Torture in Warfare

[UserGone221]

Hi all,

My daughter has been assigned a paper on torture (assuming it is in response to "water boarding", and I wonder if anyone has any recommendations on the topic (particularly in warfare) from the Reformers and/or Puritans.

Thank you,

Peter Hyatt

 

[RamistThomist]

First question that came to mind is what constitutes torture? What's the bare minimum? Waterboarding is an easy example, but what about sleep deprivation? WHat about just making someone uncomfortable over a long period of time?

 

[hammondjones]

From William Gouge Churches Conquest, §. 60. Of the lawfulnesse of shedding bloud in warre.

Quest, May not enemies in any case be tortured?

Answ. Yes. 1. In case of question: when otherwise they will not confesse the truth.

2. In case of talio, or requiting like for like: as the Is∣raelites dealt with Adonibezek, whose thumbs and great toes they cut off. For so had he done to threescore and ten Kings before.

3. In case of revenging unsupportable insolences and in∣juries. Hereby was David moved to put the Ammonites under sawes and harrowes of iron, &c. For they had Villanously entreated the Ambassadors whom David in kindnes had sent unto them: which was an insolency against the law of nations.

4. In case of treachery, perjury, and breach of fidelity. For this cause Nebuchadnezzar slew the sonnes of Zedekiah before his eyes, and then put out his eyes.

4. What thou doest against thine enemies do in love. Love their persons though thou hate their practises. Pray therefore for them. Pray that God would turne their hearts, and move them to cease from their hostility, or pardon their sin. Thus pious Magistrates will pray for the salvation of their soules whose bodies they adjudge to death.

5. Take heed of making that publique execution of justice an occasion of executing private revenge: So dealt Ioab with Abner, which pulled vengeance on Ioabs head.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A01974.0001.001/1:21.60?rgn=div2;view=fulltext


You may consider Cromwell's The Soldiers Catechism or Swadlin's The Soldiers Catechism composed for the King's Army.
I believe the latter specifically addresses the question of "torments".

 

[UserGone221]

Just what I was looking for! Thank you. I should check Baxter too.

I have read the thoughts (and actions) of Robert E Lee regarding warfare, but wanted instructional material.

thank you!

 

[a mere housewife]

Re: reformation era, torture museums are a -- I hesitate to say a 'good' -- resource. It becomes abundantly clear that torture is about pain used as power to manipulate reality. It might also be worth researching how and why various Christians have stood against torture (like Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Couch, in our times).

Interesting that the above conclusions are drawn from narrative, in which the kings have often manifested their sinfulness.

 

[Pergamum]

Waterboarding and intimidation and sleep deprivation are not torture.
If a captured terrorist can be justly put to death, they can surely be deprived these lesser things for the sake of extracting information.

 

[Peairtach]

Deuteronomy 25:3 may be relevant. See comments on it by Reformed commentators. I don't believe torture - if it works - in extreme situations may not be warranted to save life.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

 

[jwithnell]

I'd be interested in Gen. Lee's conclusions on the topic given his godliness and possibility that it might reflect on what was taught in our military academies at the time.

 

[Pergamum]

God gave the command to stone people in the OT. Stoning was not an immediate death, but took some time usually. This seems to prove that we are not always obligated to dispatch the guilty as quickly as possible or with the least amount of pain.

Thus we see in some Christian kingdoms some criminals were killed by decapitation or hanging, but some especially heinous cases were killed by drawing and quartering, impalement, or other slower and more painful means to stress the evilness of their deeds. These kings and executioners were not necessarily evil men who inflicted these cruel deaths and these deaths, too, were examples of just justice despite their cruelty.

And if we are allowed to kill convicted terrorists for their crimes, and to kill them in dreadful ways and not always in the most painless manner possible, we are allowed to inflict some lesser pains upon the guilty in order to save the lives of our soldiers and civilians.

 

[a mere housewife]

Pergs,
A) There are ceremonial things going on in the OT. There's no straight line from its penal code to your justification of torture (or even cruel/unusual punishments).

B) Punitive/corrective measures (about truth) are in a different class than measures to manipulate a course of events (about outcomes). A penalty that is all about respecting the image of God does not grant ownership of that image.

C) All history, like OT history, is full of things which prove that all of us, even kings, desperately need a Saviour.

D) One can have a discussion about whether waterboarding and intimidation constitute torture but it would be theoretical. US practice has not been limited to these things.

E) Whatever logic works here works for both sides. Surely there would need to be very sound arguments for using a human created in God's image as an expendable to be recast into whatever image the torturer wishes to achieve, for the perceived 'greater good'.

 

[Pergamum]

In warfare where countries respect some limits to warfare, we can try to limit war's damaging effects by "rules of war."

But in a civilizational struggle where terrorists target civilians and ought to be executed as soon as they are caught anyway, then harsher penalties and treatment are justified. If they are justifiably put to death, then water-boarding is a light penalty to extract information.

The main argument against torture is not so much the dignity or the rights of the victim. If he is a proven terrorist, then he deserves death. The real issue is that torture is not real effective in extracting truthful confessions.

For instance, in WWII there were "shoot on sight" orders for several SS Units responsible for carrying out atrocities. It is justifiable sometimes to enact extra measures of cruelty in warfare and even to give no quarter in some select scenarios.

 

[a mere housewife]

Pergs that doesn't really deal with what I said above about the difference between penal actions and actions to manipulate outcomes. I didn't really mean to start arguing here though and won't continue. I have been in torture museums and seen for instance, the devices to rupture womens' reproductive organs -- it is really too terrible to stay in those places or to think much about these things. I just think that when one deals with a subject like this even in a grade school paper one needs to deal with actual historical/current realities, and be very wary of shaky justifications. I am an idealist but if anyone thinks the effort to gain control of someone viewed as expendable is limited to a perceived nice clean set of practices, they are able to be more idealistic than I am.

 

[richardnz]

The problems with torture seem to revolve around two issues:

Is it an ethical way to treat a defenseless human being?
Does it work?

The weight of evidence is heavily on the side of it not working. In other words, it does not provide what is supposed to be its primary aim, the confession of truth that is being withheld. For example, when Stalin instructed his chief interrogator to make torture mandatory for all arrested people he reportedly said, “How I am I now going to find out the truth?”
Napoleon said, “The barbarous custom of whipping men suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this method of interrogation, by putting men to the torture, is useless. The wretches say whatever comes into their heads and whatever they think one wants to believe. Consequently, the Commander-in-Chief forbids the use of a method which is contrary to reason and humanity.” Note that Napoleon saw it as inhumane as well as useless.
Mohamedou Slahi is the man Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Couch would not prosecute at Guantanomo. Both have written against torture practices and Slahi admits that he regularly confessed to things that were not true.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a supposedly high value terrorist is mentioned in the Senate Intelligence Committee Report. NBC says,” And Mohammed wasn't just holding back, according to the report. He was outright lying, sending U.S. operatives on wild goose chases. Dozens of times, the report describes information the CIA promoted as "critical" as having been "fabricated," "unfounded" or "not supported by internal CIA records." Within two weeks, the deputy chief of the CIA's interrogation program concluded that the waterboarding of Mohammed "has proven ineffective".....

They waterboarded him 183 times in one month, presumably to encourage him to tell the truth.

Vladimir Bukovsky is worth a read. He was tortured and explains how it does not work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700018.html

Allied to this is the issue of due process. In the powerful documentary, “Taxi to the Dark Side” a man going for a drive is tortured to death by US soldiers in Afghanistan because they thought he was a terrorist. This has always been a problem not only in war but in criminal cases as well. People get tortured without a trial because it is assumed they are criminals without any court procedure. People jump to conclusions. Christians should always be on the side of due process if they want justice. Evidence for and against needs to be heard. If it is wrong to torture suspects in a criminal case it is wrong to torture suspected terrorists.

 

[Edward]

But in a civilizational struggle where terrorists target civilians and ought to be executed as soon as they are caught anyway

So the Germans should have executed captured British airmen who participated in the terror bombing campaign against civilians instead of according them the benefits of the Geneva Convention? After all, 'Bomber' Harris wrote that the purpose was "the disruption of civilized life" and that "the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale ... are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories".

 

[Pergamum]

So the Germans should have executed captured British airmen who participated in the terror bombing campaign against civilians instead of according them the benefits of the Geneva Convention? After all, 'Bomber' Harris wrote that the purpose was "the disruption of civilized life" and that "the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale ... are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories".

One transgression of the conventions led to another. And the intentional bombing of civilian centers is for another discussion.

But a terrorist caught in the act of trying to blow up a school with a bomb-vest on... water-boarding and sleep deprivation is far less than what he deserves.

 

[MW]

The issue is relative to the convention of the time and the extremity of the situation. War is a nasty business. Man fighting against man is dehumanising in itself. It is wonderful that the Christian value of mercy has had a humanising effect upon it. I cannot see how any other view of man could have had a similar effect. Recall that our Lord was chastised for the purpose of release when no fault was found in Him, and this was by a civilisation which emphasised law and justice, and is usually regarded as one of the forerunners of the ordered state. Christianity has done things in our world to change it for the better. At the same time there is no basis for claiming that there is any moral requirement for this humanising treatment. Rationality and morality dictate that the enemy has given up all rights the moment he took the sword in hand to kill another. As soon as he engaged in an unjust war he forfeited all appeal to kindness. Any humanitarian consideration is an act of mercy to which he has no real right. Such considerations are usually created by mutual agreement between the warring parties.

