Peter & Helen Evans
Won't someone give a true definition of torture?
By Peter & Helen Evans
Torture is again in the news and on our minds this week. Didn't everyone see Jack Bauer admitting to torture in his testimony before the fictional Senate in "24's" season opener? Of course. However, in the real world, the lofty moral stance of never approving torture might have to be re-considered from a reasonable, adult point of view.
Let's consider the little kid who maliciously pulls the wings off flies, who burns ants with a magnifying glass. The kid may just want to see what will happen to the creatures he torments. But when he gets a thrill out of the power and control over the helpless creatures, that's torture. Take that same kid when he grows up to be Saddam Hussein and he enjoys more than just watching what happens when he tortures his human victims. There are other reasons he might torture. Well, it's the normal progression of his childhood tortures; he just gets off on his victims' suffering, how they squirm and scream. Also, he might consider that he is punishing them for real or imagined disobedience to his tyranny. If he rounds up their families to watch, then he can get a double dose; vengeance on the wrong-doer and terrifying the others into obedience. Of course, there's still the thrill of watching other people suffering.
OK. What's the conventional definition of torture? It is to make people feel undue discomfort or even fear for their life. If that's what torture is, then we had better not ever drop bombs again; we had better not let our soldiers point their guns at anybody, let alone actually shoot at them. We had better not use artillery to lob shells into enemy territory. That's been described as sheer terror by those who have been on the battlefield. Why isn't war called torture too?
We believe it is because war is not for pleasure and it's not for punishment. It's aim is peace through victory. When the other side gives in, then we stop. There is no reason to continue the terror.
So, while we are glued to the screen watching Jack Bauer interrogate a suspect with "his own methods," which some might consider torture, we always see that he stops when they tell him what he needs to know. He's not enjoying it, and he's not punishing. That would be torture.
We have to have this discussion as a nation. We have to realize that some terrible things happen in the cause of peace, that there are some people out there whose evil actions morally compel us to do what is needed to make them stop. We don't enjoy it nor do we punish with these methods. Let's be clear.
However, when definitions are vague or deliberately blurred, confusion and discord result. Let's first get a straight definition of torture — which includes why and when these methods are used — not just the techniques and whether or not they leave scars. Only then we can have a meaningful discussion. Only then can we establish meaningful policies.
© Peter & Helen Evans
January 15, 2009
Torture is again in the news and on our minds this week. Didn't everyone see Jack Bauer admitting to torture in his testimony before the fictional Senate in "24's" season opener? Of course. However, in the real world, the lofty moral stance of never approving torture might have to be re-considered from a reasonable, adult point of view.
Let's consider the little kid who maliciously pulls the wings off flies, who burns ants with a magnifying glass. The kid may just want to see what will happen to the creatures he torments. But when he gets a thrill out of the power and control over the helpless creatures, that's torture. Take that same kid when he grows up to be Saddam Hussein and he enjoys more than just watching what happens when he tortures his human victims. There are other reasons he might torture. Well, it's the normal progression of his childhood tortures; he just gets off on his victims' suffering, how they squirm and scream. Also, he might consider that he is punishing them for real or imagined disobedience to his tyranny. If he rounds up their families to watch, then he can get a double dose; vengeance on the wrong-doer and terrifying the others into obedience. Of course, there's still the thrill of watching other people suffering.
OK. What's the conventional definition of torture? It is to make people feel undue discomfort or even fear for their life. If that's what torture is, then we had better not ever drop bombs again; we had better not let our soldiers point their guns at anybody, let alone actually shoot at them. We had better not use artillery to lob shells into enemy territory. That's been described as sheer terror by those who have been on the battlefield. Why isn't war called torture too?
We believe it is because war is not for pleasure and it's not for punishment. It's aim is peace through victory. When the other side gives in, then we stop. There is no reason to continue the terror.
So, while we are glued to the screen watching Jack Bauer interrogate a suspect with "his own methods," which some might consider torture, we always see that he stops when they tell him what he needs to know. He's not enjoying it, and he's not punishing. That would be torture.
We have to have this discussion as a nation. We have to realize that some terrible things happen in the cause of peace, that there are some people out there whose evil actions morally compel us to do what is needed to make them stop. We don't enjoy it nor do we punish with these methods. Let's be clear.
However, when definitions are vague or deliberately blurred, confusion and discord result. Let's first get a straight definition of torture — which includes why and when these methods are used — not just the techniques and whether or not they leave scars. Only then we can have a meaningful discussion. Only then can we establish meaningful policies.
© Peter & Helen Evans
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
