Why We Must Condemn Torture (including Waterboarding)

A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life indicates that the more often people go to church the more likely they are to support the use of torture (or the coy euphemism “enhanced interrogation tactic”) against suspected terrorists.

Of people that attended church at least once a week 54% said that torture was “justified” or “sometimes” justified, as compared to 42% who seldom or never attend services. White evangelical Protestants were the most likely to support torture, with 60% justifying its use. This compares to 49% of the general population. By contrast 30% of mainline Protestants (those that evangelicals usually label as “liberal”) said torture was never justified (as compared to 25% of the general population). Only 12% of evangelicals saw torture as never justified.

Since President Obama released the CIA memo revealing the use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques a few weeks ago, the issue has stirred a great deal of controversy, prompting the Pew Forum survey. President Obama, in a recent press conference, failed to use the term “crime” (which would certainly have lead to criminal proceedings) but has left the door open to further investigation. In September 2005 nine Army reservists were convicted of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The only officer convicted, Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, had his courts-martial conviction thrown out by the Army in January 2008. The content of the CIA memo seems to indicate that the actions of the nine at Abu Ghraib (portrayed by the army as rogue soldiers acting outside the chain of command) as well as by those at Guantanamo Bay and other sites were part of a systematic approach to intelligence gathering that was sanctioned at the highest levels of the Bush White House.

President Bush, as early as 2005 and repeatedly thereafter, claimed that the US does not torture. Secretary of State Rice condoned the practice of waterboarding and Vice President Cheney, in an interview with ABC News in December 2008, defended practice and admitted to “helping to get the process cleared .” When asked if the practice of waterboarding was appropriate, Cheney replied, “I do.” The CIA memo indicates that the members of the Bush Justice Department, under the direction of Attorney generals Ashcroft and Gonzales were instructed to write guidelines clearing certain techniques and therefore rendering them legal. One such memo, written by former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee in 2002, advised the C.I.A. that "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment was at times allowable under U.S. law, and authored, co-authored and signed other memos on "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation." The release of that memo has stirred calls for the impeachment of Bybee, now a Federal Justice on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Former Attorney General Gonzales, in November 2004, called the Geneva Convention, the international code that protects servicemen (including our own) from torture and abuse “quaint” and “obsolete.” The statement prompted criticism from human rights groups and families of American GIs noting that if the US is can disregard the practices of the Geneva Convention what prevents other nations or combatants from disregarding them with our service personnel. The CIA memo certainly calls into question the extent to which former President Bush knew about and even authorized the practices of torture during his administration.

Waterboarding seems to be a central issue here so let’s deal with that. Waterboarding IS torture (I will deal with this issue in a moment), but two considerations seem important in light of the Pew results. First, the use of waterboarding is being defended by many (including Cheney) because it has been effective. This has been the justification most likely to be seen on FOX News (where more evangelicals get their news then other station—OK maybe not but it seems like it). The Pew question on whether torture is “justified” begs the question—on what grounds? The Cheney answer, the FOX answer, and apparently the evangelical answer, is that it has prevented further attacks. The validity of that statement is highly questionable but assuming it is—does this condone the practice by Biblicists? The logic of its defenders essentially comes down to Machiavellian principle of the “end justifies the means.” It is political pragmatism that notes that the chief end of government officials is to keep its citizens safe and thus any means that accomplishes this end is permissible and deemed beneficial (maybe even moral) if it produces such results.

This defense suffers from two flaws. First, would we allow other nations to use that tactic against US citizens. For example, if Iran were to engage in the torture of Roxana Saberi, the American journalist being held in suspicion of espionage, upon what basis could the US (including evangelical Americans) wage protests? The pragmatic methodology being defended by many evangelicals is a defense of the erosion of moral absolutes that we typically decry when it comes to issues such as abortion or gay rights / marriage. We appear to as moral absolutists on certain issues (esp. when they don’t effect us directly), but on issues of safety and security (with its more direct effect) we become pragmatists. The late Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer noted that it would be the desire for “personal peace and affluence” that would lead to the rejection of moral absolutes in the West. I am sure he didn’t suspect the defenders of biblical truth to be the ones that would help grease the skids of rejecting biblical absolutes.

Also, the pragmatic argument is not biblical in that it rejects the sovereignty of God over results. The Bible clearly teaches that the disciples of Christ are to be faithful to the process of doing righteousness, but that we are not held accountable for the results of the actions. Believers are not judged on results since results are come under the sovereign auspices of God. What disciples are called to do is be faithful to the process. By reducing the justification of torture to results Christians are clearly violating faithfulness to the idea of the image of God in others and the commandment to love our enemies. To defend the torture of others one must first objectify or dehumanize the one being tortured—a result that is always a part of the sin nature.

Now, is waterboarding torture? Despite Sean Hannity claiming he would undergo the procedure (and Keith Obermann chiding him to do so) the process IS torture. The technique has a long history (at least to the Spanish Inquisition). In 1947, following WW II, an international tribunal labeled the technique a war crime and hanged several people convicted of using the technique (including those that used waterboarding on American soldiers). The United States found sufficient moral outrage at the technique to support the death penalty for those who used it against our service personnel, but found such statues “quaint” and “obsolete” when we desire to use them. For evangelicals, which claim that the United States is a “Christian nation,” the support of such techniques and unquestioning support of those who authorized them, constitutes a violation of the very principles claimed to be the moral basis of the nation.

It should be noted that the clearest characteristics of the sin nature is the desire to be God and define right and wrong for ourselves (Gen. 3:5). Brethren, the only justification for the support of torture is to nurture this fundamental characteristic of the sin nature through the use of biblical or patriotic sounding rhetoric which, in the end, supports the desires of our sinful hearts. In the end our moral motivations becomes the same as the worldly motivations that we say we reject. We cannot expect the world to respect an argument for moral absolute and the image of God in the unborn if we continue to deny moral absolutes clearly stated in the Bible when it comes to the treatment of enemies. As Biblicists we must condemn the technique and investigate its practice.