When this blog was more active back in 2006 and 2007, I devoted several posts to the shame that was to come: the wider admission that we as a people engaged in systematic torture of those in our care, the damage that would cause to our international reputation and our collective psyche, and the need for us to both stand up against torture done in our name and to come to some form of justice/reconciliation about what we have done. I’ve been particularly grateful, and continue to be, for the work Andrew Sullivan has done on this topic over at his Daily Dish blog.

News has come out in the past few weeks that keeps this issue before us. It was revealed that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding one hundred and eighty three times, begging the question of both the efficacy of the technique and the intended goal–as if torturing someone that much would yield better information that other (non torturous)  methods. And US News reported on a Pew poll that reveals a substantial number of people who self-identify as Christians–mainly Evangelicals and Catholics–think torture is justified in many instances. Only a slight majority of mainline protestants think it ought “rarely” or “never” be implemented.

Kevin Drum last week offered what I think to be a terrific summary rejoinder to the debate lately about the utility of torture–the idea that maybe we ought support the possibility of torturing a suspect if there is a ticking-time-bomb scenerio, or to extract certain vital intelligence. Not good blogging practice, but I want to reprint his post in its entirety. He’s right:

Christopher Orr weighs in with a utilitarian argument about why torture is bad:

When a group of combatants are badly outnumbered, or surrounded, or otherwise very, very unlikely to win a conflict, they have a considerable incentive to surrender — but only if they believe they will subsequently be treated with mercy. That is why individuals, and nations, surrender. The humane treatment of surrendered captives, therefore, is a crucial — arguably the crucial — understanding between adversaries if their conflict is to end in any way other than with the wholesale slaughter of the losers.

If arguments like this persuade anyone, I’m all for them.  Any port in a storm.  But ultimately these exercises in logic chopping never work.  Is torture OK against an enemy that refuses to give up?  Is torture OK in a non-combat setting?  Is torture OK if you somehow convince yourself that it will save the lives of your enemy in the long run by ending the war sooner?  In the end, you can always chop the logic a little bit finer if you’re minded to.  It just doesn’t work.

I don’t have either the vocabulary or the literary sensibility to explain with any eloquence why I oppose torture, so I usually stay out of conversations like this.  Besides, they depress the hell out of me.  But for the record, it goes something like this.

I don’t care about the Geneva Conventions or U.S. law.  I don’t care about the difference between torture and “harsh treatment.”  I don’t care about the difference between uniformed combatants and terrorists.  I don’t care whether it “works.”  I oppose torture regardless of the current state of the law; I oppose even moderate abuse of helpless detainees; I oppose abuse of criminal suspects and religious heretics as much as I oppose it during wartime; and I oppose it even if it produces useful information.

The whole point of civilization is as much moral advancement as it is physical and technological advancement.  But that moral progress comes slowly and very, very tenuously.  In the United States alone, it took centuries to decide that slavery was evil, that children shouldn’t be allowed to work 12-hour days on power looms, and that police shouldn’t be allowed to beat confessions out of suspects.

On other things there’s no consensus yet.  Like it or not, we still make war, and so does the rest of the world.  But at least until recently, there was a consensus that torture is wrong.  Full stop.  It was the practice of tyrants and barbarians.  But like all moral progress, the consensus on torture is tenuous, and the only way to hold on to it — the only way to expand it — is by insisting absolutely and without exception that we not allow ourselves to backslide.  Human nature being what it is — savage, vengeful, and tribal — the temptations are just too great.  Small exceptions will inevitably grow into big ones, big ones into routine ones, and the progress of centuries is undone in an eyeblink.

Somebody else could explain this better than me.  But the consensus against torture is one of our civilization’s few unqualified moral advances, and it’s a consensus won only after centuries of horror and brutality.  We just can’t lose it.

The Christian moral vision suggests that we always treat others as we want to be treated–even if they are criminals in our jails or terrorists in our care. It suggests that we never lose sight that these are human beings, who bear too the imago dei. It suggests that the danger to our own souls for engaging in acts like torture is also great.

