the sojourner

Derek Webb’s new CD has a song called, “A Love That’s Stronger Than Our Fear.” In that song he asks, What would you do / If someone would tell you the truth / But only if you tortured them half to death / Tell me since when do the ends justify the means / And you build the kingdom using the devil’s tools

I started thinking about the different methods of obtaining information to save lives. No rational person can accept the use of torture, but I believe targeted aggressive questioning techniques are a reasonable response to a threat to human life. Here’s how I came to that conclusion:

Torture
Torture includes, but is not limited to: maiming, cutting, burning by heat or chemicals, bone breaking, raping or any procedure that is life threatening, blinds, results in physical scars or permanently alters the functions of the human body.

Not Torture
Torture is not attention grabs, slaps, extreme temperature changes, water boarding, sleep deprivation, or being assailed with loud music. Aggressive? Yes. But it’s not torture and the use of aggressive targeted questioning techniques on terror suspects to save lives, is correct and moral.

Indiscriminate torturing to obtain information is not effective, but targeted aggressive questioning (or “softening”) of terror suspects who are withholding information is effective. Any other view does not take the higher moral ground, makes an idol of feeling morally superior while disparaging the lives of innocent victims.

Aggressive Questioning Demonstrates the Value of Human Life
Imagine this: a plot is uncovered to kill hundreds, thousands (or in the age of “dirty bombs,” millions) of victims. Suspects are in custody, but strengthening their resolve against common decency, they refuse to divulge life saving information. In this case, an aggressive questioning technique is the only moral response. What would be right about allowing the death of many innocent victims? Why would their deaths be the higher moral ground when it was in our power to stop it?

Aggressive Questioning Does Not Exist in a Vacuum
The idea of applying hostile questioning techniques on a terror suspect is grounded in the idea of public safety and the preservation of human life. For example, we expect law enforcement to use lethal force in the protection of even one human life. Can the use of extreme discomfort to save many lives wrong be wrong?

Here’s another application: when a suspect is arrested, they’re read their Miranda Rights (”you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney…), however there is a legal exception to this constitutional requirement. It’s the Public Safety Exception. Here’s how it works: if a suspect in custody has vital public safety information, an officer is permitted to interrogate the suspect without issuing a Miranda Warning (New York vs. Quarles 1984). For instance, a suspect refuses to say where he has pitched his weapon (e.g. hand gun, knife); in this scenario the suspect can be subjected to continued questioning by law enforcement until the threat to public safety is resolved.

If this is true, is it wrong to use the pressure of harsh questioning techniques to prevent the certain loss of human life? No. Still, there’s an important unanswered question: who should administer these techniques?

The Right Man for the Job
A follower of Jesus is the best person for this kind of public safety, law enforcement work. An individual who is not sadistic or takes pleasure in the pain or fear of others. A person able to apply the sufficient pressure (no more or no less) required to obtain vital life-saving information; a person who, out of a high regard for human life, will be able to do the unpleasant task of softening terror suspects.

I do not think I could trust anyone else with this difficult, but necessary work.