Treatment of Detainees

Most of the public debate regarding the treatment of detainees in the effort to combat terrorism has emphasized the advantages or disadvantages of granting those detainees the protections of the Geneva Convention. Advocates of euphemistically termed “coercive interrogation measures” point to useful, life-saving information allegedly obtained utilizing those techniques. Opponents of those techniques, often referring to the same techniques as forms of torture, note that using those techniques jeopardizes the well-being of any U.S. military personnel who may in the future be enemy prisoners of war.

Both arguments are flawed. Information obtained under duress is notoriously unreliable. The cost of futile, wild goose chases can easily exceed the benefits of helpful information. Many enemies, terrorists and others, have already chosen to ignore the Geneva Conventions.

However, the basic problem with both arguments is they focus on the costs and benefits of using or not using “coercive interrogation measures.” Christians rightly reject this approach to ethics, known as utilitarianism. The premise of utilitarianism is that the end justifies the means. In this case, the laudable end of protecting U.S. national security supposedly justifies the means of obtaining vital information through techniques repugnant to most Americans, prohibited by international law, and un-Constitutional if used on U.S. citizens.

The legal and Constitutional prohibitions against those techniques rely on a second approach to ethics, rules. As Christians, our rule book is the Bible as understood through prayer, reason, and tradition. The Baptismal covenant in the Book of Common Prayer neatly summarizes Scriptural teaching on how we are to treat others:
Celebrant: Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
People: I will, with God's help.
Celebrant: Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People: I will, with God's help.
Loving one’s neighbor and respecting the dignity of every human being for the faithful Christian excludes coercive interrogation methods. The accused and the guilty remain God's children, persons for whom the Christ died, just like each of us. Utilitarianism, by itself, sets no moral floor below which potential deeds, no matter how alluringly attractive, are off limits. The promise of helpful information does not justify an un-Christian xenophobia.

Other Christians find their ethical compass in the question, What would Jesus do? This approach to ethics, also known as virtue ethics, seeks to model one’s behavior on the patterns set by a moral exemplar. Would Jesus torture or use coercive interrogation techniques on someone, no matter how terrible that person might be? Would Jesus use those techniques to avoid horrendous evil? Answering either question in the affirmative stretches one’s credibility to the breaking point. Jesus brought healing to multitudes and consistently overcame evil.

None of us has Jesus’ power. Yet the paradox of the gospel that causes the wise to scorn Christianity as foolishness is the Gospel’s demand that we walk in Jesus’ footsteps without any assurance that no evil lies ahead. Succumbing to temptation and deviating from following in Jesus’ footsteps, we admit that fear has overwhelmed us, trust fails us, and we desperately seek assistance.

Terrorists win when they make us so fearful that we compromise our moral identity and standards. Abandoning the moral high ground, we become no better than our enemies. We achieve real victory over the forces of evil only by walking in the footsteps of the one whose name we bear, the one who not only died on a cross but who also rose victorious from death’s grasp.

The evil of terrorism has no simple solution. Moral compromises that appear to offer simple solutions are insidious intrusions of evil masquerading as good. Christians can contribute to the ongoing public discourse about the treatment of detainees by boldly denouncing those moral compromises. Only by insisting on maintaining our moral integrity do we have any real hope for ending terrorism and for establishing genuine, secure peace.