NRCAT, part II

    Here are my second set of remarks from the NRCAT event.

    On what basis are we normally assured that torture of detainees is an acceptable practice?  Everyone agrees, as far as I can tell, that gratuitously creating pain in others is a heinous evil.  So, again I ask, on what basis do we seek to justify torturing others?  Well, the argument usually goes like this, doesn’t it?  We denounce the gratuitous creation of pain, but we sadly allow that torture may be used when a greater good might be attained in return.  If a detainee has information that might make it possible to prevent a terrorist act which would cause pain or death to a great many, then we may use any means we deem necessary to extract that data--including torture.  You have all heard the argument, right?  But does this justification really work?  Does the scenario wherein we have captured a bad guy that we know has relevant information really fit with experience?
    Sadly, in our entertainment-oriented society, we find that telling stories where this scenario is dramatically portrayed are particularly effective in drawing high ratings.  Even more sadly, one member of the Supreme Court of the United States recently responded to the torture question, not by appeal to hard fact, but rather by asking what jury would convict Jack Bauer.  Thereby, this SC justice conflated reality and drama in such a way as to create the illusion that a scenario from the hit TV series “24” was an accurate representation of the world in which torture is used.  Every torturer, then, is justified because the payoff will be the same as we see on TV, but is this really the case?  As best we can tell, the answer is no for at least three reasons.
    First, numerous experts in the psychology and physiology of torture tell us that torture is simply not a reliable means of gathering information.  Once pain, physical or psychological, reaches a certain point, the one being tortured will say whatever they perceive the torturer wants them to say.  So, if the goal is to get detainees to confess to particular acts (guilty or not), then torture is an ideal tool.  This has been oft used in regimes that want to create particular perceptions, regardless of fact.  However, if one wants reliable information, then torture is notoriously unhelpful.
    Second, as recent history has once again reminded us, the vast majority of “suspects” that we manage to round-up turn out not to be related to the terrorist activities we initially thought.  A remarkably high percentage of so-called “detainees” are guilty of little more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Imagine, if you can, the sheer terror of being captured, transferred to a far away place, and being tortured, even though you have no relevant information regarding terrorist activities.
    Third, we fail to realize the impact of torture on those who commit torture.  Likewise, we fail to realize the impact, the slide toward barbarism, that attends societies that allow themselves to use torture under the guise of protecting themselves.  It is a vicious cycle, once you think about it, to protect ourselves from barbarians, we deem barbarous means acceptable, thereby becoming the very barbarians we so feared to begin with.  In a very real sense, those who oppose torture are the ones who most deeply realize that the use of such tactics does not lead to “winning,” but rather to the surrender of that which was worthy of defense--our humanity.
    In closing, let me once again cite that famous passage from Bishop Peter Storey in response to the tortures that attended apartheid: “There is a price to be paid for the right to be called a civilized nation. That price can be paid in only one currency—the currency of human rights.... The rule of law says that cruel and inhuman punishment is beneath the dignity of a civilized state.... We send a message to the jailers, interrogators, and those who make such practices possible and permissible: ‘Power is a fleeting thing. One day your souls will be required of you.’”

Comments

[Liles Taylor]

This is very insightful, and your deductive reasoning makes perfect sense. The unfortunate thing is that those "Barbarians" who implement and endorse torture seem to be incapable and unwilling to even listen to such rational. That is why I am very excited about your all's work to for legislation, the only thing they might understand.

[caleb]

If torture doesn't work, then why do organizations use it so often? I think what's so tempting about torture and violence is that it works so well, not that it's completely unrational or useless. It produces results.

Obviously, extreme forms of torture produce the responses that the one tortured think his/her "torturers" want to hear (i.e. the Inquisition), but what about more mild (less life-threatening) forms of torture. I think every civilization throughout history has practiced it . . . why? I would be inclined to think because it works.

I'm not trying to excuse the use of torture; I think it's a heinous evil as well. But I do understand why people use it . . . just like I understand why people use violence - it works.

[dbeasley]

Caleb, I do not understand your work ethic.

[evagrius]

Well, it's true that violence and torture works....but it works in precisely the opposite intended.
The perpetrator of violence or torture becomes "lower" than the victim.
The perpretator doesn't become an animal. The perpretator becomes demonic.
Demons are "fallen angels", not animals. They have all the capacity of angels just lacking the love that propels angels.
Humans become demonic and lose the capacity to love.
But yes, violence and torture work...and humanity loses.

[caleb]

dbeasley, I'm confused. Do I know you?

evagrius: "violence and torture work...and humanity loses"
- Absolutely! That's why I'm glad there are Christians out there who lobby against it.

[Doug7504]

I am deeply distressed to see that so much of the debate about "justifiable" torture is couched in political terms, rather than moral. American Christians have been sidetracked by the fear-mongering which is rampant in this Administration's portrayal of the "war on terror." Remember the rise of the so-called "security moms" during the 2004 election? Those who only want their children and families to be safe, and so voted out of emotion rather than sound, moral-based rationality? At face value, who could argue with them? However, Christians are called to live a life which goes deeper than the sanctuary of temporal safety.

To be Christian is to accept a life different than ordinary, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer says so eloquently in "The Cost of Discipleship." He makes it clear that to follow Jesus Christ is to stand apart, to live a life without security, without wordly contentment, to withstand the jeers and hatred of those who are part of the social mainstream. Sadly, our American version of Christianity is lurching further and further away from true faith based on Christian love, and closer to an amalgam of "Christianity Lite" and political expediency.

[Doug7504]

I am deeply distressed to see that so much of the debate about "justifiable" torture is couched in political terms, rather than moral. American Christians have been sidetracked by the fear-mongering which is rampant in this Administration's portrayal of the "war on terror." Remember the rise of the so-called "security moms" during the 2004 election? Those who only want their children and families to be safe, and so voted out of emotion rather than sound, moral-based rationality? At face value, who could argue with them? However, Christians are called to live a life which goes deeper than the sanctuary of temporal safety.

To be Christian is to accept a life different than ordinary, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer says so eloquently in "The Cost of Discipleship." He makes it clear that to follow Jesus Christ is to stand apart, to live a life without security, without wordly contentment, to withstand the jeers and hatred of those who are part of the social mainstream. Sadly, our American version of Christianity is lurching further and further away from true faith based on Christian love, and closer to an amalgam of "Christianity Lite" and political expediency.

[Doug7504]

I am deeply distressed to see that so much of the debate about "justifiable" torture is couched in political terms, rather than moral. American Christians have been sidetracked by the fear-mongering which is rampant in this Administration's portrayal of the "war on terror." Remember the rise of the so-called "security moms" during the 2004 election? Those who only want their children and families to be safe, and so voted out of emotion rather than sound, moral-based rationality? At face value, who could argue with them? However, Christians are called to live a life which goes deeper than the sanctuary of temporal safety.

To be Christian is to accept a life different than ordinary, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer says so eloquently in "The Cost of Discipleship." He makes it clear that to follow Jesus Christ is to stand apart, to live a life without security, without wordly contentment, to withstand the jeers and hatred of those who are part of the social mainstream. Sadly, our American version of Christianity is lurching further and further away from true faith based on Christian love, and closer to an amalgam of "Christianity Lite" and political expediency.

[SpeapeGopay]

The trouble with the rat-race is that even if you win, you're still a rat.
-- Lily Tomlin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://chesterstricklandnd.easyjournal.com