Rage Against Rendition I

The United States is a party to the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits a country from committing torture against anyone, enemy or otherwise. What many people do not know is that it also prohibits the transfer of a detainee to a third country if it is more likely than not that the individual will be tortured there. These laws were originally designed to protect suspects that ended up in US custody from the danger they would face if extradited to a country that wants to try them – but will more likely than not treat that person in a degrading, illegal, or immoral manner. Why does it say “more likely than not?” Because using an objective, rather than subjective standard makes authorities over such matters responsible for what happens to detainees under their care even if they are willfully ignorant of the detainee’s treatment abroad. Authorities such as the head of the CIA or the Secretary of Defense cannot plead ignorance to an objective standard.

Just after the 9/11 attacks, the CIA began a policy of “extraordinary rendition,” where it transferred individuals netted in the wide nets it had cast to catch anyone with suspected links to Al-Quaida to foreign countries for interrogation. The detainees were transferred to locations around the world, many of which remain secret. We know that individuals were transferred to Egypt, Syria, and Uzbekistan – countries with unabashed records for torturing their prisoners. In a dramatic change of posture, it appears that the US is now the nation people fear – and the very laws we used to protect people from the wrath of other countries are now the focus of our own efforts to circumvent an obvious rule: that torture is wrong, and that we ought not to engage in it.

It is hard to believe that there was any reason for such extraordinary measures but to take advantage of relaxed standards for interrogation in those countries.

From prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, to the secret interrogations conducted at Guantanamo Bay, the United States government has come under fire for its interrogatory tactics with detainees in the war on terror. The Geneva Conventions set conditions for the treatment of prisoners of war, and law enforcement paradigms set parameters for interrogation. The government has argued that neither of these regimes apply when it interrogates suspected terrorists. Human Rights groups argue that the government cannot have it both ways: either it is prosecuting suspected international criminals, and owes them the protections associated with a law enforcement paradigm (like the 4^th and 8^th Amendments, or respect for rules of extradition); or it has detained combatants in its war on terror, in which case the laws of war apply. Torture is not justified under either of these paradigms, but the government has been accused of using tactics that violate the Convention Against Torture (to which the U.S. is a party), customary international law, the Geneva Conventions, and its own Constitution.

Digging deeper, we understand how the Administration has crafted its response to enable it to deny wrongdoing, yet continue to engage in, or authorize, the torture of individuals under its control. In a series of memoranda, now known as the “torture memos,” members of the Justice Department articulated a position that redefined torture – raising the bar to exclude most, if not all, of the conduct of interrogators from the definition of what tactics constitute torture. Thus, the Administration (under the new definition) can state that it does not engage in torture (because under the new standard, next to nothing amounts to torture). Furthermore, it has ‘rendered’ suspects to other countries for interrogation – countries with documented records of abuse and torture tactics. International law specifically forbids the US from sending a prisoner to a country where it is more likely than not that the prisoner will be tortured. With such a narrow newly-defined definition of torture, the Administration can claim that it does not believe that the countries ‘torture’ the detainees.

Interrogation tactics represent a vexing dilemma for ethicists and theologians alike. Under a utilitarian calculus, if harsh interrogations provide reliable information that is useful in preventing terrorist attacks, then it may be a justifiable form of treatment. But, the lines are difficult to draw, and the secret nature of interrogations invites abuse like that witnessed at Abu Ghraib. Furthermore, as religious lawyers, we wonder not where the line can be legally drawn, but where it ought to be drawn. Justice Department lawyers musing on the legal intricacies of interrogation and torture literally hold the lives of other human beings in the scope of their work. As with the ‘torture memos,’ a lawyer’s musings might become a new standard – under which people may die, or be treated with incredible cruelty.

My first question: what is the difference between killing and torture? Initially, I feel like we kill to remove an obstacle – like removing a soldier from a watchtower, so our soldiers may pass underneath; or using deadly force against a terrorist who took another person hostage. Under this way of thinking, killing can be humane – better bullets and technology make it possible to kill without inflicting an immense amount of suffering in the process.