 

[TheOldCourse]

The problems with torture seem to revolve around two issues:

Is it an ethical way to treat a defenseless human being?
Does it work?

The weight of evidence is heavily on the side of it not working. In other words, it does not provide what is supposed to be its primary aim, the confession of truth that is being withheld. For example, when Stalin instructed his chief interrogator to make torture mandatory for all arrested people he reportedly said, “How I am I now going to find out the truth?”
Napoleon said, “The barbarous custom of whipping men suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this method of interrogation, by putting men to the torture, is useless. The wretches say whatever comes into their heads and whatever they think one wants to believe. Consequently, the Commander-in-Chief forbids the use of a method which is contrary to reason and humanity.” Note that Napoleon saw it as inhumane as well as useless.
Mohamedou Slahi is the man Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Couch would not prosecute at Guantanomo. Both have written against torture practices and Slahi admits that he regularly confessed to things that were not true.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a supposedly high value terrorist is mentioned in the Senate Intelligence Committee Report. NBC says,” And Mohammed wasn't just holding back, according to the report. He was outright lying, sending U.S. operatives on wild goose chases. Dozens of times, the report describes information the CIA promoted as "critical" as having been "fabricated," "unfounded" or "not supported by internal CIA records." Within two weeks, the deputy chief of the CIA's interrogation program concluded that the waterboarding of Mohammed "has proven ineffective".....

They waterboarded him 183 times in one month, presumably to encourage him to tell the truth.

Vladimir Bukovsky is worth a read. He was tortured and explains how it does not work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700018.html

Allied to this is the issue of due process. In the powerful documentary, “Taxi to the Dark Side” a man going for a drive is tortured to death by US soldiers in Afghanistan because they thought he was a terrorist. This has always been a problem not only in war but in criminal cases as well. People get tortured without a trial because it is assumed they are criminals without any court procedure. People jump to conclusions. Christians should always be on the side of due process if they want justice. Evidence for and against needs to be heard. If it is wrong to torture suspects in a criminal case it is wrong to torture suspected terrorists.

With all due respect, you're cherry picking your sources and a few anecdotes only tell us that it's success rate is less than 100%. Torture has never been a magic bullet as an interrogation technique and is not particularly effective if used injudiciously but history also demonstrates countless cases where it did yield the truth. In fact, some of the arguments to show its ineffectiveness actually demonstrate that it does work in the right applications. That men will admit to things they never did or divulge anything they think will get the torture to stop demonstrates that it is a highly effective motivator. If an innocent man will admit to a crime he never did when tortured, then a guilty man will surely admit to a crime he did commit. That's why judicious use and the ability to corroborate is still necessary. Modern intelligence officers would not have to be trained in resisting torture if it didn't work. Our own Presbyterian history sadly indicates the many times in which it was used effectively against our forebears.

That said, most of the arguments presented here deal with the retributive aspects of torture for which there is no question of it working since it is an end in and of itself. It seems to me that the Biblical allusions make it clear that it is not inherently immoral or unjust for the magistrate to use torture as a punishment for severe crimes or in warfare. Unless you are a theonomist you wouldn't argue that it is required either, but general equity does tell us something.

 

[a mere housewife]

I understand the nuances in which they are set but as this thread develops the thought seems to come out more starkly. The thought seems more simply akin to thoughts that must justify even terrorists to themselves (cruel treatment is better than our enemy deserves); and there is less whitewash about supposedly humane limits (our enemy has forfeited all rights). The adoption of methods we condemn in the enemy is justified by their behaviour. These are indeed rationales requisite to a torture chamber, one way or another.

The issue is relative to the convention of the time and the extremity of the situation... Christianity has done things in our world to change it for the better. At the same time there is no basis for claiming that there is any moral requirement for this humanising treatment.

I would cite Christ's more stringent, 'new' commands to love (Matthew 5:43-48; John 13:34,35) even enemies.

 

[Pergamum]

There are no new commands in the NT that are at odds with the general equity of the laws of the OT. That seems a fundamentally dispensational ethic. Our God of love was also the God of the OT who commanded stoning and the annihilation of the pagan. We are not suddenly to become pacifists with Jesus.

 

[a mere housewife]

But the love of God has been revealed more fully and Christ emphasises that this revelation binds us more fully. He is the one who spoke of a new commandment.

The ceremonial aspects of punishments which taught about what all our sins really deserve are fulfilled in Him. Otherwise I doubt you or I would get off better than some third party as far as what the strictness of those laws would allow for our sins. That also must be taken into consideration.

And general equity of even those laws forbade exceeding certain measures (no more than forty stripes, etc) so that we would not despise the image of God in one another.

 

[MW]

I would cite Christ's more stringent, 'new' commands to love (Matthew 5:43-48; John 13:34,35) even enemies.

The new commandment is to love one another as Christ has loved us, that is, to lay down our lives; and even that is an old commandment with new motives and reasons. Our Lord has not instituted a new moral law. The duty to love others has always been required. Our Lord pointed to love as the summation and spirit of the law.

 

[a mere housewife]

No, I didn't mean to suggest that it's a whole new morality; but that it's come clearer and fuller, with new force, especially in its application to enemies, in the revelation of Christ. (As marriage seems to have come more clearly into focus around him, where polygamy used to be more practiced.)

But there is nothing even in OT laws to provide a basis for cruel treatment as a means of establishing truth: one cannot support torture in an investigative process from anywhere in the Bible. One can try to make a leap between retributive measures that appear in narrative, or certain punitive measures that were available after due process with unco-erced witnesses & in a ceremonial system which in a very significant way pointed to Christ -- but it's very much a leap.

I am sorry to have spoken up so much here -- it's a morbid subject. If someone insisted that God's word provided a basis for aborting babies because of the little ones who are dashed against the rocks, many would protest (I would). I feel as strongly about how we use God's word for this. To the original question -- Richard T was right above that various commentaries on Deuteronomy 25 might be useful: I looked up Calvin and Matthew Henry and both seemed relevant. 'Men must not be treated as dogs.' (-- I don't think MH was advocating mistreatment of dogs, either ...)

 

[MW]

War is a gruesome reality of life in the fallen world and is part of the judgment of God upon it. The sword itself inflicts grievous harm, and this is the instrument of retributive justice appointed by God. That Christians have brought the demands of love into the arena of war is a wonder in itself, but it cannot be used to overrule the claims of justice or the use of legal force as the necessary means of protection and order. If there is a convention for the treatment of prisoners it should be followed; but what that entails is a matter on which the parties must come to agreement. The ethical demand to lay down one's life is akin to selling all our goods to give to the poor. It is addressing the heart, not dictating an action. He who told us to turn the other cheek did not Himself literally turn the other cheek, but questioned why He was smitten.

 

[Pergamum]

Humans should not be treated like dogs in general. But dangerous dogs often must be put down. And an evil man is many times more dangerous than an evil dog, and therefore must be put down all the more decisively.

 

[Edward]

Humans should not be treated like dogs in general. But dangerous dogs often must be put down. And an evil man is many times more dangerous than an evil dog, and therefore must be put down all the more decisively.

I have no problem with the idea of putting down bad dogs, either human or canine, but we should do it in a humane fashion, and not revel in prolonging suffering. We should be cognizant of the teachings of the Sixth Commandment and not use as an excuse for breaching it an argument that the other guy was bad first.

 

[Pergamum]

I have no problem with the idea of putting down bad dogs, either human or canine, but we should do it in a humane fashion, and not revel in prolonging suffering. We should be cognizant of the teachings of the Sixth Commandment and not use as an excuse for breaching it an argument that the other guy was bad first.

I am not sure it is a provable proposition that we are always obligated to kill the enemy in the most humane way possible. The chief concern is to carry out justice, which demands death in many cases.

There have always been a gradation of sufferings designated to fit a gradation of crimes, for example in public executions of old a killer may be hanged, but a particularly heinous killer may be first drawn and quartered. I will not fault the justice system of those kingdoms for such methods. Executions should be horrible, and possibly public, in order to show justice being done.

Just like OT stoning, many customary execution methods did not kill in a totally painless fashion and such demands seem to be of modern invention. Surely God is not at fault for ordaining stoning when hanging is much quicker and more painless. Part of the reason for choosing stoning may have been the horribleness of it.

I would support, for instance, castration just prior to execution for convicted rapists or pedophiles.


Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. --- Ecclesiastes 8:11.

 

[Edward]

I am not sure it is a provable proposition that we are always obligated to kill the enemy in the most humane way possible.

The Larger Catechism teaches that, in our dealings with others, we are to avoid sinful anger, hatred, desire for revenge, oppression, striking, and wounding. Torture strikes me as being a bit oppressive.

I would support, for instance, castration just prior to execution for convicted rapists or pedophiles.

Castration before release as part of rehabilitation and prevention of recidivism might well be justified. Castration before execution is merely revenge, and is thus specifically proscribed.

 

[Pergamum]

If the Catechism is taken that way, then all war is prohibited by the reformed.

Retribution and giving examples of justice are not revenge.

 

[Edward]

If the Catechism is taken that way, then all war is prohibited by the reformed.

I'll excuse that error since you are a Baptist and can't be held to a Presbyterian's familiarity with the Larger Catechism, which specifically recognizes (in the same question and answer) the legitimacy of "taking the lives...of others... in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence".

 

[Pergamum]

Edward,

You misuse the catechism by only quoting a small portion of the catechism without context. These things fall under public justice, lawful war, and necessary defense and are not personal vengeance, etc.