Skip to content

GOTT-February 25, 2007

Ten Steps

A couple of days ago, George Hunsinger pasted “Ten Steps to Restore the United States’ Moral Authority: A Common Sense Agenda for the 110th Congress,” from the Human Rights Watch web site, but signed by many other organizations in addition to HRW, into the comments for Steve Bush’s recent post on torture.  To make sure readers of this blog don’t miss these vital suggestions, I’m putting here, in a post of its own, a link to those “Ten Steps,” and the letter that accompanied that list of steps.

For some taste of what’s going on, and why these steps are necessary, this piece in The Guardian makes for some sobering reading.

Update: Now in the comments to this post, Hunsinger draws attention to “Doing God’s Work,” a great blog post by Scott Horton.  While you’re there, you might want to bookmark the whole Balkinization weblog, a home for expert legal analysis of issues important to many readers of this blog.

Posted by Keith DeRose | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/446774/16406244

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ten Steps:

Comments

Bless you, Keith.

Here are excerpts from a very interesting piece by Scott Horton, who likes to describe himself as an “obscure New York lawyer,” but whom many regard as the premiere human rights lawyer in the country

Doing God’s Work
Scott Horton
Balkinization
February 23, 2007

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/02/doing-gods-work.html

Two Hundred Years Ago Today, the Global Campaign for Human Rights Achieved Its First Victory

“As soon as ever I had arrived thus far in my investigation of the slave trade, I confess to you sir, so enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did its wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for the abolition. A trade founded in iniquity, and carried on as this was, must be abolished, let the policy be what it might, – let the consequences be what they would, I from this time determined that I would never rest till I had effected its abolition.”

- William Wilberforce, speech before the House of Commons, May 12, 1789, Hansard vol. 28, col. 68

Today the cause of universal human rights celebrates an important anniversary. On this day two hundred years ago, the Parliament at Westminster voted an act for the abolition of the slave trade. A few decades later, Parliament also voted the manumission of slaves throughout the British Empire. By that time, in the 1830’s, the trafficking in slaves was viewed as a jus cogens crime by legal scholars around the world and the global movement to abolish slavery altogether was well launched. …

… For Wilberforce’s campaign, opposition to torture was the critical element. Given Biblical texts which explicitly or implicitly condoned the Peculiar Institution, it was difficult to frame a theological attack on slavery per se. But torture was another matter. The cruel abuse of a human being held in captivity was accepted by Wilberforce and most of his colleagues as an offense against Divine Law. Consequently the slave trade was thought a far more vulnerable target than slavery itself.

In Wilberforce’s great opening speech of 1789, frequently cited as the most important parliamentary address delivered in that memorable era, he dwelt heavily on the physical conditions of the slave ships: how slaves were stripped naked, bound and shackled, packed into the holds of the ship like sardines in a can, subjected to unbearable fluctuations of heat and cold, given inadequate water and food, deprived of sanitation. In such conditions the slaves screamed in agony, many calling out to be killed to put an end to their misery.

And very many, by some reckonings most, expired in the process. Wilberforce’s contemporaries readily accepted this thesis: that torture could not be permitted, even torture of slaves whose humanity was doubted. It is curious that today, two centuries later, the notion of slavery is a nonstarter, but torture seems to be accepted as fair grounds for debate. There can be no doubt that William Wilberforce would be appalled to make this discovery.

William Wilberforce may be something of an unwanted model for some of today’s human rights advocates. He was an Evangelical Christian and, moreover, a Conservative. He sat for decades as a Tory MP for a Yorkshire constituency in Parliament, and his success comes at least to some extent from his close friendship with William Pitt, the youngest prime minister in Britain’s history.

But these are, I think, among the traits that make Wilberforce such an important figure for us today. He demonstrates the universality of the human rights message and its appeal across partisan and philosophical boundaries. He demonstrates that a political conservative who builds from traditional religious values, who embraces the joys of private property, who advocates a restrained government of limited powers, has every reason to advocate the cause of human rights. He demonstrates that there are and always were compassionate conservatives – men and women who truly earned this label.

But most importantly, Wilberforce reminds us that Evangelical Christianity, in its late 18th and 19th century manifestations, was intensely engaged with the cause of human rights.

… For those who would follow today in the path of William Wilberforce, I have a suggestion: join the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (http://www.nrcat.org). By proclaiming that torture is a moral issue, this organization upholds the traditions and calling of William Wilberforce, and applies them to our generation’s most vital issue. Today we remember Wilberforce and his noble cause. But surely Wilberforce would want to be remembered by action. Oh, be not weary in well-doing.

Posted by: George Hunsinger | February 26, 2007 at 10:11 AM

I hope this recent development won’t be overlooked. Here’s the story as reported by Christianity Today.

NAE Endorses Statement Against Torture
Declaration calls for churches and individuals to act on “non-negotiable” issue.
Sarah Pulliam | posted 3/16/2007 09:33AM

Torture is not an option, says the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), which endorsed a statement against the practice of torture this week.

The newly-formed Evangelicals for Human Rights, comprised of 17 activists and scholars, spent more than six months drafting the 18-page document, “An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture: Protecting Human Rights in an Age of Terror.” The document is intended to be both a moral and theological statement.

“From a Christian perspective, every human life is sacred. As evangelical Christians, recognition of this transcendent moral dignity is non-negotiable in every area of life, including our assessment of public policies,” the statement begins.

The NAE endorsed the document at their annual March 11 meeting, with one dissenting vote.

“Everyone bears an obligation to act in ways that recognize human rights,” the statement says. “Churches must teach their members to think biblically about morally difficult and emotionally intense public issues such as this one. Our own government must honor its constitutional and moral responsibilities to respect and protect human rights.”

Drafters said the statement was motivated by recent accounts of torture, such as the numerous 2004 accounts of abuse and torture of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

“There are some who have misconstrued this as criticism of the United States, but that is clearly not the intent or the character of the document,” NAE interim president Leith Anderson told CT. “The most frequent question I have been asked is, ‘Why did we not do this sooner?'”

NAE vice president for governmental affairs Richard Cizik said he has seen an overseas perception that even evangelical Christian Americans are willing to engage terror by any means necessary.

“We support the war against terror, but not by any means necessary,” Cizik said. “If you don’t think torture is a topic worthy of a statement, just watch 24.” The enormously popular counterterrorism drama depicts American military officials using torture, even though it is illegal.

Although it has not received the same amount of attention, the document is similar to the Evangelical Climate Initiative statement signed by many evangelical leaders in February 2006, said Cizik. “The idea is not to just draft a statement and put it on the shelf.”

“An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture” criticizes provisions of the Military Commissions Act that do not hold intelligence officials to the same standards as the military. It also commends the Pentagon’s recently revised Army Field Manual for clearly banning torture.

“This is not evangelicals versus the government,” said Union University professor David Gushee, one of the statement’s drafters. “We’re saying the Pentagon has it about right. Let’s have all branches play by those rules.”

Gushee says the document is not a political statement but something which can be used as a study tool. “We sort of want to be a clearinghouse for evangelical reflection on this,” he said. “Our dream would be an evangelical consensus, and we are working diligently to build that.”

Institute on Religion and Democracy vice president Jerald Walz criticized the endorsement by saying that those who helped draft the document and those who originally signed it were largely from the evangelical left. “It doesn’t build broad support for the document,” he said. “It makes the document look like a political document used to criticize the administration or the U.S.”

Walz also sees “An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture” as being incomplete, because it only addresses the United States policy on torture. “They need to include countries that are actively torturing. There’s no moral equivalence between the United States and a regime like North Korea,” he said. “To remain silent on that is a travesty.”

However, University of Missouri professor Carl H. Esbeck, who helped draft the document, said it was most important to deal with the United States government before criticizing other nations. “You first get your own house ready before you even have standing to be heard by others,” Esbeck said. “We need to reclaim among the Muslim community our position of strength, our position of integrity.”

Esbeck said the document was framed in order to encourage the United States to act in a way that honors civil rights and the sanctity of human life. “Since the Christian worldview speaks to the totality of reality, this speaks to the reality in which we live.”

Posted by: George Hunsinger | March 18, 2007 at 09:50 AM

Skip to toolbar