Torture as an act of civil disobedience?

November 9, 2007

Conservatives have offered a wide variety of inane and offensive arguments in support of torture, but Chuck Colson, the Watergate felon turned prominent Christian-right activist, is the first to characterize torture as a noble act of civil disobedience. (via Steve M.)

Inflicting bodily or psychological harm on a helpless captive would be inconsistent with the Christian understanding of human dignity. But as with all moral obligations, there may be circumstances for exception.

It is well understood in Christian tradition that while we are supposed to obey the law, there may be times when there is a higher obligation (see Aquinas, Augustine, and Martin Luther King). To rescue a drowning person, a Christian would be justified in disobeying a “no trespassing” sign.

So it is with torture; if a competent authority honestly believed that this was the only way to get information that might save the lives of thousands, I believe he would be justified.

He didn’t appear to be kidding. Colson, in all sincerity, defended torture by citing Nobel Peace Prize-winner Martin Luther King, Jr., a life-long champion of non-violence and pacifism.

These may very well be the worst analogies in the history of the world.

Steve M. hammered this point home nicely.

The “no trespassing” analogy is merely appalling. Let’s see if I can follow his logic: Torture is OK if you have to do it to save a lot of people, just as crossing onto somebody’s land against the person’s wishes is OK if you have to do it to save one person. So the moral evil of torture is erased by the attempt to save a lot of lives, and the moral evil of trespassing is erased by the attempt to save one life.

Therefore what? If no lives are in the balance, multiple acts of trespassing are equal to one act of torture? Torturing somebody once is morally equivalent to ignoring “no trespassing” signs repeatedly?

I think, by that logic, every normally rambunctious kid who ever lived is morally the same as a torturer.

I vaguely recall a time — I think it was the past couple of decades — when the right accused the left of embracing moral relativism. Good times, good times.

New GOP bumper sticker:

Who Would Jesus Torture?

  • And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. -Matthew 25:40

  • if a competent authority honestly believed that this was the only way to get information

    By definition an authority who honestly believe torture was the only way to get information is incompetent, therefore, torture can not be moral.

    Jeez, these guys are torture in and of themselves

  • Actually, here’s where the argument falls apart:

    … if a competent authority …

    That kind of blows it all to hell it right there, don’t it?

  • It might be good for Saint Chck Colson to actually read Saint Augustine before he spouts his BS. Let’s try 11th grade Ethics:
    The Three rules of Conscience:
    1) Act towards other as you would want them to behave towards you, (the Golden Rule)
    2) Respect others and do nothing to damage their conscience or cause them to do wrong.
    3) You may NEVER DO EVIL TO ACCOMPLISH GOOD.

  • And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. -Matthew 25:40

    That’s called hammering the nail on the head. But of course you can’t use that to counter the right wing islamofascist fearing “christian” right’s arguments. They are as far away from Jesus as devil worshippers. There whole rationale is based on the first testament, where God smote all kinds of evil doers.

    On the bumber sticker comments: I was thinking of this one today driving to work:
    “America, land of the spied upon, home of the bedwetting right wing republican paranoid scaredy cat the evil islamic boogeyman is under my bed cowards”

  • I think this goes back to a great fantasy, the most recent re-crud-essence of which has been “24.” In this fantasy a noble, law-abiding citizen (developed shoulders and deeply felt Higher Obligation) takes Matters Into His (usually not her) Own Hands, defies the law For The Greater Good, tortures the perp, gets the code which will allow him (usually not her) to disarm the megaton bomb.

    Things turn out well for society and the individual in this fantasy. The often amoral actions of good-guy-partisans in France in WWII and others involved in Good Fights feed the fantasy. The dreariest piece of news for someone like Colson is that torture almost never gets the goods. But hell, that’s reality! Lots of us prefer “24.” (Others among us prefer Brit depictions of edge-of-disaster situations in which the moral implications are explored in much greater depth and saccharine references to gods and heroes are left out.)

  • Shorter Colson: The Ten Commandements don’t mention torture, game on!

    Chuck’s f’ed up logic reminded me of the last time I saw such a convoluted display of reasoning … from Monty Python:

    BEDEMIR: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether
    she is a witch.
    CROWD: Are there? What are they?
    BEDEMIR: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
    VILLAGER #2: Burn!
    CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
    BEDEMIR: And what do you burn apart from witches?
    VILLAGER #1: More witches!
    VILLAGER #2: Wood!
    BEDEMIR: So, why do witches burn?
    [pause]
    VILLAGER #3: B–… ’cause they’re made of wood…?
    BEDEMIR: Good!

    At least Monty Python is humorous, this quote from Chuck, “I think, by that logic, every normally rambunctious kid who ever lived is morally the same as a torturer,” is horrifying.

  • Of course Colson loves “tresspassing”. He probably still doesn’t see why breaking into Watergate was not the right thing to do.

  • Ages ago, I was taught in religion classes that the end NEVER, NEVER, NEVER justifies the means.

    To paraphrase Paul Simon, “When I think of all the crap I learned in church school, it’s a wonder I can think at all.” But I still believe that a good end doesn’t justify evil means. It’s one of the big quarrels I have with Republican “morality.”

