Hey guys, I read the latest Esquire magazine where an Army interrogator talked about interrogation techniques they used. It was shocking, but not entirely surprising. What Econo-Girl found surprising was that the interrogators were being lied to by military attorneys.
The Army interrogators were told that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to the people they were questioning. Why? Because the Attorney General said so. Now of course, no other U.S. Attorney General has ever held that opinion and no court has ever agreed with him, but never mind. The non-attorney interrogators were told that if anyone went to prison for what they were doing, it would be the lawyers telling them it was OK.
Come, now. You're sober, right? How could you possibly believe that? When has a pencil-necked attorney ever stuck his head out?
Believe Econo-Girl when she tells you that if you did it, you will be nailed for it. Wasn't Ollie North? Except you won't be getting a radio show out of the deal. After all, you'll be a torturer. Who would want to get behind that?
A little escape to the beach has done a lot to clarify things for Econo-Girl. Most of the post that started this whole mess was about outlining the law to non-attorneys who might be put in compromising legal positions. I saw it as a way of empowering them to say 'no' to prison for themselves. In retrospect, that's what got me fired. Not the sentence fragment that everyone is so hysterical about. I was going to expose the legal lie.
7.29.2006
We All Lose Our Charms in the End
Econo-Girl got a Management degree years, even decades, ago. There she was exposed to the MAX MIN game theory. The thought is to make the worst that can happen as painless as possible.
Econo-Girl frequently thinks of this theory in relation to a functioning democracy. Since we all lose our charms in the end, you will eventually lose power by losing an election or political battle. When that happens, your actions will come to haunt you rather viciously.
With that in mind, a prudent pol will temper him/herself for a potential future downfall. Not in all cases, but for the most part. And that is part of what makes democracy great.
Econo-Girl is posting from sunny Naples, Florida today. Can't wait for a dip in the warm ocean.
Econo-Girl frequently thinks of this theory in relation to a functioning democracy. Since we all lose our charms in the end, you will eventually lose power by losing an election or political battle. When that happens, your actions will come to haunt you rather viciously.
With that in mind, a prudent pol will temper him/herself for a potential future downfall. Not in all cases, but for the most part. And that is part of what makes democracy great.
Econo-Girl is posting from sunny Naples, Florida today. Can't wait for a dip in the warm ocean.
7.27.2006
We Must Discuss It For Torture To Stop
It's true. Many readers have expressed the opinion that the very discussion of the effectiveness of torture should not be engaged in. Econo-Girl disagrees. A lot of the underpinning of support for this practice is based on the belief that it is effective. So its effectiveness must be examined dispassionately. From there, the dialog can go to morals and beliefs.
Is Listening to Britney Spears Torture?
BTW - Econo-Girl loves Britney Spears, so this is not slam on you, girl. And a great web site you got.
Let's take a look at one definition:
torture
n 1: extreme mental distress [syn: anguish, torment] 2: unbearable physical pain [syn: torment] 3: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned" [syn: agony, torment] 4: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean [syn: distortion, overrefinement, straining, twisting] 5: the act of torturing someone; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession" [syn: torturing] v 1: torment emotionally or mentally [syn: torment, excruciate, rack] 2: subject to torture; "The sinners will be tormented in Hell, according to the Bible" [syn: excruciate, torment]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Of course the disagreement will be in what constitutes extreme mental distress, unbearable physical pain, or intense feelings of suffering. We are all acculturated in our musical tastes such that exposure to something completely different at loud volume would be hard to bear. Or maybe the kids watching the prisoners just wanted to listen to Britney Spears, which is probably more likely.
A comment by IC Guy asked if a person would be more likely to tell the truth under threat of extreme physical pain, and the answer is probably 'yes.' But it is also just as likely they will tell you what you want to hear, judging from the reactions to their previous answers.
In this particular discussion thread, we are ignoring the role of morals.
Let's take a look at one definition:
torture
n 1: extreme mental distress [syn: anguish, torment] 2: unbearable physical pain [syn: torment] 3: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned" [syn: agony, torment] 4: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean [syn: distortion, overrefinement, straining, twisting] 5: the act of torturing someone; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession" [syn: torturing] v 1: torment emotionally or mentally [syn: torment, excruciate, rack] 2: subject to torture; "The sinners will be tormented in Hell, according to the Bible" [syn: excruciate, torment]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Of course the disagreement will be in what constitutes extreme mental distress, unbearable physical pain, or intense feelings of suffering. We are all acculturated in our musical tastes such that exposure to something completely different at loud volume would be hard to bear. Or maybe the kids watching the prisoners just wanted to listen to Britney Spears, which is probably more likely.
