Normally mild-mannered Martin Marty pulls out the big stick about torture

Dallas Morning News Religion Blog ^ | Mar 17, 2008 | Jeffrey Weiss

[Alex Murphy]

Martin Marty is one of the world's best known historians of religion and is a regular and valued commentator of the religious scene. He's got a regular e-column called "Sightings" that we frequently post here. Most of the time his tone is a bit academic and thoughtful. The current edition has a bit more bite than usual. Here's the top:

No sooner had torture become national policy in the United States, religious leaders were rallying to denounce it. A day or two after the proposal opposing its legitimation was vetoed and thus defeated, Protestant, Evangelical, Muslim, and Jewish leaders coalesced to present critiques. "No sooner..." may not be quite accurate. Some religious groups had foreseen that a congressional minority, drawing on the fears of a frightenable nation and on the suspicions that led to a hunger for revenge against those who threatened security, might win.

Read the whole thing after the jump.

[secretagent]

Banning torture, and cruel and degrading treatment, would help greatly in the war against Islamic tyranny. It would actually result in a net gain in intelligence.

At the same time, clearly challenging and articulating the enemy ideology would also help to recruit converts to our side.

Clearly contrast the difference between us, mean it, and prove it.

[AnalogReigns]

Frankly, I don’t accept that water-boarding or embarrassment (by low level enlisted men-—improperly supervised) comes anywhere near to a traditional definition of torture.

If the mere fear of drowning (carefully prevented from being a reality) keeps a city from being nuked, than lets waterboard all captured terrorists at Gitmo. We don’t slowly saw heads off, or remove fingernails with pliers or other such true forms of torture—as all of course Islamist enemies routinely do. These guys act like animals, so we should treat them as such—as humanely as possible yes, but, not without stiff interrogation methods.

[rmichaelj]

I would argue that anything simulating drowning definitely comes close (and qualifies) as a traditional definition of torture.

Be that as it may, your argument comes down to it is ok to do evil as long as we get a good result.

The problem is A) we almost never get a good result- even if we get a temporary result like some intel, the damage it does to ourselves morally is greater (and I don’t accept the ticking time bomb scenario-it just isn’t plausible).

B) keep in mind that under your argument a lot of innocent people could be waterboarded and “interrogated” after all we can’t know that they were innocent until after they were interrogated.

C) If you give any government the power to do this to it’s enemies- the government won’t hesitate to do it to you when it percieves that you are an enemy.

Don’t think that I would be soft on terrorists- quite the contrary, society has a right to defend itself, and if someone engages in combat, but can’t be identified as a soldier (ie no uniform or insignia) then I am fine with a quick trial and execution. That still doesn’t make torture (or “stiff interrogation” as you put it) morally acceptable.

[AnalogReigns]

One thing that I think is interesting, Jesus actually mentioned torture, and, surprisingly, did not condemn it—even though it was routine for governments to practice at the time. (Matt. 18:24)

As far as I know America’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause in the Constitution—applicable to American citizens—was the first major ban on torture in the Western world.

Am I advocating torture? No...but we need to have real definitions for it, and fear and embarrassment, in and of themselves, do not amount to torture. I’m not advocating a utilitarian ethic, that anything goes to protect the country—all I’m saying is that for many, in our indulgent, decadent culture, any discomfort at all to a prisoner is deemed torture, and that’s just ridiculous. That’s why water-boarding (in which the prisoner is carefully prevented from ever actually drowning...it’s primarily psychological, not physiological) is so objected to—as yes, I’m sure it is d*mned uncomfortable—that doesn’t make it immoral—particularly for true terrorists.

It’s also ridiculous to say we never get useful (very useful) information from purposeful discomfort... I recall the government has admitted to capturing several Al Queda leaders from information gained by uncomfortable interogations... Have we killed anyone doing this? No. People lost limbs? No. Burns? Nightmares the rest of their lives? No.

The reason supposed “torture” by the USA is even an issue is that the Left in our country, who will do anything to destroy Bush, and everyone to his right, have distorted the issue, and publicised it all out of proportion. Do you think the interrogation techniques we use now for terrorists were NOT used under Clinton? But not a peep about it then...

Psychological manipulation in interrogation is a tool governments by right have, in order to protect us all. American citizens have more rights than terrorists—who are not covered by our Constitution. This is right and good, and well within the God-given role of government.