Our action to make our nation, and the world, safe from those who would want to harm us is important and vital. But we can’t abandon our principles in the process…

Update (5/7/09): Not two hours after I posted the above, I came across two additional, important comments to the above. One is Andrew Sullivan’s blog post “Inhuman” which outlines well how torture dehumanizes the torturer, and then this post from Diana Butler Bass over at her Beliefnet blog on why it might be that mainline protestants seem to be on the leading edge of this particular moral issue.

Is there any other way to read this?:

Today the Council of Europe makes it official: Poland and Romania hosted secret detention facilities on behalf of the CIA.

In a just-released inquiry approved by the Council, investigator Dick Marty of Switzerland confirms Dana Priest’s Pulitzer Prize-winning report for the Washington Post that unnamed Eastern European countries allowed the CIA to hold suspected al-Qaeda detainees on their territory, without access to legal protections or the International Committee of the Red Cross. For the first time, the Council on Europe’s report names some of the detainees in the secret facilities: they include 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and former al-Qaeda military committee chief Abu Zubaydah. Both, Marty writes, “were questioned using ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’” making his report the first documentation by any public official to state definitively that such techniques have in fact been employed. In 2005, ABC News reported that such techniques include waterboarding, in which a detainee is forced to believe he is drowning.

Previous inquests by the European Parliament, most recently in February, stopped short of reporting definitively that the prisons existed, thanks mainly to lack of cooperation by U.S. and European intelligence officials, allowing the U.S., Poland and other suspected countries to maintain deniability over the prisons. In April, CIA Director Michael Hayden chastised the Parliament for what he called its “unbounded criticism” of CIA detentions, renditions and interrogations, which he and the CIA have consistently defended as both legal and necessary to combat al-Qaeda.

People of faith have something to say against torture. Let’s say it. Here’s a start by the PCUSA (pdf of Resolution Against Torture: Human Rights in a Time of Terrorism, A Call for a Commission of Inquiry adopted by the 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A).)…

The debate, I think, will be over whether sexual orientation is more like skin color or more like Parkinson’s disease. We are coming to understand more and more each year that sexual orientation–all of it, yours, mine, whether it be towards a member of the opposite or same sex–has some genetic foundation. The question then is what to do about it. For years, religious groups that argued against same sex practice said it was fundamentally a choice; now many of them are recognizing that in fact orientation (and the drives that stem from it) are more deeply rooted than that.

This simple fact, of course, must impact biblical interpretation, and should in theory change the way we argue over the matter. (I’ll point you, once again, to Kim Frabricius’ exposition entitled Twelve Propositions on Same-Sex Relationships and the Church)

But for those of us who argue for more inclusive positions for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we can’t assume that because we had that matter right we’ll win the day. Some are going to argue that we ought to use various therapies to remove homosexuality from the human condition. In fact, some are even beginning to make that argument today. Here is Roman Catholic priest Rev. Joseph Fessio, editor of Ignatius Press, Pope Benedict XVI’s U.S. publisher:

“Same-sex activity is considered disordered,” Fessio said. “If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science.” (from an AP Article linked at chicagotribune.com, free registration required)

Fessio is commenting on a recent article by Dr. Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who raised these sorts of questions on his blog (entitled Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?).

Mohler is clear that he himself is dead set against abortion or gene therapy to reverse orientation (of course, he thinks liberals wouldn’t be so against it), but would consider perinatal hormone treatment if it would do the trick. Here are his ten points to end his essay:

Christians who are committed to think in genuinely Christian terms should think carefully about these points:

1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.

2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God’s judgment.

4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible’s moral verdict on homosexual behavior.

5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.

6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons — the fact that all humans are made in God’s image — reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons — whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever — are equally made in the image of God.

7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.

8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.

10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God’s moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.

One fundamental appreciation and two fundamental objections. He’s right about remarking that all human beings are made in the imago dei and must be treated as such. That’s helpful. And he’s right that our ethical landscape is about to be challenged with the new gene detection and treatment options on the horizon. We need more work done in this area.

