I don't normally post political things on my blog, but I feel pretty strongly about this issue and so I encourage you to read and think/pray about the article I have pasted below. I cannot fathom why the Bush administration, or any Christain, would be opposed to this bill. Please note that this is not a partisan issue, as the bill has strong support from both Republicans and Democrats.
Who would Jesus torture?
by David Batstone
Christians of strong religious faith and sound moral conscience often end up in disagreement. Human affairs are a messy business, unfortunately, and even at the best of times we only see through a glass, darkly.
It is hard for that reason to call Christians to a universal standard of behavior. At this moment, however, we cannot afford to dilute the message of Jesus into meaningless ambiguity. There are certain acts that a follower of Jesus simply cannot accept. Here is one: A Christian cannot justify the torture of a human being.
The practice of torture by American soldiers is a hot topic at the Pentagon, in the Congress, and in the White House at the moment. The U.S. Senate already has passed 90-9 a bill that prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody. The lead advocate of the bill, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), was tortured by his captors during the Vietnam War. According to The New York Times, the Pentagon adopted a policy last Thursday to rein in interrogation techniques. The new policy uses much of the same language as the McCain amendment - drawn in large part from the Geneva Convention - to adopt standards for handling terror suspects.
Remarkably, the White House opposes the Pentagon initiative, and threatens to veto any legislation to which the McCain bill gets attached. Vice President Dick Cheney has urged Republican senators to allow CIA counterterrorism operations internationally to be exempt from the ban on mistreatment of prisoners, major newspapers reported.
On Nov. 3, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, said during an interview on NPR's "Morning Edition" that memos from Cheney's office practically encouraged abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Though in "carefully couched terms" that would allow for deniability, the message from Cheney's office conveyed the sentiment that interrogations of Iraqi prisoners were not providing the needed intelligence. Wilkerson said soldiers in the field would have concluded that to garner better intelligence they could resort to interrogation techniques that "were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war."
Republican senators are among the strongest voices in the growing chorus of criticism. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said, "I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture." And Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and co-sponsor of McCain's measure, agreed: "I firmly believe that it's in the best interest of the Department of Defense, the men and women of the United States military that this manual be their guide."
When the existence of secret CIA detention centers became public this week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called for investigations - not about whether they violate laws governing human rights - but about how the information was leaked. But members of their own party are keeping the focus where it belongs. The Washington Post quoted Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) as saying, "Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The real story is those jails."
Admittedly, Christians of good faith part paths when political conflict leads us to consider what constitutes a just and righteous war - or if any war can be just. Though we may not consent on the means, we do consent on the need to confront the spread of evil in the world. Yet we can all affirm scripture when it says, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:17, 21). When we confront evil with its own means, those means mark our own character.
In that regard, the practice of torture so fully embraces evil it dehumanizes both the torturer and its victim. No just cause can be won if it relies on torture to succeed. Democracy and freedom cannot result from a war fueled by torture, which is why so many Americans were shocked and angered by the disturbing incidents that took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
All the more so, Christians must oppose torture under any circumstances. Consider this: Who would Jesus torture? I cannot imagine Jesus finding a single "exemption" that would justify such an abuse of any individual made in God's image.
Though I bristle whenever I hear someone refer to the United States as a Christian nation - it is such a loaded phrase - many in the Muslim world see us as such. How tragic it would be for Muslims to identify the message and mission of Jesus with torture and terror. We must not allow that to happen.
Action Alert: "Do not repay evil for evil...." (1 Peter 3:9).
Despite strong bipartisan support in the Senate, Republican leaders in the House - including Speaker Hastert - are using a procedural loophole to block an up or down House vote on Sen. McCain's anti-torture measure.
+ Click here to ask Speaker Hastert and your representative to stand up against torture
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hrm. There was a very interesting book I read (can't remember title) that was essentially a propaganda device for justifying torture. Basic idea a Tom Clancy type novel where the terrorists were in the process of smuggling a nuclear weapon into the US and the only way to deal with the threat rapidly enough was to use various rough measures (i.e. torture) to extract information. I don't like the way the book presented the side, but it was a very effective piece of propaganda.
Some perspectives don't make very good public sound bytes, but I wonder if we should have some open discussion on them. For example, "How many 9-11s are we willing to have because we don't believe in torturing terrorists?"
My 2.314159s google search didn't find a good defense of the opposition to the torture bill - I'd be interested if anyone comes up with one: Surely someone agrees with the White House on this issue. My 2.718s analysis doesn't see a good defense, but I'm also not certain that the American public has really evaluated the cost it is willing to pay to support the principle of non-torture. (And yes, I know there is lots of argument that torture isn't successful, etc., etc.)
"Do not repay evil for evil..."
It definitely seems like such a simple phrase. The part that gets tricky comes when people strongly disagree on what is and is not "evil" (particularly for the first evil in the verse).
Why is the scale of evilness for the first evil usually so much harder to determine than the scale for the second evil? Is it because we are aware of alternative courses of action and uncertain about the future consequences of those actions? Or because we find ourselves caught between the thirst for revenge and the need to justify our actions?
I didn't read the post completely or carefully, I'll get there, but the arguement that "Jesus wouldn't do it, so we, as a country, shouldn't" doesn't apply here. There are a heck of a lot of things that Jesus wouldn't have done and we do regularly. If you want to oppose the tortue of people on the basis of it being inhumane or some other reason, I think that's acceptable, or if you oppose numerous other actions that we (people and country) do, then that arguement is logical for you. The example I'm thinking of here is our country at war. I don't think anyone can argue that we should never go to war, or that Jesus would have taken part in a war. Must be off. Maybe more thoughts later.
Post a Comment