Torturous Logic

Despite the fact that most defenders of torture end up providing arguments that aren't much better than this,  the fact that there ARE so many torture apologists is a situation we should find disturbing.  And when I say 'we', I mean people who believe in the notion of basic human dignity. 

The only arguments for torture that I've heard travel along the following rationales: "They are willing to do anything to us, so we should be willing to fight fire with fire."  Or "If there was an imminent threat of a lot of people dying, then we should be able to do whatever it takes to get the information we need to save lives."

The first argument only makes sense if you think that the use of torture by morally-depraved terrorists somehow makes it okay for us to use it.  I thought the whole point was that the United States' democratic, rights-driven ideals were supposed to separate us from the terrorist.  If they actually "hate our freedom," as the president has said, that would assume we somehow do things differently.  If we torture our prisoners, put them in hidden jails indefinitely without trial and deny them legal counsel, what separates us from, say, China?  Or countries that are even lower on the human-rights totem pole?  What's the point of fighting a war based on ideals if we become just like the people we are fighting against?

Both the second and first argument make another assumption: that torture is an effective way of gaining valuable information from prisoners. 

Really?  Despite the fact that there's heaps of evidence to the contrary? [Yes, I know that's something Amelia would say.]  

Actually, there is little to no evidence that torture is effective -- that is, if your goal is to gain useful intelligence.  There is plenty of evidence suggesting that torture does work if your goal is to degrade and humiliate prisoners.  Breaking someone's spirit, while a highly amusing activity for the sociopaths liting among us, isn't really going to save anyone's life or lead to anyone's capture.  It will lead to a prisoner saying anything they can think of in order to stop the torture.  The only time torture works effectively is on the movies or on 24 (a show that is trending disturbingly into a military propaganda engine).

Which is what leads us to the abominable pro-torture "news articles" appearing in such 'fine' publications as NewsMax.  The article I linked to above naturally has a misleading and biased headline and draws absurd conclusions from the information provided...but the piece represents so much more than that.  It's truly, truly sad when Republicans have to twist themselves into absolutely indefensible positions to defend a position that simply cannot be defended on moral or intellectual grounds.  Before you Bush/Cheney supporters throw a fit, I'm not suggesting that all Republicans favor torture.  What I am saying is that YOUR politicians -- you know, the ones most of you voted into office, the ones who for the most part are refusing to take a morally-acceptable stand on the torture issue -- are providing their tacit approval of the practice.

So I ask you: how can you still support these guys? 

Seriously.  I know that most of the country disapproves of Bush and Cheney at this point.  Even those of us who kept an open mind when Bush got elected in 2000 (and I include myself in that group) started to turn against him once the events surrounding the Iraq invasion became clearer.  But for the 30% of you who are still of the opinion that the 'Dynamic Duo' is doing a good job running the place, what would it take to change your mind?  Since 2000, we've had the Patriot Act, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, numerous indictments, the inability to catch bin Laden, Katrina, Mike Brown, the destruction of Medicaid, nonstop sucking up to big business at the expense of the common American, Mike Brown, Scooter Libby, Harriet Miers and, in case I forgot to mention him, Mike Brown.  Does Cheney have to transform into an incubus and begin to breath fire in public?  Does W have to eat a human baby on live television?  What will it take for the holdouts to wake up? 

And to the Bush-backing Religious Right: is there anything less Christian than torturing someone so they tell you what you want to hear? 

Even though I don't back either party, I do back Christianity in principle.  It's true that many of its most fervent adherents can be a frightening bunch...but that's the case with any religion.  And for the life of me, it's hard to think of anything that runs more contrary to the ideals put forth in the New Testament than torturing someone.  War can have a variety of causes, goals and effects; based on what we know, torture is just cruelty wearing an unconvincing mask of purpose and false righteousness. 

The most prominent torture in the New Testament is used by radical pseudo-Christians to denounce Jews and Romans.  Perhaps the most important figure -- and one of the most beloved figures -- in world history actually suffered through one of the best-documented tortures of all time.  Let's review, shall we?  Jesus was imprisoned, put through a sham of a trial, abused by a bloodthirsty mob, flayed, bloodied, beaten up, deprived of food and water, forced to carry a cross, crucified, impaled with spikes through the hands and feet, forced to wear a crown of thorns, publicly mocked as "the King of the Jews," stabbed in the side and left to bleed to death. 

The Christian religion is most often symbolized by the image of a man going through incredible pain at the hands of his tormentors.  Just ask Mel Gibson; he made a lot of money making a very-detailed movie account of the events leading to Christ's death.  Yet I can almost guarantee that some of the same people who left theatres sobbing after The Passion of the Christ -- and talked about how moving it was to see Jesus suffer that way for our sins -- are now standing behind the notion that it's okay to put others through similar suffering based on the decisions of government officials who are far from Christlike.  Does anyone really think Jesus will come down from the heavens on Judgement Day and give all those complicit in torture a free pass?  Do you think Jesus -- one of the world's original rebel insurgents -- will say "Well that's okay, they fought against your country's ideals" or "That's okay, you were just trying to save lives?"  

Some of the earliest Christians were crucified and otherwise tortured for their beliefs -- not in an attempt to get information or save lives, but to humiliate them and make an example of them.  That's pretty much the only reason torture was used back then.  That's pretty much the only reason torture has ever been used.  There's no evidence that setting such an example is deterring people from carrying out terrorist acts.  If torture didn't deter people from becoming Christians, why would it deter people from becoming suicide bombers? 

So you tell me: What would Jesus do? 

Duck and dodge the question?  Veto and/or campaign against anti-torture legislation?  Turn a blind eye to his followers/disciples placing electrodes on someone's testicles in an attempt to extract information? 

There is absolutely nothing Christian about torture, and nothing justifiable about the practice.  It is possible (and likely more effective) to get information from someone without causing physical harm.  To anyone who supports those who approve of the physical abuse of prisoners: stop trying to twist your brain into a pretzel in order to maintain your belief in the good intentions of the current government.  Instead, start asking yourselves -- and the leaders you voted for -- some hard questions.   

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit