home

225 Religious Groups Call on Gonzales to Oppose Torture

In an open letter to Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales, 225 religous leaders from a variety of faiths have joined together to demand that Gonzales denounce all torture. The signers represent Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh leaders from across the United States. Also represented are Latino religious leaders, some of whom are evangelical Christians, like Gonzales. The letter will be released at a press conference today. Here's some of the letter:

As a self-professed evangelical Christian, you surely know that all people are created in the image of God. You see it as a moral imperative to treat each human being with reverence and dignity. We invite you to affirm with us that we are all are made in the image of God – every human being. We invite you to acknowledge that no legal category created by mere mortals can revoke that status. You understand that torture – the deliberate effort to undermine human dignity – is a grave sin and affront to God. You would not deny that the systemic use of torture on prisoners at Abu Ghraib was fundamentally immoral, as is the deliberate rendering of any detainee to authorities likely to commit torture.

We urge you to declare that any attempt to undermine international standards on torture, renditions, or habeas corpus is not only wrong but sinful. We are concerned that as White House counsel you have shown a troubling disregard for international laws against torture, for the legal rights of suspected "enemy combatants," and for the adverse consequences your decisions have had at home and abroad.

Here's what they want Gonzales to renounce:

• To denounce the use of torture under any circumstances;

• To affirm, with the Supreme Court, that it is unconstitutional to imprison anyone designated as an "enemy combatant" for months without access to lawyers or the right to challenge their detentions in court;

• To affirm the binding legality of the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war;

• And to reject the practice of "extraordinary rendition," at home and abroad, by which terrorist suspects are sent to countries that practice torture for interrogation.

The letter campaign was initiated by Church Folks for a Better America and its organizer, Dr. George Hunsinger, Professor of Systemic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, who happens to be a long-time reader and commenter at TalkLeft.

< No Way Off the No-Fly List | Decision Time on Juvenile Offender Death Penalty >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    They want Abu Gonzalez to renounce himself: lots of luck!

    Renouncing something is a meaningless gesture. He should be rejected by congress as a valid choice for attorney general, plain and simple.

    Opposing torture...what a quaint idea. I have a better idea: I suggest that his confirmation hearing consist of him being raped with a broom handle while being asked what his involvement was with the excesses of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

    Re: 225 Religious Groups Call on Gonzales to Oppos (none / 0) (#4)
    by john horse on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 03:31:58 AM EST
    Don't they know that the new post-9/11 paradigm renders obsolete the Bible's "strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions"?

    As christians they have to give him at least the chance to repent of his sin... not that he will. And when he doesn't they can in all conscience agitate vociferously against him.

    There are elements of conscience to be considered in dealing with Gonzales and the Bush administration in general. I suspect (and hope) that much of the mainstream Christian community is represented by this stand. I don't think there is anything that Gonzales could say now that would make me think he should be AG or even a practicing attorney, but I appreciate this approach - to see if he will answer frankly about where he stands on torture. Sometimes when we are forced to speak, our hearts may become known to us. Redemption is always a possibility in my world view.

    Re: 225 Religious Groups Call on Gonzales to Oppos (none / 0) (#7)
    by wishful on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 06:43:31 AM EST
    Evangelical Christians against torture! They must have found Jesus or something.

    "You understand that torture – the deliberate effort to undermine human dignity – is a grave sin and affront to God." I'll give you the last part about torture being an affront to God, but as for your definition or torture....sorry, but you don't get to redefine words to suite your situational ethics. Webster's defines torture as "the intentional application of severe pain." If you expect to be taken seriously by anyone other than your peace, love and drugs type that frequent this place, you should invest in a good dictionary and use it occassionally. The deliberate effort to undermine human dignity is what you coincidentally do when you insult people by using words that don't have anything to do with what your describing.

    Can we expect a similar announcement the next time a large number of religious organizations join together to denounce a liberal position or demand a statement from a liberal leader?

    dagma, if you want to be taken seriously you should refrain from using gross generalizations to describe the people who frequent this site. btw, according to webster's dictionary, liberalism is;
    1: the quality or state of being liberal a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party


    Re: 225 Religious Groups Call on Gonzales to Oppos (none / 0) (#11)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:18:16 AM EST
    kelite- I would like to bring the second definition to your attention. Interesting, modern liberals still haven’t co-opted Webster’s.

    I have received the "Declaration against Torture" from both MoveOn.org and other organizations. I have signed the petition; however, in doing so, I also added these comments opposing the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as U.S. Attorney General:
    The U.S. Government and all its employees must respect and uphold all the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the United States of America is a signatory. But the U.S., as directed and indeed advocated by President Bush's current nominee for Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, has been in violation of those provisions and in violation of the Geneva Conventions, which, taken together, prohibit torture and mistreatment of prisoners of war and detainees and political prisoners. Whether or not he signs this "Declaration against Torture," I believe that nominee Alberto Gonzales is unfit for the high office in the Department of Justice for which he has been nominated and that the U.S. Senate should not confirm him. He is not suitable to hold the office of Attorney General of the United States of America. In fact, I believe that his offenses are so in violation of international law that he should be disbarred from practicing law now and in the future. In his official capacity as a government-employed lawyer, he has personally directed and advocated inhumane practices already prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He serves as no model of justice. Therefore, I believe that it is hypocritical of the members of the U.S. Senate to support his nomination in any way. My own signing of this petition does not constitute my support for Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General in any way. This petition should not be presented as a means to enable the Senate to confirm his nomination as Attorney General, the highest law officer of the United States of America. Confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as U.S. Attorney General can be construed as adding further insult and offense to all those who have suffered unspeakable pain due to his officially-expressed rationalizations and advocations of torture and abuse of detainees, which have, in some cases, resulted in long-lasting physical and psychic injury or even death. The U.S. Senate must block his appointment to this high office. To do otherwise will send a message that the U.S. does not stand by its principles and that its signature to international treaties and conventions is meaningless. That is unacceptable.


    Look, anyone who works directly for the federal government starts his career by swearing to uphold the US Constitiution. It's the most basic duty of federal employment. Or American citizenship, for that matter. Gonzalez? Like the rest of this administration, he's been wiping his @ss with it ever since the 9/11 terrorists did Bush the big favor. (Ten bucks says Bush has never even read the Constitution.) That the Repubs will go to the effort to get him confirmed only shows how debased they are as Americans.

    pigiwggle, i absolutely see the second definition and, as a liberal, admit to being generally okay with this definition. i was trying to point out that i don't think it means what a lot of people think it does.

    Here's the link to the related "Renounce Torture": "Declaration against Torture" page/petition being directed to the U.S. Senate from MoveOn.org and to which I refer in my previous post in this thread.

    Thanks for the posting the definition, Kelite, it should serve to remind everyone around here exactly what I have been saying. If you want to call yourselves liberals those are the principles you have to stick to, otherwise your just another left wing, nut case. BTW, Kelite, the last thing I expect you to do is to take me or common sense seriously.

    Act for Change (Working Assets--organization founded by Ben Cohen [of Ben & Jerry's]) with "Declaration against Torture" petition (received via e-mail and also from Finger Lakers for Peace, my local peace activist organization, in Geneva, NY). This is clearly a coordinated effort supported and promoted by several of the same organizations opposing the U.S.-led Coalition invasion of and (ongoing) war in Iraq, which I have consistently supported and to whose mailing lists I subscribe, which is why I am receiving multiple mailings of this petition from them. As stated in my earlier post above, I support the petition with the caveat stated in my comments sent via MoveOn.org's version of the petition; namely, that Alberto Gonzales does not deserve to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as Attorney General. Confirming this nominee should be anathema to those who believe in human justice. Short of "politics as usual," I just don't understand how any U.S. Senator, whether a conservative Republican or a progressive Democrat can, ethically (or morally)--"in good conscience"-- consider confirming him. So much for the so-called "moral values" of the United States of America on which the so-called (anachronistically) "moral majority" re-elected President Bush. Could there be a greater irony? In terms that they might comprehend: In the Global War on Terror, are we reaping and will we continue reaping what we sow? ("We have met the enemy and he is us." [Pogo, in Walt Kelly's 1971 Earth Day comic strip.]) They should all be ashamed.

    Dagma please explain how "the intentional application of severe pain" or a more complete definition: Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony. Something causing severe pain or anguish, doesn't equate to "the deliberate effort to undermine human dignity"? I would argue that one way to undermine Human dignity is to torture a Human, or as you define it to intentionally inflict severe pain.

    'Rendering' is of course the stripping of meat and fat off carcasses. In the case of the wingers, these are blood offerings to their god. I'm pretty sure 'Al' Gonzales is on the side of the butchers on this one. He wrote down exactly what he thought, just like Mengele--nobody held a gun to his head. He just kept thinking of that new swimming pool, and the Fuhrer's beaming face. --

    I posted in the other thread re: Gonzales' nomination: people opposing this nomination need to call their Senators directly: you can find the phone numbers and other contact information here. This is not time for complacency or cowardice. If our Senators are too timid to face up to this challenge, a great public outcry is needed to shame them into doing their jobs to protect our civil and human rights (and those of the rest of the world's inhabitants). Gonzales' attitude toward the civil and human rights of those in prisons and detention centers in Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo bespeaks his overall attitude toward the rights of the rest of us too (e.g., remember the Patriot Acts). His memoranda should not be ignored. He has made and will continue to make us all into Nazis in the eyes of the rest of the world, and even in our own eyes. We have been forewarned. What happens next is our own responsibility. In that sense too, "we are all Berliners." (Extending the argument here: We are all prisoners of war. Would it were not so.)

    Re: 225 Religious Groups Call on Gonzales to Oppos (none / 0) (#21)
    by john horse on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 06:14:05 PM EST
    Susan, Couldn't agree with you more. Let us not forget that Gonzalez is being nominated to head the department of "justice". My idea of "justice" is someone who opposes torture instead of using his influence to help authorize it.

    Re: 225 Religious Groups Call on Gonzales to Oppos (none / 0) (#22)
    by BigTex on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 12:06:13 AM EST
    While I'm generally opposed t' torture, isn't totally forsakin' torture an unwise idea? Some people can't be broken any other way. They have no love fer money, no fear o' death; but twist th' thumb screws tight enough and they'll say what is asked o' them t' stop th' pain. While torture should be used only in th' most dire o' situations, if there was a rattler who planted a nuke in downtown, anycity USA, and wouldn't talk otherwise we should, as a nation, be allowed t' torture him t' get th' information t' save th' innocents who will perish in th' blast. This is an ugly world, and while we should keep ourselves above th' frey, we also shouldn't keep ourselves from bein' able t' participate in it when th' fight is brought t' us.

    While I'm generally opposed t' torture, isn't totally forsakin' torture an unwise idea? No, it's a wise idea. Some people can't be broken any other way. They have no love fer money, no fear o' death; but twist th' thumb screws tight enough and they'll say what is asked o' them t' stop th' pain. Exactly. What is asked of them. They won't be truthful or accurate or informative: but they'll say what their interrogator wants to hear to stop the pain. While torture should be used only in th' most dire o' situations, if there was a rattler who planted a nuke in downtown, anycity USA, and wouldn't talk otherwise we should, as a nation, be allowed t' torture him t' get th' information t' save th' innocents who will perish in th' blast. So, let's suppose there is someone who the police suspect has planted a nuke in a city - or who has even confessed to planting a nuke, but won't say where. What is the point of wasting time extracting inaccurate information from this person when the resources could be better spent actually finding the nuke and saving lives, than torturing someone who (a) may not be able to give reliable information (b) certainly won't if tortured.

    Hey, Big Tex. As a person actually born in the Lone Star State and a Longhorn alumni, I sometimes wonder about your tex credentials. You talk the talk. Tell me more. And while you are at it, tell me where in our country's laws and regulations you think there is any current foundation for torturing suspects under any scenario. I don't think you are going to find the foundation. So, unless you watch too many Dirty Harry movies and believe they represent reality, I don't know where you get your sense that torture could be forsaken. It's already outside the pale. I suspect the way our justice and law enforcement systems work is more like Serpico and Justice for All - two Pacino movies - than the Dirty Harry scenarios.

    they'll say what is asked o' them t' stop th' pain. big tex, i'm not sure it was intentional, but you just pointed out the biggest problem with torture. they'll say whatever you ask them to in order to stop the pain. i have made the case before for torture in certain circumstances, but i seriously had the hair on the back of my neck stand up when i read that phrase. yes, they will say whatever you want to hear in order to make the pain stop. and that doesn't help anyone.