    Todays American torturers think that they are God’s elect, doing His will. Just like in the Spanish Inquisition. Amazing

  • You know I’ll allow some ground to the GOP on this issue, but with a major caveat. If there’s an individual, either in the military or in intel or in the upper echelons of the Administration, who truly believes there is a ticking time bomb scenario that pertains to one terrorist (not a “suspected” terrorist, but someone who is caught committing terrorist acts, and who we suspect might now of more acts to follow), and torturing the guy really seems to be the only way to get the info necessary to save countless more lives, by all means have at it. Let them be Jack Bauer, which is apparently what they all want to be when they grow up…

    But here’s the thing about Jack Bauer (aside from the fact that, you know, HE’S A FICTIONAL CHARACTER ON A FICTIONAL SERIES FILLED WITH WILD IMPROBABLITIES & SERIOUS LAPSES IN LOGIC): As a character, Jack Bauer is always willing to suffer any subsequent consequences of his actions, because he’s so sure he’s doing the right thing. And, what usually happens, again and again and again, is that Jack Bauer proves to be right, he did save countless people, so it’s hard to fault the fellow.

    In real life, it seems that so many people who are in a position to know about our REAL torture policies and are in a position to do something about them, don’t care…because, if they were to torture someone, and it call came to nothing…there would be NO serious repurcussions. Because this Administration luuuuves itself some torture. There’d be at best a cursory investigation, no intentional wrongdoing will be found and the torturer will be free to do the same or worse again. And that’s assuming we found out about a suspected terrorist or criminal being tortured. I effing shudder to think of the things that might be happening we’ll never know about, who’s being held indefinitely against their will, no attorney, no one knowing where they are, the ACCUSED not knowing where they are, forced to endure acts of pain that’d make li’l miss pissy britches like Rove admit to being the second gunman on the grassy knoll on 11/22/63 if it were happening to him and it would make the pain stop…

    So fine, you need to have torture OK’d so you can keep it in your “just in case” arsenal? Fine. Anyone who subjects anyone else to torture voluntarily agrees ahead of time to be thrown into prison and stripped of all rights AFTER the torture has taken place until a TRULY independent investigation is conducted, where we find out if information gleaned from terrorists really did help save lives, if there really was a ticking time-bomb scenario.

    And if the terrorist didn’t have info, or if the torturer wasn’t able to extract information that saved lived, they remain incarcerated…forever. Because they took a chance and ignored the Geneva convention thinking they’d be heroes, and they failed. Let there be consequences for these actions. Let people think twice about whether or not getting torture really is the best way to get info, or maybe (as everyone who’s actually had to interrogate prisoners or suspected terrorists seem to agree) there are better ways to get that information, and better information at that.

    Consequences. For actions. What a novel concept.

    But it won’t happen.

    Because this Administration is filled with dumb thugs and malicious sadistic jackasses who’ve wanted the opportunity to make people suffer – regardless of their “crimes” – all their lives. And that won’t change any time soon.

  • I consider myself quite the ultra liberal militant-atheist type, yet aside from all the competent authority and christianity BS, I embrace the general parameters of this argument. My conclusion is that torture can and should remain unlawful in all cases, and if it so ever happens that a sufficient scenario (think the conservative favorite “ticking time bomb”) arises, a person could possibly be morally justified to engage in (still unlawful, even if moral) torture. After the fact he would thus have to throw himself on the mercy of society (e.g. as embodied by the presidential pardon power) to avoid prosecution. I would hope society has such a high moral outlook that it would require a compelling case to let such actions pass, and hopefully far about a “might save lives” standard. I would even argue this is (or at least was) the current state of affairs in the US.
    And to head off the inevitable criticism I will receive, I’ll note that in my opinion, concepts of moral relativism and equivalence are relevant here the discussion. But not is such a simplistic and linearly additive scheme suggestive by the quoted Steve M. Nor do I believe the evidence suggests torture works, more or less negating any moral case for anyone understanding that torture does not work (after all, engaging in such behavior unnecessarily is beyond cruel). And lastly, as a practical matter, policing this behavior in the context of secret military prisons is essentially impossible, and thus any practical implementation of this philosophy is impossible currently.

  • As with most of these asshats, this guy clearly has no idea what ‘civil disobedience’ means. That is a large part of the problem. Most of these folks have no clue, or intentionally seek to remain clueless in order to start sucking from, or continue sucking from the great wingnut welfare teat.

  • Torture is morally reprehensible, bit in some cases justifiable I would say. I am aware of evidence that some torture techniques actually do yield positive results, however, the majority of them end in either false confessions or false intel. It is quite hilarious to hear MLK Jr. spoken when defending torture.

  • Trying to discuss torture with Christians who share a record of Inquisition, Witch Burning, Crusades and Savonarola’s “Bonfire of the Vanities” doesn’t make any sense. And then there’s Gott mit uns and the compassion of Benedict XVI. Not to mention the KKK, White Citizens Councils, Aryan Nation and the GOP.

