My friend
and I have our differences of opinion on the matter, but I really had to hold
my ground when he suggested that torturing one of our captives’ children would
work much better. (?!?) Why are we punishing the child for the supposed “crime”
of his/her father? Why would we lop the finger off of a young child? If anyone
has ever seen the movie, you may understand what we are talking about. If not,
the movie is about a former U.S. Army soldier who converted to Islam and has
placed three nuclear devices in three major cities across the United States.
After catching him, the military then resorts to torture to discover the
whereabouts of these devices. After learning nothing from hours of brutal
mutilation, they finally resort to his children. This is when he tells them the
specific locations. There’s the short synopsis of the story. Does anyone think
a moral line was crossed? Not just with the torture, but with the utilization
of innocent children? I do.
First
of all, for us religious types out there, torture is specifically mentioned in
the Bible. In Matthew 18:34, Jesus tells a parable of a man who was “turned…
over to the jailers to be tortured”. Torture was a common occurrence in those
days. There are a few other verses where torture is mentioned: Jeremiah 20:2 and
38:6; Hebrews 11:35. It says in the Bible that vengeance belongs only to the
Lord (Psalm 94:1; Romans 12:19). Therefore, we have no authority from God to
torture people. And we can assume that inflicting intense pain on others is
wrong.
However,
there is a controversy regarding torture and government policy. Romans 13:1-5 says that government and its
rulers were established by God. They were appointed to divvy out the
punishment. In light of all of this, the question now becomes, “Does government
have a responsibility to ensure proper interrogation methods? The Bible does
not say. It neither condones nor condemns a government’s use of torture.
So
the question now becomes: What is considered torture? Where do we draw the line?
Should it be considered torture if our government uses the information
collected from interrogations as a way to protect our citizens? What if the
information we acquire has the capability to save millions of lives? These are
important questions to answer, but since the Bible does not specifically touch
on a government’s policy, it is up to the judgment of our elected leaders.
However,
I argue that a government is made up of thousands of individuals, excluding our
military personnel, those most likely to engage in torturous activity. The numbers
for our military is in the millions. Therefore, the individual rule applies –
we have no authority under God to inflict intense pain on anyone.
Second,
torture does nothing but instill further hatred in our enemies. The world is
quite aware of our “enhanced interrogation techniques”. Does anyone really think this is going to
deter terrorists from stopping? No. It will only add more fuel to the fire.
Unfortunately, polls have shown that over half of Americans support torture as
an acceptable means of homeland security. The majority of Americans have been
brainwashed to believe that our lives have been protected by the use of
torture.
However,
as Congressman Ron Paul points out in his book Liberty Defined, “…our Constitution, our laws, international laws,
and the code of morality all forbid it” (pg. 290). Ron Paul also addresses the
question of someone having vital information that could potentially save
American lives. “…this is purely hypothetical,” he says. “One can never know
that for sure. If you had a strong suspicion that there might be such evidence,
using persuasion and a justified approach is preferable. The evidence shows the
odds are greatly increased that vital information is more likely to be gained
in this matter” (291). He also raises a very interesting question: “The
question that supporters refuse to even ask is, If one suspects that one
individual of 100 captured has crucial information, and you don’t know which
one it is, are you justified to torture all 100 to get that information? If we
still get a yes answer in support of such torture, I’m afraid our current
system of government cannot survive” (291).
He
adds, “The evidence is clear that information obtained from torture is rarely
if ever of any value”, he says. “Those suffering severe mental or physical pain
will say whatever they think the torturers want them to say. There is concrete
evidence that a more humane method of persuasion yields more information than
physical torture does” (292-293). Congressman Paul just further proved my
point, only he does not provide this “evidence” he describes. Nevertheless, he
is right. Torture has no place in our government’s policy, and it only makes
things worse.
What
surprises me the most is how Americans can condemn the brutal techniques Saddam
Hussein used against his own citizens, but then our eyes are blind to the
atrocities committed by government officials and military personnel. It is pure
hypocrisy.
Finally,
answer this simple question: If you were accused of aiding a terrorist
organization, arrested, and held indefinitely without any legitimate evidence,
then tortured only to reveal nothing, would you think this a proper form of
justice? Also, because you didn’t provide any credible information, say they decided
to torture your kids in front of you? How would you feel?
If
you think this couldn’t happen, think again. With the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) officially law, the President of the United States now
has the power to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens strictly based on suspicion that you may have
been aiding and abetting terrorists. In fact, as Ron Paul claims, “terrorist
suspects arrested in the past ten years have been caught because of paid
informants. Accusing your enemy of terrorism gains you a bonus check from the
U.S. taxpayers…” (291). If the government is willing to pay someone for
information, who’s to know if the person accused if actually guilty of
anything? So now there’s potential for the torture of innocent American
citizens. This is a gross violation of civil liberties.
I
cannot, out of good conscience, tolerate the use of torture. Human society and
culture has improved over the last 1000 years. The medieval days are over; the
Spanish Inquisition has passed. There is no place for torture in this world.
The only countries which continue to employ torture of innocent people have a
dictator in office; countries like Iran and North Korea. Although China is
slowly progressing, there is still evidence of blatant human rights abuses,
torture being one of them. If the United States is to set an example and spread
the concept of democracy worldwide, torture must not be part of our government’s
policy.
REFERENCES:
