Threats to Freedom

Free people are not having an easy time in the world today nor are we likely to in the decades ahead ... We exist as a free people because we remain strong, because we have had the courage to defend liberty and deter those who would deny it, and because while we seek friendly relations with other nations -- we remain prepared against threats to our liberty.

The greatest threat to freedom in the years ahead will almost certainly come from the Soviet Union, a nation which does not share our dedication to personal liberty and the God-given rights of man -- a nation which possesses substantial military power and has shown an inclination to use that power to the detriment of the freedom of others (Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, at the Naval Academy graduation, June 2, 1976).

The history of the Soviet Union is appalling. The invasions of Czechoslovakia and Hungary, the gulag archipelago, the repression of Catholics and Baptists, the seizure of eastern Europe, the restrictions on Jewish emigration -- such horrors justify Rumsfeld’s distress with Russia. No country in history, including Hitler’s Germany, has perpetrated so many horrors.

But what about the U.S.’s “dedication to personal liberty and the God-given rights of man”? Most Americans believe our dedication to liberty is absolute. But the facts support another conclusion.

The index of our dedication to freedom is our choice of allies in the third world. In South Vietnam we propped up a series of governments which everyone admits used torture extensively. Of the various forms of torture used there, beating was the most common. “It is generally done with wooden sticks or clubs. The blows are applied to the back and the bony parts of the legs, to the hands and, in a particularly painful form, to the elevated soles of the feet when the body is in a prone position. Beating of the genital also occurs. A particularly damaging form of beating is the immersion of prisoners in tanks of water. The tanks are then beaten with sticks on the outside. The resulting reverberations, while leaving no marks, can cause severe internal injury” (Amnesty International’s Report on Torture, p. 167).

The story of Chile is equally telling. Chile rejoined the free world when the army overthrew Allende. This was after massive U.S. aid to the military, CIA funds to destabilize the economy (by encouraging strikes, for example), and a cutoff of U.S. economic aid. The U.S. immediately recognized the new government, which executed thousands and still holds at least 4,000 political prisoners and systematically practices torture.

“When they interrogated [Victor Munoz], they made him strip naked and then placed him on a bedspring, tied his hands and feet with cloth, and began to apply electric current to his ears, testicles, tongue, chest, stomach, legs, and the soles of his feet. Once they had finished with the electrical treatments, they forced a liquid into his mouth that seared it, and then they placed an iron bar in his anus ... These interrogations are repeated several times a day” (Report, 255).

"Luz Ayress’ only crime was that her father reported some things to the police -- thugs who turned out to be police. She was, “chained, beaten insensate, given shock, hung upside down, cut with knives and razors, sexually assaulted, caged with spiders and frightened mice which clawed her and were forced up her vagina, was compelled to witness the torture of her father and brother ..." (Report, p. 266).

Secretary Kissinger and Secretary Simon have begun to apply pressure on Chile for the release of a few hundred prisoners. For this we should be thankful, but (as they well know) the situation is no worse now than it has been for several years. Meanwhile, others have been arrested. One can only conclude that the administration is responding now because of widespread publicity, congressional pressure, and distress over Chile’s continued economic chaos. Moreover, the administration’s purpose is to make sure that embarrassing accounts of torture not inhibit deepening U.S. economic and political ties with Chile’s right-wing government.

Furthermore, Kissinger is not protesting comparable, less publicized repression by other U.S. allies. The situation is just as appalling in Uruguay (which has the highest number of political prisoners per capita in the free or communist world), Brazil (which Kissinger just welcomed as a major trading partner), and Iran. The same sorts of things occur, possibly on a smaller scale, in a dozen other countries that the U.S. claims as allies: the Philippines, Paraguay, South Korea, Nicaragua, Portugal under Salazar, Malawi, the Dominican Republic (whose government was established by U.S. marines), Israel, Bolivia, Indonesia, the British in Northern Ireland (though their torture is now more sophisticated), and Pakistan.

The present administration seems determined to be unconcerned about human rights. On May 7, the president vetoed the foreign aid bill because it would have limited his power, among other things, to give aid to countries seriously violating human rights.

So much for Secretary Rumsfeld's claim of U.S. dedication to personal liberty and the God-given rights of man. The “free world” is those countries opposed to communism. Of course, to keep them opposed to communism and to guarantee a stable climate for investment, we may have to ignore personal liberty and support torture -- that is the price of freedom.

Of course, these violations of human rights are by allies of the U.S., not by the U.S. itself. Surely we would not do such things ourselves.

Again, the facts prove otherwise. We are deeply involved in training the very police and military who are practicing torture throughout the Third World. Between 1961 and 1971 we trained over 4,000 Latin American police officials, many in the most repressive countries.

But the most appalling evidence is Operation Phoenix. That was a CIA effort to destroy the infrastructure of the Viet Cong. It did not proceed by fighting battles or arresting suspects; it proceeded by assassination and torture. While we were being told horror stories (true ones) about the Viet Cong killing village leaders, little did most Americans suspect that the CIA was doing the same thing.

The man in charge of Operation Phoenix was William Colby. He testified that between 1968 and 1971 the operation killed 20,587 Vietnamese. That puts him in the league of Pinochet, Marcos, Amin, and the Shah of Iran -- different from Hitler and Stalin only in the number killed. For his efforts the President named him director of the CIA. The Senate, fully informed about Operation Phoenix, confirmed him by voice vote. That is to say, the opposition was so small that a roll call vote was not needed.

Of course, these things did not happen within the United States. Surely our dedication to personal liberty for U.S. citizens is beyond dispute. Everyone knows that America is the freest nation in the world.

Here the evidence is not so clear, but what evidence we have is not encouraging.

Consider our history. Our repression of Indians was every bit as bad as the Soviet repression of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. An Indian chief, tired of being moved from reservation to reservation (each guaranteed in perpetuity) told a Congressional Commission, “You had better put the Indians on wheels, and you can run them about wherever you wish.”

For 90 years after the Declaration of Independence, we refused to allow the independence of black Americans. Then from 1882 to 1903 whites lynched at least 1,985 Negroes. (Conservative Tuskegee Institute puts the figure much higher: 4,733 people since 1892.) Frequently, they were not just hung but slowly tortured to death.

In 1934 the detailed schedule of the lynching of a man named Neal was announced ahead of time on the radio and in the newspaper. According to the Birmingham Post, October 27, 1934, "the man’s genitals were cut off and he was forced to eat them and say he liked them; he was burned with red hot pokers, slashed on the sides and stomach, and every now and then somebody would cut off a finger or toe. From time to time during the torture a rope would be tied around Neal’s neck and he was pulled up over a limb and held there until he almost choked to death ... Neal’s body was tied to a rope in the rear of an automobile and dragged over the highway to ... a mob estimated to number somewhere between 3,000 and 7,000 people from eleven southern states ..." Franklin Roosevelt was then President. His attorney general decided not to call out the National Guard.

Fortunately, in recent years, our domestic history has not been quite so vile. But when we protest the incarceration of prisoners of conscience in Russia or Brazil, do we remember our own? What about the men imprisoned for refusal to fight in Vietnam? Were they not prisoners of conscience? And why has there still not been an unconditional amnesty for those who refused the draft?

When we grow angry at the harassment of Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov, do we remember what J. Edgar Hoover did to King and other radicals? Do we remember the brutality of the police against men like John Perkins?

The point becomes sickeningly clear. America’s dedication to liberty varies with a person’s color and class. And no matter what your color or class, if you present a threat to “national security,” your rights erode very quickly.

At the moment, human rights are doing fairly well in the U.S. if you are white and middle-class. But wait till a protest movement again seriously threatens the status quo. It will encounter however much repression is necessary to stop it.

The reason is simple. A government must choose between repression and justice: “By justice a king gives stability to the land” (Proverbs 29:4). “A ruler ... who hates unjust gain will prolong his days” (Proverbs 22:8). If you will not achieve stability by being just, then repression is the only option.

But justice is costly, especially to the powerful and wealthy. Repression is easier.

America’s preference for repression is not uniquely wicked. It is a wickedness which is nearly universal. The French used torture in Algeria. The Israelis used it against Palestinians. The British use it in Ireland. It is nearly universal in the Third World. It has to be because the injustice there is so blatant. People use torture when they need it.

“Free people are not having an easy time in the world today, nor are we likely to in the decades ahead.”

Historically, the response of the established church to torture has not been acceptable. On occasion they have practiced torture themselves, more often they have supported those who practiced it, and most often they have remained silent. Today the whole church combined has done less against torture than the tiny secular organization Amnesty International.

For those with evangelical roots, the behavior of our churches today is especially painful. Evangelicals have stood heroically against communist efforts to repress them. Yet in countries allied with the West, evangelicals -- especially missionaries -- have often welcomed the oppressors, sometimes with great enthusiasm, and when they have not welcomed them they have remained deathly silent.

Why do we withstand in Russia and lick boots in Chile? A large part of the reason is simply that evangelicals are often of Western origin.

Syncretism is a deeper problem than we usually realize. Political ideology controls theology at least as often as theology controls political ideology. Another illustration of this is the difficulty people with leftist leanings have in recognizing the repression in countries like Cuba and Cambodia.

A more basic cause of evangelical silence is our definition of the gospel as proclaiming the forgiveness of sins through the death of Jesus. As long as a government allows us to preach, we will tolerate almost anything. Russia has severely restricted the freedom to proclaim forgiveness, and so we have resisted repression in Russia. The same in Zaire. We know how to refuse allegiance when we are told we cannot preach.

In Chile, the Philippines, and Brazil, the governments are grinding the face of the poor, but they let evangelicals preach forgiveness. Indonesia may be abridging human rights, but they let missionaries talk about Jesus’ death for our sins.

I guess I understand. But we must come to see that forgiveness is of something -- it is forgiveness of sin.

Let’s not proclaim forgiveness without repentance.

And torture is sin. It is time for Christians to tell the leaders in their countries that they are sinning, that they must repent, that forgiveness is available.

And not caring about torture is sin. Love is the opposite of sin, and ignoring torture is the opposite of love. People who claim love as their guiding principle have to care deeply about torture. Christians who know about the agony of the torturers’ victims will act. In the face of indescribable suffering, the debates about the relation of church to politics, about changing individuals versus changing institutions -- in the face of torture such debates become irrelevant.

But let’s not proclaim forgiveness without repentance.

Thousands of years ago the keepers of the status quo in Palestine discovered how useful torture was. An Israeli threatened their authority. So they had him tortured. To death. Slowly. His followers cannot encounter torture without encountering him. While it continues, we will not rest. Let’s not talk about Jesus’ death without caring about the tortured deaths of others. For he is the one who is tortured.

Lord, when did we see you ...?

When this article appeared, John Alexander was editor of The Other Side and a contributing editor to Sojourners. His article, along with others, appeared jointly in Sojourners and The Other Side for this special issue dealing with torture.