Econo-Girl is going to start a national discussion on torture and interrogation, not as an expert, but as a person who is driven to know and communicate.
We cannot ignore the role of faith, morals and identity in this discussion.
All perspectives need to be aired, including the tit-for-tat and effectiveness arguements. If, indeed, torture is effective, we need to discuss it, as morally abhorrant as that is to some. Keep in mind that effectiveness is not the final word in the discussion.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of various interrogation methods?
What is the impact of false confessions to counter-terrorist analysis?
What constitutes torture? What is its definition?
Let's examine the conflict between what is said, and what is done. Thank you in advance for your participation.
22 comments:
Pony up and tell everyone the REAL reason you were fired. Oh yes, it seems so much more glamorous to say you were fired for discussing torture, but that was not the reason it seems you were fired. You were reading and then discussing reports that you, as an IT professional, were not supposed to have access to. And discussing what may have been a compartmented report on an open forum. That was why you were fired. ANYONE in your supervisor's/customer's position would have had to fire you. You were careless or deliberately ignored classification. Shame on you.
Enjoy your 15 minutes.
Actually, I was there and you weren't. And I know what I was told.
How can you call a classified blog on a highly classified network an "open forum"?
You say "it seems" and "what may have been" because you don't know what the story is, you are just guessing. The same is true for the leaders of the CIA. They fired me for the content of what I wrote, and are now digging around for justification.
Thanks for giving us this forum Econo-Girl. As an identifiable victim of what we may end up referring to as an era of Hoekstraism, I'm happy to see this discussion being brought out in the open. I hope your fame goes longer than 15 minutes, though anyone who googles up your name can see that you didn't need to be fired by BAE and the CIA to be considered a notable thinker.
I think it's really important when speaking of the definition of torture to say that there is in fact a definition of torture. When John Yoo ginned up the infamous torture memo, he claims he could find no guidance on how torture is defined. Either Yoo was a very mediocre legal researcher, or he just decided to overlook the enormous amounts of case law existing in the US since this country ratified the torture convention that work to define torture.
In fact, Yoo must have completely ignored the US government's own report to the Committee Against Torture prior to the election of President Bush that devoted considerable space to that definining the practice. If courts can do it for legal purposes,
I think we don't need to work too hard on establishing a new definition.
More on the subject here
(I'm not sure if you're moderating comments, but sorry if this goes up twice - it seems to have disappeared after the first time I posted it.)
EG:
I am having trouble posting my comments and am trying, again.
Hey Anonymous:
This is in reference to your post:
"Anonymous said...
Pony up and tell everyone the REAL reason you were fired. Oh yes, it seems so much more glamorous to say you were fired for discussing torture, but that was not the reason it seems you were fired. You were reading and then discussing reports that you, as an IT
professional, were not supposed to have access to. And discussing what may have been a compartmented report on an open forum. That was why you were fired. ANYONE in your supervisor's/customer's position would have had to fire you. You were careless or
deliberately ignored classification. Shame on you.
Enjoy your 15 minutes.
7:37:54 AM"
Let us suppose, for a second, that EG is lying about the reasons for her getting fired and just wants have her fifteen-minute fame. Sadly, your comments do not mitigate, or even address, the fact that "one-sided" (i. e., I would consider torture a fair deal, if we, the U. S.,
were to agree to submit to the same standards to which we hold others) torture is wrong and reprehensible. The best way to stop torture is not to practice it. I do realize that this may only work in a Utopian society, but we have to start somewhere and practice what we preach.
EG:
You may want to contribute to my blog. Here it is:
http://usandsovereignty.spaces.msn.com/
A U American
I expanded on my "white hat / black hat" western analogy on my site. Check it out if you are so inclined.
We, as the "leaders of the free world" must hold ourselvs to a higher standard. if we do not hold ourselvs to the highest of standards - who will?
EG:
I have a mundane question for you - are you an attorney, an IT person, an economist, or all of them? I am getting confused after reading references to all three on your blog. (Forgive my ignorance!)
