5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 each have responsibility to exercise our right/obligation to participate in the deliberative processes of our democracy. Those who have greater social or political power have even greater moral responsibility to act. The Role of the Church The churches have a very important responsibility to prepare their members to be faithful disciples of Christ who witness in and to the various contexts in which we find ourselves. Church leaders have a critical role in equipping Christians to think and respond biblically in all major areas of life, including the one we are considering here. One aspect of this discipling process is to help congregants prepare for the exercise of their citizenship responsibilities. Evangelicals alone make up one quarter of all voters in the United States. As evangelicals we are keenly aware of the gravity of our responsibility, and many of us have joined in articulating our own public ethical vision in a document released in 2004, and endorsed by all forty-three members of the Board of the National Association of Evangelicals, "For the Health of the Nation." The Role of the State ,,28 The government inevitably plays a central role in a nation's treatment of human beings and respect for human life. Unless human rights are embedded in a nation's constitutional documents, in its legislation, and in fair court procedures, and there is governmental respect for international laws that protect human rights, rights-claims can become mere abstractions that are not implemented in practice. In light of the sinfulness of humanity there is a need for the protection and restraint of laws. Governments should be legally obligated to protect basic human rights. The U.S. It is striking that calls in the 1970s and 1980s for the U.S. to advance global The goal of a nation that advances human rights for all is one that has been articulated by our current president and members of his administration. President George W. Bush has described the United States as being born from a "simple dream of dignity." 29 The 28 "For the Health of the Nation," in Toward an Evangelical Public Policy, ed. Ronald J. Sider and Diane Knippers, 363-375, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 363. 29 Julie A. Mertus, Bait and Switch: Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Routledge, 2004), 57. 5.10 5.11 5.12 American spirit, he has asserted, is "generous and strong and decent, not because we believe in ourselves, but because we hold beliefs beyond ourselves." "31 ,,30 This dream was not lost after 9/11. On October 31, 2001, Lome W. Craner, Assistant ", 32 In light of these appealing words, it is clear to us that the terrorist attacks that jolted the nation in 2001 have blurred our national moral vision. National resolve, normally a virtue, can be misdirected, leading to the violation of human rights when it is allowed to overthrow our better selves. As the founding fathers intended, we have checks and balances within our Constitution's framework where Congress and the courts operate to check the presidency and thereby protect human rights. This is how it should be. Meanwhile, the United Nations Human Rights Charter and the great number of other human rights documents to which America has added its name serve as additional boundary-setters, so that the government does not act rashly or unjustly. The current administration has at times used language that is rich with respect for human rights, even after 9/11. Today this language is less frequently heard, and our actions as a nation do not consistently reflect the values once articulated. Yet there is a structure of national and international principles and laws that can help us to regain our moral footing, and in some ways have already begun to do so. 6. Legal Structures regarding Human Rights "A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.” 6.1 International Law Proverbs 28:16 The Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, and many other treaties 33 33 As of March 18, 2007, parts of section 6 have been amended or revised in order to sharpen the treatment of issues related to international law. 6.2 6.3 With a raging "war on terror,” American policymakers and interrogators have faced the temptation of looking to torture, and to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of their detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and other U.S. detention centers. Torture has often been a temptation (and far too many times a practice) in other countries facing perceived or actual security threats. Despite these abuses, the ban on torture in the Geneva Convention and of the Convention Against Torture is unambiguous. Article 3 of the 3rd Geneva Convention (1949)35 says: 34 34 In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in 1. Persons taking no active part in hostilities, including members of To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time (a) Violence to life and person, in particular, murder of all kinds, (b) Taking of hostages; (c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and (d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without 36 United Nations Convention Against Torture, United Nations Department of Public Record (New York, February 4, 1985). 35 A dispute is still working its way through the judicial system regarding the scope of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. As President Bush has interpreted the treaty text, Common Article 3 applies only to civil wars completely internal to one signatory state. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, volume 126 Supreme Court Reporter page 2749 (2006), the Supreme Court disagreed. Although there are serious arguments on both sides of this issue, in the interest of the most expansive understanding and protection of human rights we support the broader interpretation of Article 3 36 Geneva Convention (III): Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Geneva, 12 August 1949). 6.4 6.5 6.6 38 Article 2 of the UN Convention Against Torture states: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."37 The U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR--1966) states in article 7 that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.' Article 10 of the ICCPR also establishes a particular right to be treated in a humane and dignified manner for accused or detained persons deprived of their personal liberty.59 This code of conduct is further clarified in the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights Civil and Political Rights, Including the Questions of Torture and Detention (2005). Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (CIDT), although falling short of torture, is still completely prohibited along with all forms of torture. "The overriding factor at the core of the prohibition of CIDT is the concept of [the] powerlessness of the victim.” ,,40 International treaties provide no loopholes for justifying torture. The ICCPR treaty says that although "in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation... the State Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, ... no derogation from [article] 7... may be made under this provision.' Likewise, the U.N. Convention Against Torture allows no exceptions for torture whatsoever." 42 9941 The United States is a signatory to all of these international treaties and declarations. We have also historically incorporated their principles into military doctrine. However, these practices have come into question during the last five years. We believe that this has been 37 United Nations Convention Against Torture, United Nations Department of Public Record (New York, February 4, 1985). 38 The United States took a reservation to this provision that says: "[T]he United States considers itself bound by article 7 to the extent that `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel and unusual treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States." Our treaty obligation extends only to degrading treatment that is also "cruel and unusual” and that violates the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendment. 39 Civil and Political Rights, Including the Questions of Torture and Detention, 13. 40 United Nations High Commission on Human Rights, Civil and Political Rights, Including the Questions of Torture and Detention, United Nations Department of Public Record (Geneva, Switzerland, December 23, 2005), 13. 41 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 42 United Nations Convention Against Torture, United Nations Department of Public Record (New York, February 4, 1985). a mistake, and we support a return to full adherence to the straightforward meaning of international conventions against torture. 6.7 6.8 6.9 U.S. Law The United States has often sought to position itself as being on the side of the oppressed, including soldiers imprisoned under unjust or cruel circumstances. The Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment, and congress has also enacted laws unequivocally banning torture.43 During the American Revolution, our soldiers were mistreated by the British. Our nation has worked diligently since then to provide legal protection to any person in the custody of the enemy through laws of war." The Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols of 1977 are the most recent version of this protection." In 1996, the United States adopted the War Crimes Act, which imposed felony criminal liability on persons that commit “grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions." It must be remembered that the United States has historically been a leader in pressing for such safeguards, not just a reluctant signatory. 44 Since human rights first became a prominent issue in the 20th century, the United Nations and the United States have continued to make additions to former agreements, treaties, and statements in order to make them as comprehensive and relevant as possible. This is what a democracy should always be doing. Human rights have always been, and always will be, under attack. However, a democracy works to guard against such violations of human rights through its laws. Its very identity depends upon the confidence that violations of human rights, such as torture, are prohibited. 48 Between 9/11 and January 2006, tens of thousands had been detained in U.S. detention centers.** The vast majority of these detainees were released without charge. It is important to remember that detention policies pertain to persons, most of whom will end up being charged with no crime and being viewed as no threat to our nation. 43 Title 18 of the United States Code section 2340-2340a and Title 42 of the United States Code section 2000dd. 44 David Gushee and Cliff Kirkpatrick, “Rights of Detainees Must Not Be Violated,” Commercial Appeal, (September 27, 2006). 45 The Additional Protocols of 1977 were an opportunity for the U.S. to join the international community in updating the Geneva Conventions. Unfortunately, however, the Reagan administration chose not to do so. 46 Section 2 of the War Crimes Act of 1996, title 18 of the United States Code section 2401. 47 Michael Ignatieff, "Evil Under Interrogation," Financial Times (London, May 15, 2004), accessed at http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/ignatieff_torture_ft_051504.htm. 48 Katherine Shrader, "U.S. Has Detained 83,000 in War on Terror," Associated Press, November 16, 2005, accessed online at www.sunherald.com, 11/25/05. |