Torture Values Coalition: Christian Nationalists Endorse Torture
The strongest Christian statement thus far in support of torture has been issued by Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the "True Values Coalition" (which should be renamed "Torture Values Coalition" now). His isn't the largest group of Christian Nationalists, but they have long had serious influence on both religious conservatives and Republicans. According to Sheldon, America needs to abandon it's old standards and adopt new standards that will permit abusive treatment of suspects detained in secret prisons.
[True Values Coalition] Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon said American military and intelligence experts are hampered by a vague "outrages upon personal dignity" statement in Article Three of the Geneva Convention of 1950. ...
"Our rules for interrogation need to catch-up with this awful new form of war that is being fought against all of us and the free world. The post -World War II standards do not apply to this new war.
Source: True Values Coalition
So, it's not a Christian value to oppose "outrages upon personal dignity" because that principle is too vague and hampers intelligence gathering. It's also not a Christian value to adhere to the standards of justice and morality which America has upheld since World War II.
I wonder what Louis P. Sheldon thinks about "love they neighbor" — isn't that pretty vague, too? It would certainly hamper intelligence gathering as well and doesn't seem like it would help a lot in a war. It sounds reasonable to conclude that Sheldon would likely also oppose that as a basic moral principle in American law or policy.
"We must redefine how our lawful society treats those who have nothing but contempt for the law and rely on terrorizing the innocent to accomplish their objectives. The lines must be redrawn and then we must pursue these criminals as quickly and as aggressively as the law permits.
"And since this debate is, at its very core, about preserving the traditional value of prosecuting injustice and protecting the innocent, TVC will score this vote in both the House and the Senate. We encourage all of our supporters and affiliated churches to contact their elected representatives and let them know we support President Bush's efforts to update our methods of interrogating terrorist detainees in order to provide greater protection for our troops and the innocent."
Re-read the first paragraph here and notice how it says nothing about terrorism. Louis Sheldon endorses the creation of new moral and legal standards for those "who have nothing but contempt for the law" and who terrorize "the innocent." That description could be applied to a broad array of crimes and criminals. Perhaps Sheldon really doesn't know that his argument isn't limited to just terrorism, but I have my doubts about that.
One thing that I find curious is that even though Christian Nationalists seem to limit their conception of morality to sexual issues, they don't seem bothered by the fact that the authorization for the Bush administration to torture and abuse detainees would leave open the ability to sexually torture and abuse them:
In the bill, rape is narrowly defined as forced or coerced genital or anal penetration. It utterly leaves out other acts, as well as the notion that sex without consent is also rape, as defined by numerous state laws and federal law. That is the more likely case in a prison, where a helpless inmate would be unlikely to resist the sexual overtures of a guard or interrogator.
The section on sexual abuse requires that the act include physical contact. Thus it might not include ordering a terrified female prisoner to strip and dance, which happened in Rwanda, or compelling a male prisoner to strip and wear women’s underwear on his head, or photographing naked prisoners piled together, both of which happened at Abu Ghraib.
Rhonda Copelon, a professor of law at the City University of New York who was an author of the international law on rape as a war crime, says the bill also could make it impossible to prosecute rape or sexual assault as torture, because the definition of torture in the legislation requires proof of specific intent to commit the crime. Motive is very hard to prove in cases of rape or sexual assault.
Source: The New York Times
Shakespeare's Sister comments on this:
The thing that divides us is not that they really believe, as they claim, that it is possible to “end” terrorism or magically transform the Middle East into a place where America has no enemies; they know, as do we, that there will always be people who endeavor to kill Americans.
What divides us is that we see politics, diplomacy, the Geneva Conventions, international law, and the obligation to respect human dignity as the conduits through which we might try to effectively address those factors over which we have control that contribute to the rise of terrorism. And they see politics, diplomacy, and all the rest as bothersome obstructions to blowing the **** out of anyone who doesn’t like us.
I think that it goes a bit further than what she says. I don't think that it's simple sadism motivating people, it's the desire for power and control. It's often argued that torture shouldn’t be used because it doesn't work, but there is a sense in which that isn't true. Torture may not "work" as a means for effectively extracting true information, but when properly used it's amazingly effective as a means for controlling people. Torture can so completely dehumanize a person that they become unable to remain an autonomous individual. Torture can also help control a population by making people too afraid to speak out or act against the state. Is it unreasonable to think that this may be playing a role in the position of pro-torture Republicans?
It should also be noted that Rev. Louis Sheldon is wrong in saying that America is engaged in a "new form of war." Terrorism is not a new tactic — it's been used for decades and America has been fighting it for decades. There is also nothing very new about the insurgency in Iraq — America has been fighting and often losing such conflicts for decades as well.
The only new thing in all this was a large successful terror strike against America in 2001, but that's not a reason to act like we need new standards or justice or morality. We didn't give up on civil rights and moral decency in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing and we shouldn't do so now just because some religious conservatives are too scared to face the world without the sound of jackboots pounding the streets outside.
Read More:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment