With all the news in the USA about interrogations lately, I thought I would write out an in-depth statement and reasoning of my views. Personally, I don’t care who knew what, or when. Those are nothing but political attacks and the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. So let’s start with some definite laws that I was taught during Military Basic Training and that we as Americans should unquestionably uphold: The Geneva Conventions.
Interrogation
Prisoners of war are only obligated to provide names, ranks, date of birth, army, personal or serial identification numbers or equivalent information. (Convention III, Art. 17)
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted. Prisoners who refuse to answer questions may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. (Convention III, Art. 17)
So there it is, plain as day. However, the legal rub is that in order to qualify as a “prisoner of war” an individual must first be classified as a combatant.
Combatant Status
Convention I defines combatants as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)
However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)
The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3).
A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)
Are the people we commonly call terrorists considered combatants or mercenaries? Further definition of “mercenary” is needed.
Mercenaries
A mercenary is any person who is specially recruited in order to fight in an armed conflict, who takes a direct part in the hostilities, who is motivated by money and is promised substantially higher pay than that paid to other combatants of similar rank, who is not a national of one of the countries involved in the conflict nor a resident of a territory controlled by any of the parties, is not a member of the armed forces of any of the parties, and who has not been sent by another country on official duty as a member of its armed forces. (Protocol I, Art. 47)
I imagine that those who make the decisions in the military define terrorists as mercenaries and thus afforded no protections under the Geneva Conventions. The more you look into the wording of certain parts of the Geneva Conventions, the more of a gray area it seems; a case could be made for either stance. I’ve only provided examples of one side here.
However, because of the nature of the War on Terrorism, my view (with the understanding that I have no knowledge of the nature of the prisoners’ capture) tends to lean towards them being closer to mercenaries. With that being said, do I agree that torture is okay, depending on the situation? Absolutely not. Do I think “waterboarding” is torture? Yes, I do. (I have lots of reason to think so, but I won't go into them at the moment.) Even if an individual may not legally fall under the protections of the Geneva Conventions, I truly believe all captured “terrorists” should be treated as prisoners of war, and thus protected as combatants. The ends do not (and have never) justified the means.
There must be an understanding that there are higher laws than man’s. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical. We are all children of God (the good and the evil among us) and should be treated as such. Just because an enemy doesn’t extend to our soldiers the same respect doesn’t make it okay for us. We need to set the example and follow the moral laws we claim to hold so dear. To do otherwise makes us seem like immature kids who whine about having to keep their rooms clean because Billy’s mom doesn’t make him clean his room.
So what is this higher, moral law? Quite simply, it is summed up thus: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. The Golden Rule. Many religions around the world have a similar phraseology:
- Judaism – “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary” (Talmud, Shabbat, 31a)
- Buddhism – “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful” (Udana-Varga, 5, 18)
- Confucianism – “Surely it is the maxim of living-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you” (Analects, 15, 23)
- Islam – “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself” (Sunnah)
Am I preaching complete pacifism? Not really. As a youth and young man, I had no problem with the thought of taking another person’s life to defend my life or that of a member of my family. I felt I had every right to proclaim a person’s life forfeit in such a situation. As a man rapidly approaching middle age, my views have altered somewhat. I have a greater understanding and appreciation of what I’ve heard called “an Eternal Perspective.”
A few years ago, I sat down with my scriptures to see if I could reason out my views of self-defense and general warfare and to find what scriptural support there was for such actions. Although I didn’t write it down at the time, I remember the general starting points and, with help from the footnotes in my scriptures, I can fairly accurately retrace my steps.
The first person I looked to was a hero of mine from the Book of Mormon: Captain Moroni, described thus:
And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his bretheren from bondage and slavery;
Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood. (Alma 48:11, 13)
Immediately following that is this:
Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives. (Alma 48:14)
It would be a very simple thing to stop there and think my question answered. It is even backed up by a footnote by the phrase “never to give offense” with several scripture references, the first of which leads to:
And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion. (Alma 43:47)
Again, more support for self-defense. The second scripture reference is 3 Nephi 3:20-21, which (perhaps having some modern application) talks about a chief captain wanting to go after a large band of robbers in the wilderness but was counseled to prepare defenses instead and wait for the enemy to come to them. From that, there are several footnotes that lead to a very apparent principle that warfare should be fairly defensive. There are plenty of examples of the “good guys” pressing an attack, but those were individual battle and not the war as a whole. A pre-emptive strike just because the “bad guys” are out there and might hurt you “someday” just isn’t supported.
