Friday Night Theology

The Utility of Torture

17 April 2009

"It is 'obvious and unarguable' that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the nation."…It is this paramount interest that the Government seeks to vindicate through the interrogation program. Indeed, the program…directly furthers that interest, producing substantial quantities of otherwise unavailable actionable intelligence."  

So states one of the four memos released today by the US Department of Justice. In it, the use of torture by the CIA is justified. Of course, they don't call it torture. Indeed, the memo is written with the express purpose of demonstrating that these "enhanced interrogation techniques" do not amount to torture, but as the American Civil Liberties Union has said, "they are simply…window dressing for war crimes."  

The memos themselves describe in detail the techniques used: throwing people against a false wall, nudity, sleep deprivation, confinement in enclosed spaces and most notorious of all - waterboarding. This last is described in the following terms: a water-sodden cloth is placed over the mouth and nose, "This creates a barrier through which it is either difficult or impossible to breathe. The technique thereby 'induces a sensation of drowning.'" Moreover, the purpose of all of this is to extract information in circumstances "in which intelligence is either difficult or impossible to collect by other means and is essential to the protection of the United States and its interests." If this is not torture, then I have no idea what is.  

The real issue then is not whether or not this constitutes torture - of course it does - but how it was justified. And here the answer is clear: plain and simple utilitarianism. This is transparent from the quotation with which this FNT began. If the "security of the nation" requires such an approach, then the "security of the nation" justifies such an approach. It is the results obtained that "vindicate" the "interrogation program". If the end is US lives saved, then the means - torture - is justified. The greatest good for the greatest number, even if a few are tortured in the process.  

Interestingly, the seed bed for this kind of ethical analysis is also found in the quotation above. "It is obvious and unarguable that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the nation." Well, I do not find it obvious, and I certainly want to argue against it. The Bible, for instance, says this regarding what is important for a nation. "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people." (Proverbs 14:34) In other words, perhaps the most compelling government interest should not be the "security of the nation", but its ethics - the standards by which the populace and indeed the government live. Isn't that the primary responsibility of our leaders - to seek and model justice? And while the utilitarians would argue that justice resides in the outcome, the Bible locates it much more in the character and commands of Christ.  

The fact, then, that it was a 'Christian' ruler who endorsed this approach makes it even more troubling. It also makes Jesus' words that much more challenging for us all: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 8:21)

Justin Thacker, Head of Theology