Ms Axsmith:
Hurray for you! Great article on you in NYT, Saturday, July 22, 2006. I am disgusted by US use of "waterboarding."
Keep up the good work!
Robert M. Dills
Retired economics professor and
Resigned USAR Cpt, Inf and Distinguished Military Graduate
To fight a war
An enemy is necessary
If you cant find one
Make one
You keep starting discussions, but you never discuss. You just pose the question. What are your thoughts to other peoples thoughts?
My whole life I felt like America was all about the moral high ground, the rule of law, human rights, a beacon of hope and freedom, etc. After abu ghraib, and exporting prisoners for torture, and revelations about prisons in Eastern Europe ... my whole view has changed in the past year. I feel personally betrayed-- like finding out your dad's a child molester or something, but worse. The credibility so many people have fought so had for for 330 years has evaporated in less than three years. It's just so sad.
Definitely like your title. I think you'll find that you're not the only one in the capitalist wilderness that can support the system but not the parasites :)
Though, to be fair, you update on a much more consistent basis than I ever could, and your design is a whole lot spiffier. So I credit the point to you, Econo-girl.
Hope you don't mind if I tack you on to my blog-links list - I need to start expanding my range beyond the current folk who inhabit what you could call my "inner circle". Not that they're bad people by any stretch of the imagination, but a little variety always helps the discussion.
Anyway, love the site, and keep it up! :D
Don't worry about anonymous above. We can have a discussion based on itself. I agree with your premise, if torture is effective then the moral issues are very relevant. If torture isn't effective, then moral discussion becomes: should we torture just to do it? We can wrap that one up pretty quick. Of course the issue of whether it's legal might matter, too.
By the way, is it weird to anyone else that we're even having this conversation?
Yes torture is WRONG! But for the libs to define it as loud music & bright lights day & night at Gitmo is plain studpid. That would make most USA hotels guilty of torturing their guests!
We all know what the Constitutional Fathers were trying to prevent in that "cruel & unusual" part! You know the red hot poker up the butt, burning at the stake like Catholics were SO fond of, etc--that's torture! And yes the Catholics were wrong to torture people & the Pope still hasn't said they are sorry, has he?
Does the USA wish to wear the "white hat" only when it is convenient to do so....or do we wish to stand tall as John Wayne and wear it proudly, consistently and ALWAYS?
Our leaders had better damn well decide and when they do…..they need to know that the decision and resulting reputation will live with us and the USA for decades or longer.
Robson_Albrecht
I'm not an expert on interrogation, and so cannot presume to speak as to whether torture works or not. However, I am quite certain that it does not work on a person who does not possess the information sought. Moreover, there appears to be some concern that it is difficult to tell whether the intelligence produced by torture is reliable or not.
On a purely practical level, I can therefore state that unless an interrogator knows for a fact that a suspect possesses the information, torture is at best unreliable, and at worst counter-productive. So to justify torture, an interrogator must be able to demonstrate that factual knowledge, which implies the requirement for some sort of warrant.
Even if this evidence exists, however, there are other considerations: Is torture the minimum level of violence needed to get the information? Does the reputation we stand to gain as torturers make suspects more, or less, likely to confide in us?
Until it can be proven that torture is both useful and ethically defensible, I should expect any reasonable moral code to err by avoiding it rather than to err by committing it.
Christine/Or someone who knows how to get hold of Christine:
Please drop our agency (or have your agent do so) a line if you would like to discuss the possibility of doing a book.
Thanks
Metropol Literary
www.Metlit.com
Nanoguru,
Econo-Girl is a licensed attorney with considerable experience in IT. She also has a rabid fascination with economics, but no degree in it.
I read an interesting book by Elaine Scarry called "The Body in Pain: the making and unmaking of the world" It was about pain and torture. I wonder if any have read it.
NPR addressed this very topic with an interesting series, just a couple of weeks ago. You'll find an archive here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5517003
Post a Comment