Torture and the Faithful Citizen

Though it sadly is not too surprising, given the stances of the current administration, President Bush said today that he vetoed a bill banning waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques such as the use of dogs, electrocuting, and burning. His rationale was that the legislation is a firm impediment to truth-seeking efforts in the war on terror and thus is an unjust cessation of proven techniques in fighting terrorists and preventing further attacks on American soil.

Leaving aside the ill-fated assumptions that tortuous interrogation actually yields truth, this veto is a horribly sad representation of American public morality. As a President who champions the spread of freedom throughout the world, this act reeks of oppression and unjust rule. To see its irrationality and injustice clearly, all we need to do is turn the question around: If the U.S. was not the world hegemon, would Americans not revolt if the government followed a world leader that condoned torturing in the name of freedom? Therefore, as Americans, should we stand for such behavior? Or what further, what is the most advantageous truth-seeking strategy, both morally and “practically” (as if a distinction should be made), in this war? To what extent should we, as a nation, moderate our means to reach the end of preventing terrorist activity on American soil?

I think there is a two-part answer to these questions.

First, we must look at the human effects of torture. Specifically, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu highlights its most devastating impact in his work No Future Without Forgiveness. Here, he argues that on a fundamental level, for both the victim and torturer, torture wholly dehumanizing. These acts – especially those outlawed in the legislation Bush vetoed – are so atrocious to the victim that they essentially deny the fact that he or she is human. In fact, their aim is to undermine the victim’s human dignity, casting aside all the person stands for and even the justice of their existence. To see this with undeniable clarity, all on has to do is look at the reprehensible tortures of sexual nature this bill outlawed, or even the acts of sensory deprivation. These activities specifically target physical and cultural understandings of the dignity of each individual’s existence in an attempt to leave them with no reason not to confess the “truth”.

Also, in a move I found particularly wise, Tutu shows how the acts are purely dehumanizing to the torturer as well. To deny the humanity of another simply turns man into a barbaric animal.

With this said, then, the second part of my answer is found in Christ’s call to love one’s enemies in the Gospels. Fundamental to love, especially Caritas, is the recognition of the other’s existence as good, just, and dignified. And, from a theological perspective, it is an understanding that all, regardless of their actions, are loved by the Lord. Therefore, to love one’s enemies requires a full recognition and respect for their human dignity, for if God loves them, in what way could their life not have value?

Author Shane Claiborne shows the counter-cultural and revolutionary nature of this call in our present day and age. He shows that it means taking an understanding of radical love and applying to even the most grueling, dehumanizing enemies of our time. Put plainly, we are called to love terrorists, Saddam Hussein, and even Kim Jong-Ill, whatever that practically means. We are called to act in a way that affirms the other’s human dignity as children of the Lord who are not beyond redemption, and to therefore work to show them the saving love of Christ.

Therefore, if acts of torture deny the very humanity of our enemies, how then can we as faithful citizens not be outraged at our President’s actions? To deny one’s human dignity and rights undermines all of our own, for our humanity is caught up within theirs. To deny theirs is inevitably to deny our own.

We must evaluate, as a nation, the justice of the means to our end of a peaceful, harmonious, and truly free world community. How can the world be peaceful if people are treated as animals? We must not back down from this principle, for if we do, all our world’s hope for a peaceful future is thrown out the window.