Fair enough. I can accept that. However, something in the back of my head seemed to tell me that something was missing. I went back to Alma 43:47 and read the preceding verse, specifically the last part:
Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies. (Alma 43:46)
First offense? Second offense? Seemed to support the “defensive warfare” model that was developing in my mind. One of the footnotes in that second leads to something Jesus taught:
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid him not to take thy coat also. (Luke 6:29)
Wait…what? We seemed to have switched gears because Christ is giving a pretty strong teaching of pacifism here. On reflection, though, it makes sense. Be “not guilty of the first offense, neither the second.” Further enlightenment comes from yet another footnote reference:
Now, I speak unto you concerning your families – if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.
And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold.
(skip ahead a few verses)
And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for they righteousness; and also they children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought they life, and they life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou are justified. (D&C 98:23-25, 31)
It goes on with some very interesting verses on how the Lord fights His peoples’ battles. However, in light of this discussion, I come away with the following:
- We are justified in defending our families and our liberties unto the shedding of blood
- The higher way Jesus would have us take is to patiently bear the afflictions given by our enemies
- If we continue to “turn the other cheek,” we will be greatly blessed
What would I do if my family were under attack? Honestly, I don’t know. To paraphrase an old saying, I may not start a fight, but I am justified in ending it. I've told my wife often enough that I hope no one ever hurts her or one of our kids, because I'd hate to go to jail for killing someone. A lot of times, I think I meant it - but I don't truthfully know how I would react.
From what I’ve read, it seems this same principle applies to nations as well as individuals. When it comes to war, Carl von Clausewitz calls war the “continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means” (On War, pg 87). I’m not entirely sure I agree with that. Should warfare be started just because someone doesn’t do what you want? If that nation attacked first, then by all means we are justified in doing everything in our power to protect ourselves. But there is a distinct line there – protecting our freedom versus removing the threat of attack. Again, pre-emptive strikes are just not in the program.
Many today claim war is nothing but an economic vehicle for enriching one group of people over another, or that the strong have a right to whatever the weak cannot hold. Of course I reject that completely; but what if an enemy takes control of some economic base (a commodity or property) that we as a nation feel is “ours” even if it doesn’t affect our life or liberty? Do we fight to get it back? The current war on terror seems to be a too much of a war of retaliation. Someone has done us wrong and we are going to make them pay. We are going to hunt down every threat to our people and eliminate it before they can hurt us again. It seems to fall too far outside of the bounds of a “defensive war” for my comfort. I feel we would be better served by following the council found in 3 Nephi 3:20-21 as mentioned above.
(Quick tangent: Speaking of economics and war, I’ve heard it said that war is good for the economy – after all, it got America out of the Great Depression, didn’t it? Well, one of my favorite authors, Frederic Bastiat, wrote an essay in 1850 called That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen, which, in addition to his book The Law, should be required reading for anyone in politics. Bastiat’s essay deals with the hidden costs associated with the destruction of the property of others. Read up on the Parable of the Broken Window; it’s good stuff.)
I think a lot of warfare has to do with Pride (with a capital “P”). Too many people (of all political persuasions) have become incapable of turning the other cheek out of pride or fear of looking weak. Humility and meekness are seen as faults and not virtues as they one were. The consequences of pride in the scriptures are clear: “Pride goeth before destruction” (Proverbs 16:18). It destroyed the Nephite nation and the city of Sodom. Saul became an enemy to David because of pride. It was because of pride that Jesus was crucified. It is because of pride that too many of our men and women have already lost their lives (and I'm not talking about just those in the military). And it is because of pride that I am now watching the leaders of my country slowly (or quickly as the case may be) tear at the very foundation of our society.
Well, this has gone on much longer than I expected. Still, I'm glad I finally took the time to write all this out. I think if more of our politicians would sit down and write out what they believed (if anything) and why they believed it (other than to get votes), we might be in a better position than we are now.
There is an old Chinese saying: "Unless we change our direction we're headed, we'll end up where we're going." Amen, brother. Amen.