Torture, on the other hand, has as its purpose, the infliction of suffering. Torture is not effective if the subject dies – torture is designed to elongate, accentuate, and magnify the physical or mental suffering of another person. The troubling aspect of this is the fact that we torture to obtain information. That is, we don’t necessarily know whether the person actually possesses the information. For example, I often hear the classic hypothetical scenario associated with the dilemma of torture: what if a person had hidden a ticking time-bomb in New York City, and you could only ascertain its whereabouts by torturing him? This is an easy one for most but the most devout pacifists; but its simplicity stems from the critical assumption in the scenario: that you know what he is hiding. The hypothetical assumes you know you have the man who hid the bomb, and that you know he knows where it is.

In reality, we torture people precisely because we do not know what they know, or how much they know. So, my immediate question becomes: how does an interrogator know when to stop? Assume you have a suspect who divulges some information; what is the temptation? Pump him for more. Detainees play cat and mouse just like their interrogators, often giving up easy information in hopes to satisfy the interrogators that they surrendered all they know. But, the interrogators know this, and they prod for more. What about the individual who does not know anything? Do we believe that an interrogator will accept this fact? How do interrogators know whether a person is strong-willed, or just lacks the information? I suppose the problem is more dangerous when interrogating low-level suspects of Al-Qaida, than when interrogating the high-ups – because you might be safer assuming that high-level suspects actually possess important information. But, the problem of exhaustion remains – when have you gotten all the information your detainee possesses? This seems to be a fatal flaw in the interrogation process – because it systemically invites over-torturing a suspect to make sure you got it all.

The Silk Road Ensemble: An Example to All of Us

As a graduation gift to ourselves, and thanks to some generously inexpensive tickets offered through Georgetown, Tami and I attended a concert given by Yo-Yo Ma and the Silk Road Ensemble. Now, I am a classical music fan, but had not done much homework prior to the event. I had no idea we would encounter such a moving, and enormously powerful experience - and less idea that I would learn so much about peace.

With the help of the Smithsonian Institution, Yo-Yo Ma traveled througout Southeastern Europe, and to Asia to locate masters of instruments used in folk and traditional cultures. Many of these instruments may not exist in the near future because they have not been preserved. The Silk Road Ensemble's goal is to create new music through the fusion of old (often ancient) melodies with both Western Classical music elements, as well as other ancient or traditional melodies. The instruments of several cultures blend together in many of the melodies; creating a unique and vibrant new sound. While I expected some Bach Preludes, the Silk Road Ensemble treated us to something far more exciting.

What about peace? First, the Ensemble draws musicians and musical elements from Azerbaijan, Iran, China, Romania, Turkey, India, and other countries that have not always gotten along. More importantly, the music blends several strains of highly ethnocentric (even nationalistic) music together. One of the highlights of the evening for me came when Alim Qasimov sang a set of traditional Azerbaijani modal melodies from along his side of the northwest mountains of Iran. The modal melodies gurgled up from deep within his soul, his body and soul appeared to meld as he drew each foundational tone and built the melody around it. It was the emotion that struck me. Reading the playbill, I discovered that the song related the tale of a rebel leader who fights the rule of a brutal khan. The hero Koroghlu sings before the khan's court, foreshadowing how love will conquer tyranny in the final act. I also discovered that Mr. Qasimov received the IMC-UNESCO Music Prize that recognizes musical contributions that, among other things, develops understanding between peoples. Here I sat, in Washington DC, in the Kennedy Center, learning about peace, and feeling it. I imagine that several people could sing these melodies correctly - but I believe Mr. Qasimov sings with the gift of peacemaking. Something intangibly peaceful accompanies his song, a guttural cry for reconciliation and harmony. He sang seated cross-legged on a large pillow, in the form of a Buddha - further evoking a sense of tranquility.

I decided that peacemaking must involve music. Cultural exchange is vital to the advancement of foundational understandings that ripen movements for peace. Music has a way of transmitting ideas without the argument. Too often, scholars become locked in ideological battle - to their own blinding: unable to comprehend from whence the opposing ideas come. Where scholarly exchange leads with the mind, and awaits the confirmation of the heart; music seems to plow a hardened mind, and soften its soil for the seeds of change. I may not understand much more about Azerbaijan or Iran now that I attended the concert, but I certainly want to.

LDS Perspectives: the Draft and Military Establishment

Following World War II, nearly 80% of the American populace supported a one-year “universal military training” program for young American men. (George H. Gallup, The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion, 1935-1971, vol. 3:723-24, New York: Random House, 1972). In Utah, this sentiment was widely shared. The following letter, published and disseminated to the membership of the LDS Church via its main publication, "The Improvement Era," was originally sent to each member of the Utah Congressional Delegation that was considering the peacetime draft – urging them to vote against it.

I found this statement surprisingly bold for a First Presidency statement. While some of the language may seem dated, note just how prophetic some of the warnings were. I found #15 especially enlightening in view of the economic and social results of the Cold War. Also, in light of today’s so-called “pre-emptive war doctrine,” note how #14 foretold of the “great war machine” and its propensity to wage war “with little or no provocation.” Finally, I could not help but think of the times during World War II (Japanese Internment), Vietnam (Protesters), and now, during our “war on terror” (Detainees, and Arab Profiling), where the nation’s military objectives are used to justify abrogation of civil liberties and the free institutions that our Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to protect.

First Presidency Message

December 14, 1945

Press reports have for some months indicated that a determined effort is in making to establish in this country a compulsory universal military training designed to draw into military training and service the entire youth of the nation. We had hoped that mature reflection might lead the proponents of such a policy to abandon it. We have felt and still feel that such a policy would carry with it the gravest dangers to our Republic.

It now appears that the proponents of the policy have persuaded the Administration to adopt it, in what on its face is a modified form. We deeply regret this, because we dislike to find ourselves under the necessity of opposing any policy so sponsored. However, we are so persuaded of the rightfulness of our position, and we regard the policy so threatening to the true purposes for which this Government was set up, as set forth in the great Preamble to the Constitution, that we are constrained respectfully to invite your attention to the following considerations:

1. By taking our sons at the most impressionable age of their adolescence and putting them into army camps under rigorous military discipline, we shall seriously endanger their initiative thereby impairing one of the essential elements of American citizenship. While on its face the suggested plan might not seem to visualize the army camp training, yet there seems little doubt that our military leaders contemplate such a period, with similar recurring periods after the boys are placed in the reserves.

2. By taking our boys from their homes, we shall deprive them of parental guidance and control at this important period of their youth, and there is no substitute for the care and love of a mother for a young son.

3. We shall take them out of school and suffer their minds to be directed in other channels, so that very many of them after leaving the army, will never return to finish their schooling, thus over a few years materially reducing the literacy of the whole nation.

4. We shall give opportunity to teach our sons not only the way to kill but also, in too many cases, the desire to kill, thereby increasing lawlessness and disorder to the consequent upsetting of the stability of our national society, God said at Sinai, “Thou shalt not kill.”

5. We shall take them from the refining, ennobling, character-building atmosphere of the home, and place them under a drastic discipline in an environment that is hostile to most of the finer and nobler things of home and of life.

6. We shall make our sons the victims of systematized allurements to gamble, to drink, to smoke, to swear, to associate with lewd women, to be selfish, idle, irresponsible save under restraint of force, to be common, coarse, and vulgar, - all contrary to and destructive of the American home.

7. We shall deprive our sons of any adequate religious training and activity during their training years, for the religious element of army life is both inadequate and ineffective.

8. We shall put them where they may be indoctrinated with a wholly un-American view of the aims and purposes of their individual lives, and of the life of the whole people and nation, which are founded on the ways of peace, whereas they will be taught to believe in the ways of war.

9. We shall take them away from all participation in the means and measures of production to the economic loss of the whole nation.

10. We shall lay them open to wholly erroneous ideas of their duties to themselves, to their family, and to society in the matter of independence, self-sufficiency, individual initiative, and what we have come to call American manhood.

11. We shall subject them to encouragement in a belief that they can always live off the labors of others through the government or otherwise.

12. We shall make possible their building into a military caste which from all human experience bodes ill for that equality and unity which must always characterize the citizenry of a republic.

13. By creating an immense standing army, we shall create to our liberties and free institution a threat foreseen and condemned by the founders of the Republic, and by the people of this country from that till now. Great standing armies have always been the tools of ambitious dictators to the destruction of freedom.

14. By the creation of a great war machine, we shall invite and tempt the waging of war against foreign countries, upon little or no provocation; for the possession of great military power always breeds thirst for domination, for empire, and for a rule by might not right.

15. By building a huge armed establishment, we shall belie our protestations of peace and peaceful intent and force other nations to a like course of militarism, so placing upon the peoples of the earth crushing burdens of taxation that with their present tax load will hardly be bearable, and that will gravely threaten our social, economic, and governmental systems.

16. We shall make of the whole earth on great military camp whose separate armies, headed by war-minded officers, will never rest till they are at one another’s throats in what will be the most terrible contest the world has ever seen.

17. All the advantages for the protection of the country offered by a standing army may be obtained by the National Guard system which has proved so effective in the past and which is unattended by the evils of entire mobilization.

Responsive to the ancient wisdom, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it,” obedient to the divine message that heralded the birth of Jesus the Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the world, “. . . on earth peace, good will toward men,” and knowing that our Constitution and the Government set up under it were inspired of God and should be preserved to the blessing not only of our own citizenry but, as and example, to the blessing of all the world, we have the honor respectfully to urge that you do your utmost to defeat any plan designed to bring about the compulsory military service of our citizenry. Should it be urged that our complete armament is necessary for our safety, it may be confidently replied that a proper foreign policy, implemented by an effective diplomacy, can avert the dangers that are feared. What this country needs and what the world needs, is a will for peace, not war. God will help our efforts to bring this about.

Respectfully submitted,

George Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay

The First Presidency

(The Improvement Era, Feb. 1946, pp. 76-77)

Example of Peacemaking from LDS Special Forces

I recently received an email from my father, conveying some details of a lecture he attended. I found it very uplifting. I have lightly edited the text of the message to make it suitable for posting. It made me rethink my preconceptions and generalizations of US combatants in today's military. Here is the text of his email:

I heard a compelling talk given by a returned Special Forces commander who served for a year in Afghanistan. His group of 12 special forces personnel was based in Utah and had 6 Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Before they left, they were given a blessing by an area authority that they would be protected if they were faithful in doing their duty.

They worked in a valley northeast of Kabul which was previously a den of militant leaders hiding from the world. The people of the area were famous for providing weapons and soldiers for a price and were known as the most fierce in the country. The short version of the story is that this group of special forces soldiers were able to win the friendship of the local elders that controlled the village and the surrounding villages and raise an Afghan army which was loyal to them. They set up a medical clinic, set up a school for the children including girls, painted their mosques, started a farm co-op so that they could start farming crops besides opium, and generally made a difference in that community.

It was comforting to me to see that at least some good may be coming out of the chaos there. Instead of bringing an engineering division to build their camp, they hired local laborers and workers. This worked to provide income for some of the villagers and earned their trust.

After gaining the trust of the elders of the village, they asked the elders to send qualified sons with their own weapons and a letter of recommendation to train with them to form a local army. While they trained, they encouraged the recruits to observe their religious customs, to pray at the specified times and to take off their holy day on Friday and attend the mosque. This respect for their religion went a long way to helping them be loyal. Brother [name withheld] hired a mullah to give advice on how he should ensure that they observed the religious customs properly.

Brother [name withheld] treated this assignment just like his mission and prayed daily with his team members to seek inspiration about what to do to gain the trust of the people and help them lead productive peaceful lives. All of the members of his special force and any group attached to them were preserved for the entire year. It sounds like the Sons of Helaman from the Book of Mormon. I was inspired by this talk. It makes me want to be a Peace Corps volunteer or something.

Anyway, I thought it was fascinating to take this relatively peaceful way of gaining influence.

Elie Wiesel on the Holocaust

I know this is a famous quotation, but it struck me with particular force today as I was thinking about genocide and the lasting effects of such violence.

Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed. Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a silent blue sky.
Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever.
Never shall I forget that nocturnal silence which deprived me, for all eternity, of the desire to live. Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust. Never shall I forget these things, even if I am condemned to live as long as God Himself. Never.

-From Night

Day of Rembrance

April 6, 1994. The presidents of Burundi and Rwanda, Cyprien Ntaryamira and Juvenal Habyarimana, were killed when a rocket downed their plane as it landed in Kigali. Their death was set up by Habyarimana’s own extremist cabinet, as a trigger for their “final solution” to rid Rwanda of the Tutsi. Today marks the 11^th anniversary of the dawn of open Genocide in Rwanda. That day, the state-owned radio stations in Rwanda, that had for years broadcast hate-filled propaganda against the Tutsi minority, gave the signal: “Cut Down the Trees!” This reference to the stereotypically tall and lean Tutsi physique incited the fastest genocide in modern history. After just 100 days, more than 800,000 people died at the hand of their neighbors. That is five times the pace that Hitler killed his enemies in concentration camps during WWII. The Hutu civilian militias went about their gruesome work with little more than machetes. The term used for killing a Tutsi was “chopped.” In order to escape from being “chopped,” Tutsi families fled their homes, only to find all roads blocked, with patrols of machete-wielding vigilantes waiting to terrorize them. They raped their wives and daughters; they chopped off the limbs of their children, and made the men commit unspeakable offenses against members of their family, only to execute them anyway. The bloodletting that began in Rwanda that day continued unabated, and without international intervention, until there were few targets left to kill. While the international community debated the semantics of genocide versus “acts of genocide,” whole villages were hewn down – the bodies of their inhabitants dumped into the rivers and left in the streets as an omen to any Tutsi who dared return. One young girl lay for several days under the corpse of her mother, motionless for fear that the killers would notice her. She went out at night to find food, and returned to her horrific hiding place until she was discovered by a representative of the Red Cross. She was 7 years old.

Today, I visited the United States Holocaust Museum with my younger brother, Carl, who was visiting from Spokane, Washington. I felt that attending the museum would be a fitting way to pay my personal tribute to those who died in Nazi Germany, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, the Hutu Rwanda, and now in Darfur, Sudan. I experienced several impressions as I worked through the ever-difficult material in the memorial.

First, I re-experienced a feeling I had when I watched “Hotel Rwanda.” The majority of my time studying the Rwandan Genocide occurred prior to having my own children. Throughout Hotel Rwanda, the children were in acute danger. Orphanages were attacked, and the Genocidiers stopped at nothing to rid the land of “Tutsi Cockroaches” – regardless of their age.

In the Holocaust Museum, there is a clay model of Crematorium II, a gas chamber in Nazi Germany. The figures of women, stripped of their clothing and their dignity, clung to their infant children, or gently held the hands of their toddlers as they waited for their “Hygienic Showers.” Little did they understand that they would in just a few minutes enter a chamber where they would die by asphyxiation. In the depiction of the gas chamber, on the bottom of the writhing pile of people struggling for air, lies a naked woman, futilely trying to protect her infant daughter from the trampling feet of the others. Like her, I could never allow my children to die at the hands of others – and would fight to the bitter end to protect them. The doors to the gas chambers were designed to include a small glass peephole so German Soldiers could observe the deaths – and ensure that they had killed them all prior to opening the doors.

Parents in Rwanda sent their children to the local churches, hoping that the killers would at least fear God – for they feared no man – to seek refuge. In one particularly harrowing tale, the Genocidiers surrounded the Nyarubuye church, and massacred every last woman and child cowering inside. The Church, with its victims rotting on the floor, was left in its horrific state after the genocide ended. It stands today as a memorial to the victims.

Second, I decided that there was something different about “The Holocaust” that was missing from other genocides. The deliberate nature of the Nazis struck me. They photographed their acts; they documented who they killed; and they spent great sums of money constructing the concentration camps, the incinerators, and other means of killing the Jews. Even the forced labor camps of Pol Pot did not approach the level of pre-meditation, planning, and cold calculation that Hitler and his men employed in their efforts. I was overwhelmed by the detailed infrastructure erected for the sole purpose of exterminating a large group of other human beings. Trains, buildings, clothing, tools, gas, weapons, dogs – all organized with the “Final Solution” in mind. There is something evil about that – something that is not present when people kill in chaos – even chaos that took advanced planning.

In Rwanda, many local people participated in the killings. They report that it was mindless – almost like being intoxicated. The pace was so fast, and the villages were simply chaotic –folks got caught up in the energy of it all. This fact is one of the greatest challenges today: tribunals must sort the planners from the participants in accountability systems such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), or the local village trials called gacacas. There are still 100,000 suspects in jail facing trial in the ICTR, some 6,500 have already been tried; and 20,000 more have been released for trial by gacaca. In the face of so much pain, and terror, what is the meaning of justice? What can a justice system do to mend such a wound?

Therefore, I gained a new reverence for the lives lost to the Holocaust. I have a deeper anguish for the hole in history where charity and humanity should have been. I acknowledge the responsibility that inheres in each individual to never again allow such a thing to occur.

While I understand the incredible danger and complication inherent in humanitarian intervention, there must be a point at which human suffering prompts our response. After the Holocaust, we signed a document called the Genocide Convention. In it, the nations of the world agreed to confront genocide with force, and that they would never permit it to happen again. But, the document does not call us to action – the suffering does.

So, my questions to you: Do we have a moral obligation to stop genocide? Does the U.S. Government have a moral obligation to stop it? Is it worth fighting to stop? What do we owe the victims when we fail to intervene? Anything? Does a nation’s responsibility for genocide depend on the nationality of those killed? Or, does the fact that such killings are “crimes against all humanity” put us all (individually, and collectively) on the hook? What, beyond our willingness to tell ourselves that it is a far-off, foreign land, explains our indifference? Isn’t the nature of genocide inherently in our interest to stop? If you don’t think so, can you articulate your answer without reference to national political interests? I ask this because I am not sure it matters what political interests are in play when such massive slaughter takes place.

Do Individual Freedoms Cause Selfishness?

The semi-annual General Conference of my Church is a time when our leaders gather and discuss issues of both doctrine and personal living. Today, a particular talk by one prominent member of the Church stood out to me. Elder L. Tom Perry, of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles said:

“The pursuit of so-called individual freedoms without regard to the laws of the Lord that He has established to govern His children on earth will result in the curse of worldliness and extreme selfishness; the decline of public and private morality; and the defiance of authority.”

In our class discussions we have talked frequently about the need to establish and protect individual rights. I wonder what communitarian and other social/group rights are sacrificed in a blind drive for ultimate individual autonomy. Elder Perry further stated that people are becoming accountable only to themselves, and to a limited extent, their societies. He implied that this was a bad trend – that extreme individualism would ultimately destroy the cohesive fabric of society.

I was most interested in the conclusion that extreme selfishness and pursuit of gain (worldliness) comes from the pursuit of individual freedom. I certainly have not made such a connection in any human rights class, or discussion – despite frequent treatment of the topic. For some reason, I think of the protection of individual rights (especially autonomy rights) as distinctly non-economic. But Elder Perry seems to state that the entrenchment of a preference for, and defense of, individual freedom causes an attitude of self-service that breeds selfishness. Advocates of economic equality often cite selfishness fundamentally causing the current stratification of classes and economic disparity. In fact, our discussions of egalitarian vs. capitalistic economic systems are really masks for a discussion about the proper role of “self-interest.” Now, I am confident that L. Tom Perry is a firm advocate for capitalism – but I wonder if the connection is even closer than he posited. If it is true that the entrenchment of individual freedoms breeds selfishness, then surely the cut-throat market competitiveness of the free market breeds the same.

I am convinced that we will not change the fact that capitalism is a preferable system of economics, all things considered; but I hope that we take advantage of the one thing that capitalism offers: the ability to give charitable donations. The best answer to my concerns about capitalism was that an egalitarian economy that forces individuals to hand over large sums of wealth to the state will not engender attitudes of charity amongst the public. People will assume that the State has sufficient funds to take care of the poor, and will feel that they have “paid enough” to the pot. The fundamental difference in capitalism, by contrast, is that people are generally allowed to keep their wealth, and donate to causes that they care about – thus increasing the likelihood that they will donate more generously. I think I tentatively buy this argument – although I am not sure how well such a system addresses the plights of those who are unpopular donation causes, but nonetheless have a high normative “need.” I also wonder whether we really take seriously our Christian obligations to “love our neighbors,” “feed the poor,” “lift up one another’s burdens,” and be “Good Samaritans.”

One of my largest concerns is that we are too selfish in our society. Maybe Elder Perry is right: does our overemphasis on individual freedoms impose more social costs than we think? What do you think? Is there really a causal connection between the protection of an ever-expanding class of individual freedom, and human selfishness? I think this might be a very important, researched facet of the poverty cycle on a societal level.

LDS Perspectives: Three Scriptures about War

This posting was left under the blog instructions, and I thought it might belong under the LDS Perspectives on War and Peace - but decided to put it out here in the main blog section (even though I didn't write it). This comment jumps the gun a bit - because there will be an extensive discussion coming about the justice of war - but I want you to think about a few things as you read these quotes:

1. Do these scriptures endorse war? Or, do they acknowledge the tragic fact that people may be forced to defend themselves with force?
2. Is there any significance that all of these scriptures pre-date the coming of Christ? What effect do Christ's teachings, and the changes that stemmed from the shift from Mosaic Law to the Law of Christ? The Sermon on the Mount taught us to turn the other cheek, and to love our enemies (see the quote in below from Pres. Kimball about becoming anti-enemy). Are there modern scriptures that express even this level of approval for war?
   
3. These scriptures appear to justify defensive war. Obviously, a war of unprovoked aggression is morally wrong - but what about this new doctrine of "preemptive war" promulgated after 9/11? There is a very good argument that we cannot effectively fight terrorism without preemption - but the doctrine strongly challenges the traditional doctrines of just war, and defensive uses of force.
   

TEXT OF ORIGINAL COMMENT:

When (if ever) is it appropriate for an LDS person to engage in war? Three Book of Mormon scriptures might be helpful to understand the LDS view:

Alma 43:46-47

46 And they were doing that which they felt was the DUTY which they owed to their god; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: 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.

47 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, atheir country, and their rights, and their religion.

From Alma 48:14-15, 23-25


14 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.

15 And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger;

23 Now, they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all—they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God.

24 Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren, yea, and had dissented from their church, and had left them and had gone to destroy them by joining the Lamanites.

25 Yea, they could not bear that their brethren should rejoice over the blood of the Nephites, so long as there were any who should keep the commandments of God, for the promise of the Lord was, if they should keep his commandments they should prosper in the land.

And from 3 Nephi 20:20-21:

20 And it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that the sword of my justice shall hang over them at that day; and except they repent it shall fall upon them, saith the Father, yea, even upon all the nations of the Gentiles.

21 And it shall come to pass that I will establish my people, O house of Israel.

There are some interesting principles taught in these basic verses found in the Keystone Scripture.