But the rest of the argument isn’t consistent with that. Are we going to treat all of our orientation more like skin color or like a disease? Is our sexuality deeply something about who we are? The problem with this argument is that it isn’t consistent: if orientation has biological roots, the moral options for appropriate exercise of practices related to that orientation must be fairly offered. You can’t say that there is a morally appropriate route for fulfilling your God-given sexuality if you are straight, but not if you aren’t. The moral rules must apply equally; the must be able to be universalized. But Mohler falls into the argument that we mustn’t do that. And he does so because he falls back on an assumption of biblical condemnation of homosexual practice that is actually debatable. (Again, see above Kim Fabricius). Far better would be an extension of the biblical sexual mores towards homosexual partners, blessing unions and promoting monogamy among faithful couples and their growth into productive, mutually caring families. This would be to universalize the biblical teaching on human sexuality in a way that recognizes that the biblical authors didn’t write about same-sex relationships as we know them, but condemn what we all (should) condemn: gang-rape, pederasty, etc…

Second, this idea of treating away an innate human condition like sexuality is repulsive. This was experimented with in human history before with disastrous effects. I recognize that Mohler is against gene therapy and abortion for this matter, but how long until the next guy pushes this line further toward the abyss?

For what its worth, if I have a gay or lesbian child, I’m going to love him or her and encourage him or her to have a full, meaningful, grace-filled life, including one hopes a lifetime of happiness with a loving partner.

Spencer Ackerman reports over at TPMMuckraker that senators Dodd and Menendez are going to introduce a bill that would ban torture and restore Habeas Corpus to detainees at Gitmo. That’s a hopeful sign; the approval of the detainee trial bill last September will be a black eye on America’s moral standing for decades, if not longer, and the removal of its sanctioning of torture and the abandonment of basic constitutional protections for those under our care can’t happen soon enough. For backstory, here is some of my posting about it then (in roughly reverse order): here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I thank Andrew Sullivan in particular for his reporting on the issue. I think we share some of the sensibilities about how torture is incompatible both with America’s best ideals and with Christian ethics, and I agree with his concern about what our use of torture has done for our international image.

His most recent post on the subject is fascinating: taking a look at the approbation of torture on popular television programs like 24 and how it impacts thinking on torture. I’d suggest reading it all.

…Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly also has a post up that reflects on Jane Mayer’s New Yorker piece on this subject and a LA Times entertainment article on ‘24′. Money quote:

Pre-9/11: torture is used by bad guys.  That’s one of the ways you know they’re bad guys.

And today? Actually, nothing’s changed. It’s still how you know who the bad guys are. We just seem to have temporarily forgotten that.

In the nearby state of Missouri, Jim Talent and Claire McCaskill are neck-and-neck in a race for the US Senate. MSNBC argues that this might be the bell-weather election of the cycle, but even if Talent wins I think a strong showing by Democrats elsewhere is quite possible. Josh Marshall has a point, however, about the “irrational exuberance” of some democratic voices out there; still a lot of time before the election, and tides can shift quickly. There’s a lot of money flowing around, and who can predict events on the ground?

But back to the Talent-McCaskill contest. Its close; apparently, real close. Turnout by the bases and appeals to the swing voters will likely decide it. And that latter, I think, is why the race keeps coming down to the stem-cell issue.

I’ve not been following a lot of the ads on teevee (mainly because they’re back and forth about who has done nursing homes more wrong), but when Josh Marshall pointed out this McCaskill ad featuring Michael J. Fox, I was intrigued. It might make a big difference:

The stem-cell debate is complex, as are positions that support or oppose fetal stem-cell research. There are emotional components to the argument on both sides; the one in this ad, I wonder, might make the difference.

The damage to our international reputation, and our moral standing, will be irrevocable after Bush signs into law the detainee trial bill, blurring the line on what interrogations are permitted under US law and condoning the “alternate procedures” of the CIA. Its a sad day, mainly because we (us citizens) now are all accomplices in what the government is doing on our behalf. Lord have mercy.

