In the flood of email from people identifying themselves as Christians, and accusing me of being “pro-torture” I find a recurrent set of problems. First, of course, I am not “pro-torture”. The accusation is false and driven by a public confused by media propaganda.
I am in favor of corporal punishment for offenders convicted by military tribunal of capital crimes if, in the judgment of the authorities, doing so would save lives.
Because people have been taught not to think by the public schools and the media, they seem to have great difficulty understanding that position. But if you take me at my word (you really have no reason not to) and think it through, you will see that the position is quite just, doesn’t favor “torture”, and saves lives.
But here are the typical problems I find, with letter writers’ positions:
1) You [the objecting letter writer] have not separated corporal punishment from torture. They are different.
2) You have not separated individual obligation to Jesus for the believer, from national obligation to Biblical law for a state. They are different.
3) You have not recognized the sovereign right of a (example: tribunal) judge to order punishment according to crime. He has that right from God, regardless of anyone’s emotions.
4) You have not recognized that terrorism (capital genocide) is an offense punishable by execution if convicted.
5) You do not recognize that in war, it is absurd to bring every enemy combatant into the civilian court system. This has never been done in history and is a ridiculous proposition. The civilian court system is for citizen criminals, not terrorist enemy saboteurs committed to overthrowing the regime through mass-casualty assaults.
6) You do not realize that citizen due process is a constitutionally established right, and inalienable right to life is stated as a God given right in the Declaration of Independence. These two are distinct types of rights, secured by different orders. A terrorist is trying to overthrow the order of the constitution. A criminal is not.
7) I am tired of answering all the email, so just blog posts on this topic from now on.
Physical punishment meted out to a convicted capital prisoner, by a judge with rightful authority, is an activity of the state, and a punishment less than deserved.
The state, and agents thereof, do not have the same obligations before God as the individual does. Does the individual have the right to kill the evil doer as he sees fit? No. Does the state? Yes. That is Biblical and you keep getting stuck on that issue. Further, then, does the judge have the right (Biblically) to extend just beatings to a prisoner (yes). Does the judge have the right to hand down a just sentence in accord with the crime (yes). Does the judge have the right to lessen the sentence, in exchange for the prisoner partially repenting of killing innocent people (i.e. offering information which prevents further death) (yes). Therefore, if the (military tribunal) judge decides that beating a prisoner, in exchange for information from that prisoner, is an acceptable reduction of sentence from capital to corporal-plus-plea-bargain, the judge has that power from God. It is entirely Biblical.
All these people defending the terrorists and trying to protect mass murderers from corporal punishment are unjust. And God will rebuke them.
If you make these cognitive/logical distinctions, it is easy to reason your way to a judge applying corporal punishment to a convicted capital offender, as a plea bargain in exchange for information which saves lives.
In the end, that’s what military tribunals, corporal punishment for terrorists, and firing squads for terrorists do.
They save innocent lives by punishing the guilty.
And when you follow God’s rule, that’s the good you achieve.
And that’s what its all about.
