Town Square

Post a New Topic

Multifaith Voices for Peace And Justice Joins National Religious Campaign Against Torture

Original post made by Craig Wiesner, another community, on Jun 5, 2006

This afternoon (June 5th) the Los Angeles Times reported that the Pentagon's new field manual on detainee handling will not include the Geneva Convention language banning "degrading and humiliating" treatement. Not only would this ignore the rules of the Geneva Convention, but it also disregards legislation recently passed in the Congress (an amendment by Senator McCain).

This story contains 1038 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments (7)

Like this comment
Posted by Bob Holmgren
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jun 6, 2006 at 12:18 am

Degrading and humiliating treatment isn't torture. Otherwise they'd call it torture. Defending the country is best left to those with a stomach to do what's sometimes necessary. Writing multi-faith pacifist proposals might well be a healthy outlet for 'sensitive' individuals who might not notice their relative safety and how it came about.


Like this comment
Posted by Craig Wiesner
a resident of another community
on Jun 7, 2006 at 12:05 pm

I doubt anyone would say that John McCain doesn't have the stomach to do what's right to protect this country. Nor would most people call him 'sensitive.'

Degrading treatment can be torture, and an environment which condones or encourages degrading treatment will devolve into torture. The law is clear. Such treatment is illegal. Here's the text of the LAW Senator McCain wrote (and despite the so-called signing statement, the President of the United States is obligated to carry out):

PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

* (a) IN GENERAL.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

* (b) CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.

* (c) LIMITATION OF SUPERSEDER.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.

* (d) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.


Like this comment
Posted by Eric Stietzel
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 9, 2006 at 10:51 pm

Bob Holmgren points out, "Degrading and humiliating treatment isn't torture." I'll grant that although the line might be a bit fine at times. However degrading and humiliating treatment is unquestionaably degrading and humiliating treatment, and like torture, their effectiveness at extracting information is probably inversely proportional to the value of the information extracted. Of course, there's no way to know if if the information garnered is accurate as the person may be lying deliberately or saying anything that comes to mind just to make the discomfort --> agony stop. That's why there are martyrs in every cause.

Perhaps Mr. Holmgren has heard of Nathan Hale who is supposed to have said, in 1776, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." I'm not at all sure he got to say more than "I only regret that I have but one life to l" before the British noose tightened around his neck, but I am sure that he would not have talked had he been tortured. In 1963, Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc immolated himself in downtown Saigon to protest the repressive Diem regime which was supported by the United States, Web Link. The pictures of his self-sacrifice was the beginning of the end for American public support for that mistaken war effort. Does anyone believe degrading treatment, humiliation, or even torture would make a person like Thich Quan Duc reveal anything he didn't want to? Similar things can be said of Christian Martyrs. To the extent that we degrade, humiliate, or torture captives in Iraq, we enrage their friends and relatives and risk creating martyrs to the most extreme forms of Islam. This is not, I imagine, something to be desired by even the least sensitive Americans.

Mr. Holmgren also suggests, "Writing multi-faith pacifist proposals might well be a healthy outlet for 'sensitive' individuals who might not notice their relative safety and how it came about." Well although I am a pacifist, not everyone in Multifaith Voices for Peace and Justice is, and certainly John McCain is not. Being opposed to torture and/or demeaning and humiliating treatment does not a pacifist make.

As for sensitivity or lack thereof, I would also like to suggest that Mr. Holmgren undertake a history of the use of demeaning and humiliating treatment and perhaps torture by soldiers (and police?) in the United States with evidence of their effectiveness together with justifications by philosophers, statesmen, and religious leaders who are not "'sensitive' individuals who might not notice their relative safety and how it came about."

Compassion towards all is something I strive for. It is sometimes very hard to attain, but I do try. I just did a web search and found a site with quotations from many sources, not just my own Buddhist and Humanist inclinations, Web Link. Here are two I found particularly appropriate to the topic.

A superior being does not render evil for evil; this is a maxim one should observe; the ornament of virtuous persons is their conduct. One should never harm the wicked or the good or even criminals meriting death. A noble soul will ever exercise compassion even towards those who enjoy injuring others or those of cruel deeds when they are actually committing them--for who is without fault?
Hinduism. Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda 115

According to Anas ibn Malik, the Prophet said, "Help your brother whether he is oppressor or oppressed."

According to Anas, after the Messenger of God said, "Help your brother whether he is oppressor or oppressed," Anas replied to him, "O Messenger of God, a man who is oppressed I am ready to help, but how does one help an oppressor?" "By hindering him doing wrong," he said.
Islam. Hadith of Bukhari

By the way, we all know that people can be pushed past the breaking point which is different for different people. People who cannot act intentionally cannot torture or demean or humiliate others, now can they?

