The religious roots of torture

William Schweiker has an article in Sightings (here) which, after expressing some bemusement that we should be debating torture in the twenty-first century, points to the religious roots of torture(see Martin Marty’s earlier article here).

Less often observed is that the practice of waterboarding has roots in the Spanish Inquisition and parallels the persecution of Anabaptists during the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter Reformation. Why did practices similar to waterboarding develop as a way to torture heretics—whether the heretics were Anabaptists or, in the Inquisition, Protestants of any stripe as well as Jews and witches and others?

Schweiker sees the use of water for torture by Christian persecutors as a kind of anti-baptism:

Torture has many forms, but torture by water as it arose in the Roman Catholic and Protestant reformations seemingly drew some of its power and inspiration from theological convictions about repentance and salvation. It was, we must now surely say, a horrific inversion of the best spirit of Christian faith and symbolism.

Christianity uses powerful symbols, its discourse addresses the great issues of life and death, morality and sin, and it also proclaims the possibility of transformatory redemption – that all things may be made new.

And beyond the symbols and discourse there is religious practice – the translation of such ideas into the reality of the way we treat one another. It is in this practice that we are judged. The question of torture should never be one of utility but one of fundamental respect for the human body: shaped by God, given for holy purposes.

And if the leaders of our religions can agree on nothing else, can they not agree that torture is reprehensible? And then that religious practice should always and actively set its face against torture – in symbol, in discourse, and in political influence?

Don't take holiday snaps

The geographer Ghazi Falah was caught between Israel and the Arab world, John Gravios writes in the American Chronicle of Higher Education.

Falah, with dual Israeli and Canadian citizenship, was held by the Shin Bet allegedly for spying until released after 23 days following a campaign by fellow geographers and other academics.

He felt he was being questioned more about his academic career - and that it was held as an accusation against him - than about any putative spying.

Most of all, the article concludes, Mr. Falah is haunted by the sense that his imprisonment was meant to send a message.

"I feel it was like a punishment," he says, meant to scare him and other Palestinian scholars into self-censorship.

And that's the way of police states, the purpose of interrogation and torture: not solely the punishment of the individual but the breaking of civil society and the crushing of any independence of thought and autonomy of action.  If the Palestinians are to be cowed then any who attain prominence of any sort - within or outside the Palestinian territories - become legitimate targets. 

And across the world the police seem to go to the same school.  Keep interrogation and torture hidden and secret so that no-one can see what is happening, but make sure it's an open secret so that it can terrify the rest of the society.  There is nothing so powerfully destructive as a dirty secret that everyone knows.

In the end the use of force is unsustainable - but in the mean time too many are broken and suffer from it.

Where do terrorists come from?

There is an interesting article at The American called What Makes a Terrorist ,by Alan Krueger.

First- not poverty or lack of education, though these have been fastened on as explanations.

On the contrary, higher education is correlated with greater support for terrorism in research in certain Islamic countries.  The indications are that actual terrorists are likely to be less poor and more educated than the average in their countries of origin.

Krueger is an economist and sees things in terms of supply and demand, including terrorism.  As people choose to be suicide bombers for a a range of reasons, he says, reducing the supply is difficult.  More sensible is to reduce demand by the dual programme of aggressively reducing the capacity (technical, financial) of terror groups to act while, simultaneously, enabling political engagement and non-violent protest.

Thus the absence of civil rights and sufficient GDP may be expressed in a greater number of potential and actual terrorists.  These were people taking reasoned decisions to try to impose an extreme solution on a political problem by the use of violence.

Thus (in my opinion) terrorists and terrorist groups should be treated as rational, as open to reason and engagement.  The necessary 'war' on terror should be targetted as precisely as possible (I accept Krueger's suggested targets). 

And it should be accompanied by, and perhaps be secondary to, political programmes which enable populations to have the capacity of political engagement, to be able to make a difference.

Countries which use harsh repressive measures and torture will breed violence much of which will rebound against them.  (It has to be acknowledged that many such countries do not engender international terrorism and that a strong universalist ideological programme may also be a necessary condition for the supply side of terrorism.)  But at the very least this provides a strong self-interest argument (where moral arguments seem insufficient) for western countries to stop supporting repressive regimes.

Attitudes to torture

A BBC survey of global attitudes to torture showed 59% opposed; 29% in favour in some circumstances; 12% didn't know.

Should we be pleased, or horrified?

There were marked differences by country: countries most accepting of torture included Iraq (42%), the Philippines (40%), Indonesia (40%), Russia (37%) and China (37%). Those most opposed were Italy (81%), Australia, France, Canada, the UK and Germany.

Israel's result was most striking:
A majority of Jewish respondents in Israel, 53%, favour allowing governments to use some degree of torture to obtain information from those in custody, while 39% want clear rules against it.

But Muslims in Israel, who represent 16% of the total number polled, are overwhelmingly against any use of torture.

In my view the end does not justify the means when the means are the violent breaking of individuals and the ends are uncertain.

But I would guess that very little torture is targetted to a narrow goal - that vital piece of information which will pre-empt the proverbial atrocity.

For the most part torture is state policy - and not just permission or turning a blind eye. The state makes the physical arrangements of torture, the training of state employees as torturers, the promise of indemnity for those who abuse, hurt and kill others. The state uses tax revenue to torture its taxpayers.

Torture is intended to intimidate the population, to rule by fear and violence. It is not primarily used against the outside threat to stable social order: it is the nature of a state's ordering of its society.

Torture is an instrument of government which divides the population from one another. It does not spur people to band together in opposition but to hide separately in fear. That is why torture is done in secret - and why it has to be an open secret.

Torture thus destroys social institutions (the Church, trades unions, clan affiliation). Only the state remains, and its character is violence.

And torture is widespread. Therefore every country which does not practice it is complicit: in the manufacture of materials for torture, in sending people to countries without caring about what will happen to them, in refusing to care adequately for victims of torture who flee their country, in ignoring the issue in bi-lateral discussions, in accepting (tainted) intelligence obtained through torture, in keeping silent.

And I abominate it.

See: William T Cavanaugh Torture and Eucharist (Blackwells 1998)