Torture: An "attack on the image of God"

The global debate prompted by the release of  memos describing U.S.-government directed torture of terrorist suspects can be approached from a number of angles, but I find this statement by Russell E. "Saltzman in First Things worth a read. 

Saltzman identifies himself as a "pastor," with no special expertise regarding interrogations, and as an American who still recalls the horror of 9/11.  What he says is simple and to the point:

"I’ve been trying, like many Americas, to think this thing through. There is the altogether practical question: Did torture help us? Did it make America safer? Was the information really good, helpful, in thwarting terrorists? Did it actually in fact spoil pending plots? Frankly, the evidence is mixed.

"But I really don’t care. Whether torture “worked” or not as an interrogative tactic is far from the main question. I’m a pastor. I think as a pastor, which is to say as a parish theologian. I don’t care if these guys shrieked like little girls on the playground and blubbered out plots for everything from the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre to knocking over Bagdad candy stores as juvenile delinquents. Torture is morally wrong. It is morally wrong, theologically speaking, because it is an attack upon the imago Dei, upon the image of God inherent to every human life."

At the Witherspoon Institute's Public Discourse,Christopher O. Tollefsen, Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Carolina, and co-author, with Robert Geroge  Embryo: A Defense of Human Life,  offers a complimentary position that provides another angle on the morality of torture: whether it is licit to intend what we call "torture":

"It is important to be clear, as a moral matter, on what boundaries should be accepted in interrogation of human beings. These sorts of boundaries, regardless of whether they are called torture, or “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, are the ones that matter for our most basic assessment of how agents of the United States Government should comport themselves when questioning terror suspects. The discussion should not, that is to say, begin with questions about how the nature of the terrorists’ crimes, or their status as illegal enemy combatants, affects what may be done. For, if there are forms of treatment forbidden as such for all human beings, then such forms of treatment will be ruled out for terror suspects just as for prisoners of war, and common criminals. 

"I begin with the following normative claim: human life and health is an intrinsic, and indeed, a basic, human good. That is to say, life and health constitute a fundamental aspect of human well-being; the possibility of the promotion of either provides not just a possibility but an opportunity, an offer of benefit. And the possibility of damage or destruction of either provides not just a possibility, but an evil to be avoided and, insofar as such damage or destruction is willed, a wrong not to be done. The normative principle that can be drawn from this practical truth is that in willing, one should never intend the damage or destruction of the life or health of another human being."

The U.S. Bishops have also issued a number of similar statements regarding the immorality of torture, and have joined with other religious and political groups to press for a formal repudiation of the use of torture by the U.S. government. Last year, when opponents of torture sought to ban its use by U.S. intelligence agencies, Cardinal Francis George, President of the USCCB, wrote President Bush: urging him to sign the FY 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act. In his letter to the president, Cardinal George referenced Pope Benedict XVI 2007 statement: "I reiterate that the prohibition against torture cannot be contravened under any circumstances."  

Finally, Pat Buchanan in Human Events tries his hand at presenting both sides of the debate, but essentially comes down against torture. He also offers a bit more political context. Here's his final salvo: 

"Certainly, Cheney and Bush, who make no apologies for what they authorized to keep America safe for seven and a half years, should be held to account. But so, too, should Barack Obama, if U.S. citizens die in a terror attack the CIA might have prevented, had its interrogators not been tied to an Army Field Manual written for dealing with soldiers, not al-Qaida killers who favor "soft targets" such as subways, airliners and office buildings."

Postscript: On National Review's blog, The Corner, Jim Manzi makes the excellent point that the use of torture is a  losing proposition, if consider what nations in the world embrace torture. This second post on NRO reflects the general frustration of many anti-torture Americans have with the "it doesn't work" arguments employed to oppose the use of torture.

Just read an excellent and pithy statement regarding the morality of torture on Plumb Lines.

Finally, Time Magazine provides the four, so-called "torture memos" on its site.

Update: Here's my recent article, "Torture Memos: What the Church Teaches," in the National Catholic Register. I also want to include a passage on torture and terrorism in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.