I would rather die than have my life saved because someone else was tortured. What is the point of living if I become worse than my enemy?


Like this comment
Posted by Mac
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jun 11, 2006 at 12:08 am

I don't like the idea of people being tortured or degraded under the flag of the United States. In fact, it makes my stomach turn. I don't think its an activity that should be condoned.
If its carried out simply for punitive reasons, then I'm completely against it. At that point, we are as bad or worse than our enemies.
However, if it could be shown that certain forms of torture or degredation would yield life-saving information, I do wonder how many of us would really sacrifice our lives or the lives of our children rather than allowing that to be carried out. If you really imagine yourself or your children horrifically blown to bits by a suicide bomber, or beheaded, or some other horrible fate, and that could be prevented by torturing someone who knew how to stop it, would you still be against it?
Its fairly easy to sit here in peaceful Palo Alto, and say that you would "rather die than have your life saved because someone else was tortured," but much more difficult to make that decision if your life or your children's life were really on the line.

I know I wouldn't like it, or be able to sleep welll afterwards, but I think I would want them to do it. I do think there should be a great deal of limits and oversight, and it should be an absolute last resort where there appears to be a high likelyhood that a subject is witholding critical life-saving information. Life is never that cut and dry, however, and unfortunately, the individuals carrying out the torture would probably have varying degrees of definitions for those terms.
Ultimately, its a pretty crummy situation any way you look at it. I would be pretty suspicious of someone who thinks torturing people is a great idea, but then again, in a limited set of circumstances, it might be the only viable option if you want to survive.


Like this comment
Posted by Craig Wiesner
a resident of another community
on Jun 11, 2006 at 6:33 am

Mac raises a point that many have raised over the years. What would you do if a child was buried under ground, only an hour of oxegyn left, and the person you're holding can tell you where the child is? Or what if a nuclear bomb is ticking, about to go off in Chicago, and you are positive that the person you're holding knows where it is? (Someone recently came up with the best answer I've seen, which I wish I could attribute, but know that my response below is based on someone else's wonderful thought.)

Would the fact that torture is illegal stop you from doing whatever it took to get the information? If torture stays illegal, a person who was convinced that he or she had to take extraordinary measures would be willing also to make the sacrifice of facing judgement for his actions.

Once the busload of children is found, kids alive, or the nuke is disabled, society will decide whether the act of civil disobedience committed by the policeman or soldier should be punished or forgiven.

What we can't do, as a civilized society and a shining beacon of freedom to the world, is make such treatment (degrading, humiliating, torture) a no-brainer. It should stay illegal. It is illegal. We've signed treaties and our Congress has passed US laws against it. We are a nation of laws, and those are the laws.


Like this comment
Posted by Mac
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jun 11, 2006 at 1:18 pm

Craig -

Sounds like an episode of "24!" In fact, Jack Bauer has tortured people - usually by blowing their kneecaps off, and he himself has been tortured. Now that he's covertly been taken prisoner of the PRC, I shutter to think what's happening to him now. Poor guy.

That is a wise answer, though. I think it acknowleges that we might be forced into a horrible situation where torture might be the lesser of two evils, but its use should never be made into some acceptable policy.

It does need to be decided what sort of interogation techniques can be used. How far can you go without it being torture? Being a parent of a 4 day old boy, I'm pretty familiar with sleep depravation. Its not too fun, but I wouldn't call it torture. How many hours without sleep can you push someone before it becomes cruel?

I would feel prouder of us as a nation if we erred on the side of good treatment, hoping that our captives realize we are not the monsters they've been led to believe we are.


Like this comment
Posted by Jean E. Barker
a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 14, 2006 at 1:58 pm

I am so deeply saddened as I read how people treat eachother through torture under any circumstances. It comes to me that such of us who do this are also living in a tortured society. We can learn that we have a choice to live in loving ways. It is the only hope for the future that we teach our children how to live non-violently. Our leaders will have no future as we also will not, if such violent practices continue. We are called to change our ways.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Naked Men and Pineapple with Tomato
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 3,602 views

Palo Alto: Pastry pop-up returns to Zola
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 2,465 views

Candidate Kickoff Events: Public, not just for supporters
By Douglas Moran | 4 comments | 1,075 views

Weekly Candlelight Reconnection Ritual
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 700 views

 

Registration now open

The Palo Alto Weekly Moonight Run & Walk is happening September 16 at the Palo Alto Baylands.

register here