risky entry

Why I’m against the closing of Gitmo, why I believe in coercive interrogation, and why I don’t use the word “torture.”

I think that the word “torture” is modernly defined far too broadly, emotionally evocative, and often leading people to miss the point. Where historically the subjects of torture may have predominantly been the guilty and the harmful, I think that the Holocaust and other contemporary evils have reshaped its definition to sometimes victimize the innocent. Lest we ever communicate that the acceptable subjects of torture are the innocent, it needs a narrowing redefinition to reemphasize its mission towards the guilty.

So, if you’re asking if I support the “torture” of detained terrorists, no I do not. However, I do support the coercive interrogation of which may consist of similar or the same activities.
That's not to say 'anything goes,' and it should be a means to an end; that is, nation and life-saving information.

As far as I'm concerned, when you become an enemy of humanity, you forfeit your own.

BUT WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

That is an oversimplified and often misleading question that needs to be placed on the shelf from time to time. Please don’t shut me off yet. I’m not suggesting we do so to overlook any contradiction of Scripture, but simply because there are often a more detailed set of situation-driven questions to be asked.

Romans 13 provides governing authorities a sword with the responsibility of both punishing evil and praising good. Would that not include the punishing of terrorists who exist to annihilate your home and way of life? The concept of “Just War” is both biblical and a necessary perspective in our responses to the evils manifest in various parts of our world. “Just War” is about differentiating wars that are warranted and those that are not. Was World War II warranted? Was our response towards Nazi Germany just and right? Or was our WWJD response to take the pacifist route while excess of 8 million innocent families were executed and burned alive?

I would contend that pacifism is both harmful and in contradiction to our God-given moral sentiments. What if U.S. intelligence agencies took the liberty of engaging in preemptive action which would lead to information to cut that 8 million number in half? Would WWJD say that if they say they don’t want to talk about it to leave them alone? Or would it allow the coercion/interrogation/torture of a few if it meant rewriting history books, saving millions, and giving life to those who have shown no disdain for it.

I know it’s difficult and I know it’s messy, but I would contend that it is both biblically permitted and necessary as we care for those God has placed under our reach.