  • As we know, religious authorities of the past believed it was moral to torture someone to save their soul from eternal damnation. So, really, Colson is just taking his cues from the Spanish Inquisition.

    The big problem is that NO competent authority would ever honestly believe that it would be the only way to get information that would save the lives of thousands.

    It’s a little like saying, if a polka-dotted space alien ordered them to torture, maybe they would be justified. It’s a nonsense hypothetical.

  • So it is with torture; if a competent authority honestly believed that this was the only way to get information that might save the lives of thousands, I believe he would be justified.

    So what he’s saying is, to truly desire the end you say you want (potentially saving people’s lives from a terrorist attack) is to approve of the means (torture).

    I thought this guy was supposed to be a Christian, not a Draka? And I thought those scary folk were supposed to be fictional.

  • If I rememeber my MLK,Jr and my Ghandi, when a law is inherently unjust, then it is our duty and responsibility to use non-violent civil disobedience to change the unjust law. Think blacks not allowed to sit at lunch counters, or forced to sit at the back of the bus.

    I think what Colson is describing is more an exigent circumstances of law breaking. As in, I see a person drowning and I steal a boat to save them. Most DAs wouldn’t charge me with my crime of theft, but if they did and I was convicted, I would still say I had done the right thing.

    Semantics aside, torture is illegal always and morally reprehensible. And no, good and decent people cannot have a disagreement about this.

    So, with the ticking time bomb scenario, sure go ahead and torture and if you get actionable intelligence and stop the attack, Hurrah for you. You’re a hero. Now throw yourself on the mercy of the court. But do not ever argue that torture is moral.

  • Pingback: Twisted view of Torture | Blog and News Tidbets

  • So let’s take Colson at face value for a minute… Shouldn’t Bush and Cheney have come right out and said “hey, we’re torturing people to save lives” instead of lying to everyone about whether they were torturing people? The fact that they knew to lie about it proves that they know it’s illegal and wrong, and the fact that they were caught lying about breaking the law should be enough to impeach them (it was good enough for Clinton, and he wasn’t lying about a legal infraction).

    And at what point does a president not get to use Colson’s analogy? Can president Hillary Clinton torture Chuck Colson if a secret informer says he’s collaborating with people who want to overthrow the US government? I would bet there’s several people he’s associated with that could be painted that way, and they would certainly admit to it if we tortured them a little bit.

  • So—according to the Gospel of Colson, it’s okay to torture people if it saves lives.

    How many people have died because of the Bush/Cheney madness of the Iraq Folly?

    Note to Nancy Pelosi: Leave impeachment off the table. Let’s torture those filthy little neoconservative uberschweinen instead….

  • I really struggle to understand how these folks get to the point where they even start to try and justify torture, nevermind the point where they convince themselves they can. Seems the focus is always the point of “saving peoples lives”, that’s their goal and therefore on which the justification lies. Once you are at this point, heck, just look to the Bible and I am sure you can find something that will justify it. Of course, if God didn’t want us to torture he wouldn’t have let them do it to his Son surely? Even his Son crucified there on the cross had his confessional moment where he wondered why his Father had foresaken him, that’s how powerful torture is. If it was OK for Jesus, must be OK for some terrorist.

  • torture……trespassing…..same difference!

    what an idiot!

    i sometimes wonder why god lets these people live. they just give him/her a bad name…….

  • This appears to be the one issue Republicans can rally around. It’s the new litmus test, how you show your manhood. Your one assured applause line.

    Awesome.

    Proud to be, where at least I know I’m free… I think.

  • It is my opinion that the worst analogy ever made by anyone (at least in a public context) was when a writer named Erik Rush wrote a column for WorldNetDaily claiming that claiming that there is no “War on Christmas” is equivalent to claiming that there was no Holocaust.

  • Colson was a scumbag when he worked for Nixon. Now, he is a “Christian” scumbag proving he isn’t Christian.

  • MLE @ 15 (November 9th, 2007 at 1:10 pm):

    After the fact he would thus have to throw himself on the mercy of society (e.g. as embodied by the presidential pardon power) to avoid prosecution.

    The problem is that presidents like ours would reliably grant such pardons, so there’s no deterrent.

  • “The problem is that presidents like ours would reliably grant such pardons, so there’s no deterrent.”

    That’s unlikely, because the jury will let him off first.

    If someone resorted to torture and obtained information that saved lives, or got a molester to reveal the location of a little kidnapped girl stuck down a well, or whatever, I doubt any jury would convict. Hell, it’s rare enough for a police officer to be convicted when they stage a drug raid at the wrong address and some little old lady gets shot dead, and those are fiascos that accomplish NOTHING.

    It’s important that torture remain illegal, though, otherwise it will become the easy route. Just like lazy chickenshit cops who whip out the taser when pre-Taser they might have had to think or break a nail.

    If torture stays illegal, then at least they will have to think about it, reserve it for when it’s really truly the only option and is likely to get good info, and there will be the possibility of punishment if they start using it for fishing expeditions or to obtain false evidence.

    And if torture is made legal, then there would be pressure to legalize the use of evidence obtained through torture. And then the shit really hits the fan.

    • Comments are closed.