To say that Jack and co's utilization of the 'fast-elicitation' method went into overdrive in
24's season seven would be
an understatement. Between stun-gunning a traitorous senatorial aide and cutting off a patient's drip-feed, the season even produce a few innovations. Throughout however, the media debate on torture in the UK, as in the US, continues to revolve around whether 'coercive interrogation techniques' amount to acts of torture. Semantics? Perhaps. Meanwhile, the mainstream media continues to depict the inflicting of physical pain on others without nuance, as inherently evil and without any kind of moral justification. I beg to differ. But first, a couple of moral urban myths.
Myth 1: "We are no worse than terrorists"
"If we use
any form of physical coercion to extract information, even from 'evil' people, we are no better than they are." So, if the evil Taleban use it, we, in civilized society, cannot, right?
First, in the Judeo-Christian scheme of thing, there is no moral equivalence between the actions of the state and its agents and that of non-state groups or individuals. It is God, the Bible claims, who establishes the nation states. And it is into the hand of the state's appointed civil 'Magistrate' that the divine authority to deliver divine justice, i.e. justice for the common good, including -- bleeding heart liberals look away -- the
physical punishment of individuals, is given. And in democratic states what we perceive is that the God-given authority tends to be far more morally incorruptible than in the non-democratic or tyrannical state. That's because only the former
can be held accountable, as over the Abu Ghraib debacle in Iraq.
The Abu Ghraib media recriminations and the fact we are having this public debate over torture at all in the West, makes my point admirably. The use or non-use of torture, quite simply, does not place the state's agents in the same class with ideological terrorists.
Myth 2:"Any form of physical coercion is immoral"
Who says -- by whose gold standard of moral authority? Working under the premise that Judeo-Christianity is, by some distance, the prevailing moral belief system in the West let us get back to what that heritage teaches. First, it teaches that we live in an imperfect or 'fallen world' where sin brings with it the twin 'evils' of suffering and pain. Unfortunately in life, it is not always possible to avoid either. And sometimes the purposeful inflicting of pain or suffering is simply unavoidable. A doctor may have to cut off a leg to save the rest of the body. Sometimes the end does indeed the means. All too often, the only 'right' or moral choice may well be a highly unpalatable choice between 'the lesser of two evils' in pursuit of a greater good. So let's cut to the chase. So is there a principle we can derive from the Judeo-Christian scriptures that reveals God sanctions the use of inflicting pain on other for a greater good?
In a Western democracy increasingly tyrannised by the prevailing concept of 'human rights', many have come to believe 'human rights' is a Judeo-Christian-rooted concept.
It isn't. Nowhere do the Judeo-Christian scriptures speak of 'human rights'. But they have a lot to say about human responsibilities --
some for the good of the individual,
all for the way more important good of the community. What, for instance, if we ask: Did God torture Job
? A human rights lawyer must, on the evidence, conclude: yes, he did.
Did God torture Job?
The short answer is of course:
no, God did not -- at least, not directly. It would have been a
sinful act to inflict physical pain on a human being, especially a decent and moral man like Job, right? And a holy God could not, of course, sin. In fact, the bible tells us it was the devil who did indeed tortured poor Job -- no pretence here at gaining 'life-saving' information. But God did give the devil 'license'
allowing Job to suffer the agonies he did. The Bible is clear that God's higher reason was to allow the devil to test Job's faith to the ultimate, short of killing him. And that testing was to be an example to all future believers.
But Job was a one-off 'divine' situation, right? Hardly. Didn't God know in advance that his own Son would also suffer terrible agonies on the Cross -- and, thus knowing,
conspire in allowing it to happen? And every Jew and Christian knows only too well that pain and suffering are in fact adjuncts to practised faith. Could we therefore say that God could be accused of
complicity in torturing Christ, Job, indeed
all who come to faith? No, of course not -- because practising Christians and Jews are also taught
not understand it in those purely
humanistic terms.
Whether it is Jesus Christ, Job, or any of us, Christians and Jews understand that God acts
first and foremost for the greater or common good. For Jews and Christians, Job suffered to show how personal pain and suffering can overcome evil. But what has this to do with the issue of torture or coercive interrogation techniques?
Well it is most certainly does NOT represent a call to join the self-appointed Thought-Police, as the misguided and brutal Inquisition chose to do. That
would be to play God. In a sin-fallen world, however, it is clear that human pain and suffering go with the territory, or, more precisely, a fallen Creation. More specifically, for our purpose, pain is something God can,
indeed often does allow, even use, for our own good and the common good.
Without doubt, a great biblical principle that runs right through the Judeo-Christian Bible, is that there are times when experiencing, allowing, expecting the apparent 'evil' of inflicted pain is the very path -- in human parlance, the lesser of two evils --
to serving a greater, higher and noble purpose and goal. If that is the case, then at least Christians and Jews ought to realize that pain, even purposely inflicting pain may be the only real choice in serving the greater good. Thus what may appear 'an evil', may, in the greater scheme of things and with greater maturity, be seen to be of quite a different moral order. But let's put that into altogether sharper moral perspective.
The 24/7 Real World
Here's the scenario. Jack Bauer is holed up with a guy named Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Bauer knows that this guy is the mastermind behind a plot to murder thousands of innocent people. He knows Mohammed is about to activate a number of terrorist cells to that end. Bauer knows there's no time for the normal 'democratic process' to take its course. It is the early hours of September 11, 2001. Bauer is on the phone
to you, his president. He asks for just five minutes to 'deny Mohammed his human rights', by which he knows he will probably be able to elicit the information needed to save those innocent lives. As president, you're stalling. You're wrestling with your conscience over whether Bauer should even be allowed to twist Mohammed's arm (in reality, probably all that would be required) as that would be to break the law that now outlaws torture.
While a self-righteous media talks about the inherent evil of torture, the question we should really be asking here is: Which is the
greater evil? Would it be breaching the
individual's human
rights (a non-Judeo-Christian moral concept) of
a known terrorist by inflicting on him
temporary pain in pursuit of a greater common good? Or would it be
preventing Bauer from inflicting temporary pain to elicit life-saving information
by the only realistic, urgent means available
thereby condemning thousands (usurping their
collective human rights?) to certain death? That an act may be deemed 'illegal' at civil law does not mean it is not morally justifiable in the best interests of the state, particularly in war conditions. Hardly anyone kicks up a fuss that vast numbers of al Qaeda leaders are killed by remotely targeted drones partly because the civil law has no other realistic way of dealing with these mass murderers. Yet it still state-sanctioned assassination about which a morally inconsistent media makes no complaint.
Sadly, Western society appears unwilling to perceive inflicting of
any sort of pain -- via just wars, court punishments, imprisonment, even the smacking of children -- as
inherently evil. Yet all of these are demonstrably defensible Judeo-Christian moral concepts. When we speak of torture then, the higher Judeo-Christian moral duty is not necessarily the 'human right' of the individual -- not a Judeo-Christian concept at all, by the way -- rather it may well be the greater good of the community.
Meanwhile, as we continue this philosophical debate, Jack Bauer is still holed up with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed awaiting your answer. Innocent people are beginning to arrive for work at the twin towers. The clock is ticking. As president,
it's your call. For me the higher moral purpose here, as difficult as it is, isn't even close. But then, I'm not the president...