A comment by IC Guy asked if a person would be more likely to tell the truth under threat of extreme physical pain, and the answer is probably 'yes.' But it is also just as likely they will tell you what you want to hear, judging from the reactions to their previous answers.
In this particular discussion thread, we are ignoring the role of morals.
7.26.2006
False Confessions
Econo-Girl sees the use of torture, as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as increasing the liklihood of false confessions. Or false information. Or false alarms.
The quicker results may be satisfying to a desparate political apparatus, and the resulting movement may in fact be confused with progress, but in the end you are left with information of dubious value and you are still a torturer.
The quicker results may be satisfying to a desparate political apparatus, and the resulting movement may in fact be confused with progress, but in the end you are left with information of dubious value and you are still a torturer.
Will Work Harder on Spelling
Fixed issues pointed out to me. And you're right, it does make a difference.
The Importance of Being Earnest
When Econo-Girl made the ill-fated decision to criticize torture she was being a naive fool. After all, hadn't the DoD and the CIA both decided to adhere to the Geneva Conventions? I really meant what I said, but apparantly they did not. Hence, the termination of employment.
Ah, well. What's done is done and there are no regrets, although a little pain. At a certain point in one's spiritual development, beliefs and actions must agree. That, in the end, is what happened. It was a process I didn't have full control of. There was a lot of profit in compartmentalization, after all.
Econo-Girl has the full support of many in the intelligence field. She knows this because she is continually approached and thanked for her outspokeness. I thank you in return. Your words of support have meant a lot to me.
Ah, well. What's done is done and there are no regrets, although a little pain. At a certain point in one's spiritual development, beliefs and actions must agree. That, in the end, is what happened. It was a process I didn't have full control of. There was a lot of profit in compartmentalization, after all.
Econo-Girl has the full support of many in the intelligence field. She knows this because she is continually approached and thanked for her outspokeness. I thank you in return. Your words of support have meant a lot to me.
7.25.2006
Refuting a Defense of Torture: Saving Lives
A couple of recurring arguements are made to defend the practice of torture, one of which is that if it will save lives. Such a discussion often goes like this:
"So if some guy knows about an attack, and torture will get him to talk, it will save lives. So torture is OK then."
The fallacy of that point is it rarely is the case that the government knows exactly who knows of an impending attack. How is it that you are going to know the guy sitting in front of you has the information to save lives? These terrorist cells practice compartmentalization of information, so only a few will know enough details to tip off authorities. How could someone tell if they have that guy in custody? Of course, they won't.
So what are the options then? An interrogator could torture every person who hits the radar screen of suspicion. You know, just in case. And the whole time tell himself that he is saving lives. Another option is to choose someone who seems like a leader, and torture that guy until something good comes out. Of course, such things tend to be self-fulfilling prophesies.
This entire point of view is supported by the belief that people tell the truth under physical duress. How about that they will tell you anything to get the pain to stop? That seems more likely.
"So if some guy knows about an attack, and torture will get him to talk, it will save lives. So torture is OK then."
The fallacy of that point is it rarely is the case that the government knows exactly who knows of an impending attack. How is it that you are going to know the guy sitting in front of you has the information to save lives? These terrorist cells practice compartmentalization of information, so only a few will know enough details to tip off authorities. How could someone tell if they have that guy in custody? Of course, they won't.
So what are the options then? An interrogator could torture every person who hits the radar screen of suspicion. You know, just in case. And the whole time tell himself that he is saving lives. Another option is to choose someone who seems like a leader, and torture that guy until something good comes out. Of course, such things tend to be self-fulfilling prophesies.
This entire point of view is supported by the belief that people tell the truth under physical duress. How about that they will tell you anything to get the pain to stop? That seems more likely.
7.24.2006
Starting a National Discussion on Torture
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.
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.
7.23.2006
Can We All Agree That Torture Is Wrong?
Some of you make the arguement that torture is necessary at times. But working towards a common ground of understanding, do we all agree that torture is wrong?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)