There's been a lot of press these last few years about torture being used by the U.S. against prisoners in the "War against Terror". Most definitions of torture define in terms of physical or mental pain, usually inflicted to extract information or for the pleasure of it. I don't care to debate the definition--it's not terribly important--but I am interested in discussing the morality of torture.

The Bible is replete with examples of justified beatings, whippings, and worse. In these cases, justification is found because the recipient of the pain is a bad guy, usually receiving the beatings as punishment or to beat the evil out of him, so to speak. Does this mean torturing a bad guy for information is moral? He's a bad guy, after all. What if it's not yet known if he's a bad guy, and the torture is used to elicit a confession (or not)? It's well documented that torture can indeed elicit confessions, even from the innocent, so it would seem this is not justified.

Is imprisonment torture? Sure. It obviously causes harm mentally, and often physically, too. Of course, it also often causes harm to those other than the punished, though (e.g., loved ones). Usually imprisonment is a punishment for a crime, but it's also used prior to determining guilt and in the charge "contempt of court". If someone refuses to give up information to a judge and is imprisoned for it, how is this any different than torture (by most any common definition)?

Government is force. Force is essentially torture, though not always for the extraction of information (could be for money, land, power, punishment, revenge, pleasure, etc.). Most of what government does then, either carries torture or the threat of it.

All this press about torture is a ruse, a distraction from the real meat of the matter. Torture is like so many other things, neither good nor evil in itself. The word carries negative connotations, but these must be set aside when examining the essence of it. Biblically speaking, causing others harm is a no-no, unless the recipient of the harm is a bad guy and the harm is commensurate to his practiced evil. Torturing terrorists for information would seem be kosher, then. Holding a newsman in "contempt of court" for not giving up his source or doing the same to someone taking the Fifth would seem to be immoral. The common interrogation techniques used by police to extract confessions are immoral, as guilt or innocence has not yet been determined.

Another facet completely overlooked by the public "debate" on torture: when men do evil, they surrender certain of their God-given rights, up to and including their right to life, let alone their right to avoid punishment, pain, or imprisonment. If a known terrorist is caught, he has no rights against being tortured. Being a terrorist, he surrendered that right.

The key, then, is the definition or process or discerning "known". How is someone labeled as a bad guy? U.S. law has made this process rather involved, and it really doesn't work as well as it should. It can be reasonably argued, though, that this process only applies to U.S. citizens and legal residents, as these have lawfully chosen to submit to U.S. law. International law would determine the process for discern bad guys from good guys, if any apply. (I think it's foolish to sign such treaties--the basis of international law insofar as the U.S. is concerned--because they introduce unfortunate entanglement, often running contrary to U.S. interests. They are often unconstitutional, too.) Lacking an internationally legal process for discerning bad guys, one must fall back to Natural Law. Natural Law must be the basis for U.S. or international law, anyway, else they're immoral and therefore nullified.

Natural Law is, in its essence, the Law of God. Biblical Law, the Law of God, provides a means of such discernment: two or three witnesses. Some have argued that these witnesses need not be people (e.g., circumstantial evidence). I think we should tread lightly if all the witnesses are impersonal, though; perhaps they must be irrefutable evidences (i.e., no other explanation). In theory, U.S. law adds to Natural Law, increasing the burden of proof upon the prosecution, in order to assure no innocent man is convicted--and so it is morally acceptable (in theory).

Two or three witnesses, or optionally additional burdens of proof, and a man may be judged guilty of sin. Once guilty, commensurate torture as punishment is moral. Otherwise, it's immoral.

On a related topic, I recommend all Christians resign themselves to the potential for unrighteous torture against believers. This is a present reality for many believers today; for the rest of us, this time is coming--soon, I think. Remember that our salvation is not with this world, but it is assured. Nothing that evil men can do to us matters in the scope of eternity with our beloved Maker.