Government Officials Must Use Minimum Force Necessary
I offer here a Christian analysis of the moral legitimacy of torture. I work within the framework of evangelical Christian presuppositions about the sources of moral authority and the obligations of the Christian as disciple and citizen. This essay is excerpted and slightly updated from an essay by the same name published in Christianity Today, February 2006. A related but distinct moral argument that I led in putting together can be found as “An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture,” accessible at www.evangelicalsforhumanrights.org, released in March 2007.
Let me begin by granting the obligation of government to preserve public order and protect the security of its population. This principle is recognized in international law, moral thought, and public opinion. For Christians, it is clearly stated in Romans 13:1-7. Government deters violations of peace and order, punishes wrongdoers, and does all it can to advance the common good within the limits of its mandate. This work of government does involve the sword; that is, coercion, and in necessary cases, violence. Various legal and moral restrictions are placed on government as it exercises this fearsome power. It is generally understood that government officials must use the minimum force necessary to accomplish their missions.
Let me also grant that the terrorist attacks of September 11th were one of the most heinous acts ever visited upon this nation and a clear violation of the laws of war and of any kind of civilized moral code. Terrorist acts around the world since then remind us that our nation, along with many others, faces the threat of enemies who do not adhere to the kinds of moral scruples that we are considering in this essay.
Finally, I also grant the point that Mark Bowden makes in arguing that there is a built-in tension between what he calls the “warrior ethic” and the “civilian ethic.” For the warrior, the goal is to accomplish the mission. For the civilian, the goal is to preserve the rule of law. Even if we grant that well-intentioned warriors also recognize the importance of the rule of law, and that well-intentioned civilians recognize the importance of accomplishing the mission, their passions and priorities tend to differ. They will always stand in some tension with one another. Managing this tension is a major challenge in any civilized society. I acknowledge that I write from the civilian side.
So I do not write to demonize those who believe that protecting our nation’s security, and preventing the horror of another September 11, requires the use of interrogation techniques that could be classified as at least borderline torture. But I do believe that the case against this move is far stronger than the case for it. Here is why:
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
In all politeness, the archaic diction is a little bit peculiar. And so much time is spent qualifying, the point never seems to be made. I think the real factual support was cut off from the bottom, perhaps...
Anyways, for someone against the issue, this person seems to be for it on a qualifier. No kidding the government is allowed to "use the sword," and no kidding the least possible force should be used. We aren't going to be keelhauling anybody if we don't need to, and I would like to say that we really don't need to (keelhaul, that is). However, as far as the argument goes, that's FOR torture, not against it. It's not exactly nice, but the situation may very well call for it. And the speaker acknowledges this. But the speaker finishes by referring to the reasons why the "against" movement is stronger. Forget which side is winning, why should we or should we not torture.
To get to that debate, YES, I am in total agreement. If torture is found necessary, it should be done if the benefits are worth the moral injury and bad public relations. And yes, we should only be torturing as much as we need to. We don't need to strike fear into the hearts of our enemies, because 72 virgins and a seat in heaven would still be totally worth it to them. We can't top that, no doubt. We need to make the choice, though, regarding the moral standpoint: is our moral reputation more important than our physical safety? There is no solid line on this, and no definitive answer, which is why we need to ask ourselves this in every circumstance. We need to use our heads a little more, and determine whether or not the situation absolutely calls for it.
And responding to Tannerj, I think you're forgetting that torture is not a punishment. It's a means of getting information. State troopers in a state has nothing to do with torture; that's finding a criminal, not dealing with one. And as far as interviewing the nuisances, they need to be alive to testify. Once we get that testimony, there is no further need to torture. You're thinking retribution, which is NOT a good reason to torture. We are NOT going to just start flailing criminals and terrorists, because if the UN doesn't hate us enough already, they sure will once we start trashing our prisoners. We are only getting information, not making them "pay for their misdeeds," OK?
If our government was to use the minimum force necessary when interviewing or torturing criminals/terrorists, what message would that send to the people? What would stop the government from using minimal force in other situations?
How would drastically lowering the number of state troopers benefit a state?
Its simple it doesnt. Like anything else, using less force would only encourage terrorists to commit more crimes. If they knew that no-one would punish them severly then what would they have to lose?