Both Oars In The Prohibition against Torture is a Moral Absolute, but not the Only One

May 8, 2009

President Obama deserves our praise and support for his leadership on the issue of torture. Closing Guantanamo, ending the use of secret detention centers and the promise that the United States “without exception or equivocation…will not torture” are three steps in the right direction toward reaffirming the values of our nation. Mr. Obama must feel a bit like Sisyphus. Political pressure and the temptation to bow to pragmatism make the climb back up the hill to higher moral ground difficult, especially when national security is at risk.  

The President’s decisive acts in this area will not inhibit our ability to keep our country safe. On the contrary, his clear leadership provides the moral clarity necessary for the military to act decisively in the ongoing fight to bring an end to the atrocities inflicted on the world by militant, fundamental Islamic jihadists.  Any act outside of the rules of engagement is a distraction to this initiative. A return to strict adherence to the U.S. Military Code in regard to the treatment of prisoners is not an obstacle to success; it is integral to the mission of bringing democracy to the world.

Our men and women in the service do not fight simply for an outcome, but for the preservation of an ideal. This ideal is jeopardized when the moral code is reduced to “desperate times call for desperate measures.”  Chester Bowles, who later served as Kennedy’s Under Secretary of State, made a compelling argument against adopting any means for success in his 1950s essay for the radio show “This I Believe.” He stated, “As long as cynical men tell me that freedom can be saved by borrowing the immoral methods of those who would destroy freedom, I must oppose them and persuade others to do so. I believe that the survival of freedom depends not on blind fate, diplomatic trickery, or brute military strength, but upon the convictions by which we live.” Navy Chaplain Father Iasello more contemporaneously wrote, “Torture is an immoral option not only because it denies dignity to fellow human beings, but because it saps the humanity from those who employ it.”  Simply put, torture ensures defeat, not victory.

I also want to compliment President Obama for assigning greater moral and legal responsibility to those who improperly classified the acts in question. Our men and women in the military and secret service deserve clear and proper moral direction from their superiors. Those who serve our country in times of war have a heightened sense of loyalty and obedience—a dangerous combination under morally defunct leadership as proven by Nazi Germany. Our service men and women deserve and require rational and moral leadership.

There is no doubt that the “blurring of the lines” by the now highly criticized Justice Department lawyers not only led to the misguided acts of interrogators, but also indirectly to the maltreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib by lower ranking military personnel. As we have learned from previous wars, inhumane treatment on the institutional level leads to individual acts of brutality throughout.  Once the superiors open the gates to improper behavior, those they lead are likely to find it harder to maintain their own personal discipline.  Therefore, it is important for those who setup the improper atmosphere to take responsibility for the fall out.    

Pressed on the question of whether saving thousands of lives justifies any means, even torture, Mr. Obama can reach to several sources to defend his position that torture is absolutely prohibited, including the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It seems our thoughts on torture were clearer after WW II than following 9/11.

In addition, the President has the backing of the US Catholic Conference of Bishops and several other denominational religious leaders. Pope Benedict XVI, who grew up in the reality of WWII, has stated publicly, “The prohibition against torture ‘cannot be contravened under any circumstances.’” Ultimately, it comes to this point: neither innocence nor guilt determines the status of human being or how he or she is to be treated, simply being human does. No matter how heinous or angelic we behave, we remain human.

[For more on this, you may wish to read the USSCB’s study guide Torture Is A Moral Issue at http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/TortureIsAMoralIssueCatholicStudyGuide.pdf]

Having bravely asked the citizens of this great nation to embrace a moral absolute under these trying and difficult circumstances, I hope President Obama will someday apply this line of thought to all issues involving human life. Torture is wrong for the very same reason that involuntary human experimentation, embryonic research, euthanasia and abortion are wrong.  No matter the gain, the loss to humanity is too great in each of these instances. Ends do not justify the means, especially when humans are in the mix.

As to what defines torture, I believe Archbishop Edwin O’Brien said it best. Borrowing from Justice Stewart, he told a group of military chaplains in 2007, “Torture is not easy to define—as our US Supreme Court stated regarding pornography—but common sense usually knows torture when one sees it.”