As a final thought on the matter, Sullivan posts pictures of an actual waterboarding table. Go take a look. .Here’s the CIA description of waterboarding:

You can see how the CIA’s official description makes sense now. Here it is:

“The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the
treatment to a halt.”

That can now be legal in our America, friends, should a president allow it under an executive order. FWIW, none of my representatives (two Republican Senators and a Democratic Representative) listened to my concerns: all three voted for this bill. And, for what its worth, I’m not a huge Hillary Clinton fan, but she came down on the right side on this one (here’s a blog entry of her full speech as prepared):

Hans Jonas, in his Imperative of Responsibility, presents the argument that advances in human technological capability have fundamentally altered our capacity to affect the earth’s ecosphere, such that the future of humanity is at stake in a way previously unknown to us. Jonas argues, as a consequence, that a new imperative of responsibility now exists that requires human beings to act to protect the very existence of humanity.
Jonas wrote this in 1979. Al Gore attempts to make a similar argument in his An Inconvenient Truth, which I went to see this afternoon. Michael Kruse is correct that this is indeed a political movie, in some sense, insofar as Gore may well be positioning himself for 2008 or beyond, and to convince the viewer to take seriously the proposed environmental crisis. And, further, the issues are sharply politicized in our country. That’s unfortunate, since I’ve not heard anyone successfully refute Gore’s claim that there is a consensus (not unanimity, consensus) that Global Warming is real, is a problem, and is causing deleterious effects to our environment. And even though Kruse isn’t convinced, the movie at least changed pundit Andrew Sullivan’s mind (his other jabs at Gore, to some folks’ chagrin, notwithstanding). Sullivan is right that most that know the science believe Gore is authentically presenting a consensus view. That is, the forest view is right, even if a tree here or there isn’t presented in its full complexity (such as that there are likely multiple causes to the decreased snowcaps on Mount Kilimanjaro.) (Kruse presents some good counterpoints, so make sure you read his post too, though I think case for the human causal connection is the human affects are strongly made and largely agreed upon).

So, I found the movie compelling, and it inspires me to try to learn more about Global Warming. Please, go see it if you haven’t yet. And while some try to make it out to be a self-obsessed, self-serving farcical tome (thus the reference in this post’s title to ManBearPig, the creature to the right from a Southpark episode.), to dismiss the science that way, and the overwhelming  position of the scientific community (noting the rare exception) that this is a real problem, is the true farce. At least right now it looks like, for the most part, Gore gets the science right.

I particularly think we need to think about the parallel Gore makes between the warnings about smoking’s link to lung cancer and the nay-sayers about global warming. I’m not saying that An Inconvenient Truth is gospel, but the science about the warming and human contribution to it is strong and is ignored at our peril.

While there is not consensus among ‘Evangelicals,’ it is noteworthy that many prominent evangelical leaders issued an Evangelical Call To Action on the environment. There is a role for the religious community to play in articulating the moral dimension of Gore’s argument. I hope we play it.

At the end, Gore argues that we know enough and have the capacity to do something serious about the crisis. Samuelson’s skeptical, and I’m not sure that all of what Gore proposes will do it. Likely more is necessary. But the base-line requirement is political will, either to change what we can or to direct energy to find out what to do. My hope is that this movie is a catalyst to change that political will. We might really need, as Samuelson argues, to solve the engineering problem, but it is the moral argument that will provide the impetus to do so. So go see it, and decide for yourself if, like me, this is a really important movie. Some even call it necessary.

Remember when John Kerry was called a flip-flopper, and they held up those flip-flops at the Republican National Convention?

Well, what do you call this:

White House: Detainees entitled to Geneva Convention protections

WASHINGTON
(AP) — The Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the policy, outlined in a new Defense Department memo, reflects the recent 5-3 Supreme Court decision blocking military tribunals set up by President Bush.

The policy, described in a memo by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, appears to reverse the administration’s earlier insistence that the detainees are not prisoners of war and thus subject to the Geneva protections.