Scott at Theopraxis says:
I largely avoid political discussions here. But this is a deeply disturbing issue, no matter one’s political affiliations - or at least it should be for those of us who claim to follow the Prince of Peace.
If you haven’t heard, Senator McCain has sponsored a bill (more correctly, an amendment to a Defense Appropriations bill) that would establish uniform treatment standards for enemy combatants held by US troops. The bill passed the Senate with an overwhelming majority. The Bush administration has threatened to veto the bill if passed by the House. Personally, I’m horrified that this is even a matter of debate.
Sojourners has made it easy to respond. Click here to contact your representative to voice your support for the McCain amendment.
I agree, and I think the “enemy combatants” thing threatens to become the loophole that swallowed our civil and human rights.
It’s also the biggest threat to our country’s international credibility. We need to uphold the rule of law and human rights, even as we seek to secure our lives from terrorist attacks.
It is beynd me how anyone could say (to McCain, of all people!) that torture is acceptable as long as someone falls into some legal loophole.
Well, it’s not that simple. There is a good argument for allowing it in limited circumstances. (I’m still not convinced, but it is a valid argument and I don’t really like the kneejerk “how could you possibly blah blah blah” reactions.)
Justin, just for your consideration. Suppose that this enemy combatant knows the location of a nuclear bomb about to explode in Seattle. Hundreds of thousands of lives at stake. Also consider this individual is not a soldier, officially, of any nation. Therefore he, nor his group, have not subscribed to any war conventions (geneva, etc). How far is too far to save innocent lives? When does “credibility” trump safety?
Andy-
The problem is that we’ve allowed potential worst-case scenarios to be used as justification for detaining hundreds or even thousands of people, with no need to show any evidence that any of them have done anything wrong.
They are detaining and potentially torturing people without due process. I doubt it will be very long until US citizens (there may already be some) are held without charge, on the grounds that they are enemy combatants.
While I like the idea of making exceptions in extreme circumstances, our government has not shown in recent years that they are capable of using such loopholes sparingly or justifiably. The sheer number of detainees we’re holding is enough evidence for me that the administration needs to be reined in a bit, and stick to due process.
Thank you for the link, Ian. Charles Krauthammer does indeed have compelling reasons to allow torture judiciously. Unfortunately I find his logic to be a little too self-serving (I can provide examples if you really want…) and his language a bit too hyperbolic to change my mind.
Plus, as Justin said, I simply don’t trust members of our government - even our defenders - to use force, torture, imprisonment, or any other means with any fairness. They must restrain themselves, and if the lawmakers pass this at least those who “must” torture for all our sakes won’t be able to hide behind the skirts of the law.
I honestly don’t know how far we could and should be allowed to go to preserve the lives of non-combatants (the innocents, if you will), but I don’t think worst-case scenarios should drive policy, especially when it comes to directing how those in power should treat people under their sway.
Cerise
Suppose that this enemy combatant knows the location of a nuclear bomb about to explode in Seattle. Hundreds of thousands of lives at stake. Also consider this individual is not a soldier, officially, of any nation. Therefore he, nor his group, have not subscribed to any war conventions (geneva, etc).
Doesn’t matter. Jesus had ALL THE POWER HE NEEDED - and he let himself be tortured to death rather than torture those who killed him. Nowhere in the Bible is there any support for torture. Rather, Jesus roundly condemns those who killed the prophets (some by torture - Isaiah was evidently sawn in half).
The first century church had broad experience with torture - as victims of it. Sewn into leather bags filled with snakes and scorpions and thrown into the sea to drown; bloody lambskins tied to little children so the lions would eat them…
How DARE you try to justify such actions BY Christians AGAINST other Christians? Because not all those being tortured are Muslims.
The information gained by torture is always suspect. A torture victim will tell you whatever you want him to tell you. “Did you rape your gramma?” “Yes, and my grampa and my sister and my brothers, too!” They will say ANYTHING to avoid the excruciating pain. That’s why evidence gained by torture is always suspect.
So, no. There is no moral or ethical justification for torture. Torture is immoral, unethical, unBiblical, unChristian, antiGod, antiChrist, antihuman, antichurch, antilife. Torture is satanic and demonic.
And that does not bode well for those who support its use.
Wow, Ian. All right, man. Would you mind explaining this bit further?
How DARE you try to justify such actions BY Christians AGAINST other Christians? Because not all those being tortured are Muslims.
This is by far the strongest statement in your post - I’m just a little confused. Are you saying that Christians are justifying Christians torturing other Christians? Who’s doing that? And the not all of them are Muslims bit - eek. I’m not trying to be cute, just didn’t get what you meant. And who is the “you” in ‘how dare you’? Again, just trying to get to where you’re at on this topic.
I agree with you, by the way, that those who torture will reap some gnarly karma (paraphrase :-)).
Cerise
There’s another good discussion (from a more conservative side) going on here.
(By the way, the “Ian” without a link isn’t me, so I’ll try to use my full name from now on, even though it sounds so formal)
Wait, so you’re not the same Ian as the “how dare you” Ian?
Good to know.
Cerise
Nope, in this thread I’ve written comments numbers 2, 8 and 10 (not 6).