Who Would Jesus Torture?

The President of the United States -- pictured by the press at the beginning of the Iraq War as a man of faith who wrestled with the question of whether there was a moral imperative to attack Iraq and came to the conclusion that God was leading him to that task and would give him the strength for the journey -- has apparently found support in his faith to affirm torture as a means to produce information that he believes could save lives.

On March 8, 2008 the President vetoed a bill that, had he signed it or simply let it pass without signature, would have limited all U.S. interrogators to the use of interview techniques allowed by the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation. In other words, according to domestic and international law and accepted definition, torture would have been labeled inappropriate in all circumstances.

According to press coverage at the time of his action, in vetoing the bill the President disregarded the advice of military commanders, including Iraq Surge strategist General David Patraeus. He also ignored a significant amount of research that concludes that torture is completely ineffective in eliciting reliable information. Beyond that, a willingness to make torture a plausible weapon in the war on terror invites enemy-justified torture of American prisoners of war. If we are in favor of it, what possible objection could we have to our nation’s enemies’ use of it?

The ultimate approval of torture actually must rest on a larger foundation or the President’s position can’t stand. In Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity and the War on Terror, Steven Miles connects torture to the larger society, indicating that although it is customary to think of torture as a set of hurtful techniques, it is better understood as a social institution. “Torturing societies create laws, policies, and regulations to authorize the practices. They establish, empower, and protect specialized practitioners and places. With fear, incentives, and propaganda, they secure the assent or acquiescence of the press, the judiciary, the professions, and the citizenry. This view of torture as an institution means that moral blame may not be simply laid on the individual soldiers or police who employ horrific techniques. Those officials are agents, acting on behalf of national leaders, public policies, and a social and political consensus.” (p. 5-6)

Will there be enough people in the Congress of the United States to say No to torture, to override the President’s veto? It all depends on their -- and our -- capacity to overcome the fears that besiege us, and upon whether we are willing and able to break the silence so that our Representatives and Senators know that we care.

In this season of penitence when we remember it was the Empire that crucified the One called King of the Jews, the question “Who would Jesus torture?” seems absurd, doesn’t it?

Rather we remember it was the Empire that tortured him. We remember our creed says he “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried.”

Jesus was tortured in a system to which the leaders and the people could not, or would not, say No.

I’m hoping, by God’s grace, for better in the 21st century in the United States of America.