren't and it isn't.

Update: Steven Den Beste posted an article that, in part, discusses the justification for torture in some circumstances.

Another update: I was thinking about this issue on a very personal level today. Suppose a gang of people kidnapped one of my children and were planning on doing horrible things to him. Now suppose I caught one of the kidnappers. I would do the most horrific and brutal things to that person that I could imagine in order to secure the return of my chid as quickly as possible. And perhaps I would face judgment and condemnation and punishment from society, but at the end of it, my child would be safe. Now, consider that these soldiers and intelligence agents have an entire country of innocent men, women, and children to protect. And they are almost definitely using far less horrific techniques to protect us than I would use to protect my family. No, I'm not going to condemn them.

Posted by Robert at December 30, 2002 03:08 PM | TrackBack