The Question of Torture

What is torture and is it ever acceptable?

Take a minute to think about it. Really think about it and see how your answer compares when applied to other matters.

A child has cancer that can only be cured or deemed non-lethal if chemotherapy is given. Should that child be required to undergo chemotherapy? Before answering, make sure you have read up on the many accounts of cancer patients that say chemotherapy made them feel worse than the actual cancer. Some report it as sheer misery and say that except for the eventual outcome, the cancer is less painful.

If you feel that yes this child should be forced to be treated with chemo, I ask you why? Is it because the treamtment can save his life? If that's the case then it would be fair to say that in some cases you believe that the infliction of pain on another is moral and just. You must believe that torture is sometimes acceptable.

Is it acceptable to make public accusations against someone without providing proof-especially when the receiving end's ability to refute the accusations is limited? The accused whose reputations are on the line have family and friends. Imagine the humiliation. Whether someone is accused of stealing, lying, or murdering, it certainly causes a stain on their integrity. If you believe it is acceptable because you think truth must be sought, then you believe that in this context, one must be subjected to humiliation for the greater cause-truth. You must believe that torture is sometimes acceptable.

What about the blogger's favorites: George Bush and Dick Cheney? I have never read so much hate filled language as that of those who are opposed to these two. One can feel the hatred emanating from the computer screen when Bush or Cheney is mentioned. Is it okay for the bloggers to say such nasty things about Bush/Cheney? If the tables were turned on you and those same attacks were being directed at you, wouldn't you find it painfully humiliating? How could you be without anguish. If you answered yes-it's okay to say such hateful things-because your rantings about Bush/Cheney are fact, not fiction or ad-hominem attacks, then you are saying that the humiliation you serve them with is deserved-context does matter. You must believe that torture is sometimes acceptable.

So far we have excruciating pain in the case of saving a life, excruciating humiliation for the cause of truth, and excruciating humiliation because it is deserved. Let's touch on the perception aspect.

For me a trip to the doctor is nothing. Poking and prodding, needles and pricks, and opened backed gowns-all fears long gone after giving birth to my children. However a trip to the doctor is an extremely traumatic experience for my girls. One agonizes for days over the potential pain. (I think she must remember the horrors that were inflicted on her during infanthood-forced immunizations.) She will cry before we even get to the Dr.'s office. The other child fears the humiliation she will feel as the doctor touches and exposes areas that I have taught her for years are hers and hers only. Torture? Not for me, but what about them?

What of the child that must walk through gang-ridden neighborhoods each day to get to school? Torture?

The problem in answering the question is not that we can't define torture. It's very straightforward-look it up. Whether it's the father that is pushed beyond the brink of suicide due to public humiliation, or the child that is forced to undergo procedures that are done in the name of their own safety, there is no way to dispute that many individuals who have done nothing wrong are potentially undergoing some form of torture right now. That is the case if we look at the meaning honestly.

I believe the real problem lies in the intent of torture. The context or intent makes a difference in our determination of acceptablity. How can it not?

If you advocate that torture is never permissible, then you've stripped the equation of context and intent. I suspect you will begin making just as much noise about the government forcing children to receive radical and painful treatments; about congressional leaders making unsubstantiated public accusations; about Bush/Cheney opponents spewing venomous hate; about physicians withholding medications if you don't comply with their methods; and about requiring children to go to school regardless of the daily anguish; as you have about people being water-boarded. (I mean the people that want you dead-not our soldiers.)

For those who believe that torture is sometimes needed or are on the fence-are you sure you know why and understand the implications? Who's more just-the one that says torture is always wrong, regardless of the consequences or the the one that says torture is sometimes permissible, regardless of the consequences? (I caution you to think carefully before using the greater good argument. You know who espouses that doctrine don't you?)

Please tell me on behalf of whose shoes do we ramble on about torture and on what authority do we determine the threshold? Many have chosen to discuss the issue of torture because they find it to be an avenue to bash those who disagree. Many seem to feel very comfortable in the role of activist do-gooder and come across as if they believe they are informed and intelligent. But in fact many just expose their own inability to understand or communicate the implications of torture on our daily lives. What they miss is that this is a moral issue, not a political one. They discredit their position each time they refuse to view the issue through the lens of morality versus the school yard chorus: "we can't do that, they will hate us more". The latter is not a moral reasoning, it's a popularity contest.

What is torture and is it ever acceptable? Who really knows. While I feel comfortable with what Webster says about the meaning, I can't quite find a comfortable posiiton on if/when torture is acceptable. And while I don't know which tactic should be used for what, I do know that torture goes on regularly-among our family and friends. I ask you: To whom should we be more concerened with in regards to torture-family and friends or criminals and terrorists? Is it too much to ask that we quit being politician wannabees and begin to focus on those who wish us no harm?

If you can't see what's going on right in front of you, then you should really refrain from pretending to see what's going on behind another's closed door.