Pat Buchanan's column today is titled "Is Torture Ever Moral?" AND I have purposefully not yet read it! Had I done so, this would be the third post in a row where I have cited something he wrote, and although I do read everything he writes, I don't want to be accused of being so tied to someone that their thoughts and mine are inseparable. Believe me, that would never be the actual truth when it comes to Buchanan...not that the facts ever got between some people and a good story.
I do not support torture. For any reason. The only serious argument that I ever hear anyone marshal for the efficacy of torture is "Well, what about if a dirty bomb is planted somewhere and the terrorist knows where it is and he'll tell us if we break enough of his toes or pull out a sufficient number of fingernails?" Sorry, I just don't buy it. If you are inflicting enough pain on someone, he will tell you what he thinks you want to hear.
But my reasons for opposing torture are actually deeper than whether or not it "works" (more on that in a minute). How could torturing someone do anything but dehumanize the torturer? I have never even understood people who subject animals to inhumane practices. I am the furthest thing from a vegetarian; I love my red meat and my white. Bring it all on: steak, hamburger, pork chops, grilled chicken, salmon, bratwurst...and we're only just getting started. But the slaughter should be quick, efficient and as painless as possible. Even when I think of animals that I find repulsive, such as rats and possums, which I try to eliminate whenever I see them, I don't want to see them tortured.
Most integrally, though, how can someone who claims to speak for Christ advocate such practices? In what scenario would Jesus have tortured someone? I do try, however ineffectively at times, to implement the WWJD question in my life on a regular basis. On this issue, it is an open-and-shut question. Let's all imagine together Jesus wiring up the jumper cables or the rack or the dunking bucket. See what I mean?
The bottom line is that I don't believe it does "work." I have my differences with John McCain, but this is one area where I have to cede the ground to him, as a former torture victim. McCain contends exactly what I have said, that it does not work and does not make us better people.
I will admit that if my little girl were missing, for instance, and the pertinent authorities believed they had located the kidnapper, in the wild heat and anger of the moment, I would support ANY technique that would extract the information. I do have blood flowing through my veins, not ice water. But this is precisely why we build layers into the justice system between the victim and the perpetrator, so that the perpetrator is treated humanely, and hopefully, as their deeds deserve in the end.
Taking the long view, how can a nation that practices insidious interrogation methods not be resented for decades to come, allowing the seeds for future wars to be planted? Even if torture did save a few lives in the short run, would it not condemn future innocents over the long haul? But even more importantly, is it ever right to "do evil that good may come?"
Now, having said all of that...humiliation should not be equated with torture. Forcing Islamic male prisoners to wear panties on their heads, a la the Abu Ghraib debacle, is not something I would advocate either, but it is not torture; it does not involve physical pain. I am also not opposed to aggressive interrogation techniques, such as calibrated sleep deprivation, loud music and similar measures.
I don't like waterboarding, though; if it isn't torture, it is the illusion of the same, although my wife disagrees (yes, she supports it). But those who practiced it on the very few occasions that it was done did so under the full consent of law that was unchallenged. And by all accounts, Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats who are now burning with indignation over such "OUTRAGES" sat in the very committee hearings where it was approved, and raised no objections. Zip. Zero. Nada. What a bunch of plastic phonies.
So there is my position, nuanced as it is; I suppose some would characterize it as inconsistent.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Just to make sure we're clear: I don't think that torture should be an option, either. I just don't think waterboarding is torture.
And why would Jesus need to waterboard anyone anyway? He knows what the terrorist is thinking anyway! :)
xoxoxox
Fine job on this posting, Glen. It did cause me to temporarily re-think my views on torture with your imagery of Jesus wiring up jumping cables. Although I did chuckle with your wife's comment about Jesus not needing to due to His Omniscience.
Taking a look at your WWJD question with the idea that Jesus was God in the flesh, maybe Jesus did "torture", as all the following were caused by Him.
Was Jonah not confined to a cold dark room with no food or drink for days on end until he changed his mind?
Wasn't the Pharoahs own son killed
in an effort to leverage a desirable opinion?
Weren't Israelites forced to live in harsh environment for 40 years with little concern for dietary practices as they were fed from only 1 food group every day?
Job was given sores and worse in an effort to get a confession.
Numerous times in OT pestilence and plague are brought on Israel with the intention of gaining a confession.
If I'm arrested and I know something, but the worse that can be done to me is force me to listen to William Hung, than I'm not talking. If I know that I can lose a finger, and the longer I stay silent, the more fingers I'll lose, then I'm going to give up info pretty quickly...
Jed was asking me tonight if I had read this post and what I thought.
While I do not see Jesus wiring any body up, I am all for torture on anybody with info about those wishing harm on this country.
I do how ever respect your opinion, and those who agree with you. But all is fair in love and war.
Hey, I thought McCain said at the convention that they did break them. Jordan
Post a Comment