|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject: Abu Ghraib - just the work of a few bad apples? |
 |
|
Does anyone still believe that the use of torture by the Bush administration is just a blip in an otherwise unblemished record? 
| Quote: |
The U.S. Has a History of Using Torture
By Alfred W. McCoy
In April 2004, Americans were stunned when CBS broadcast those now-notorious photographs from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, showing hooded Iraqis stripped naked while U.S. soldiers stood by smiling. As this scandal grabbed headlines around the globe, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the abuses were "perpetrated by a small number of U.S. military," whom New York Times� columnist William Safire soon branded "creeps"--a line that few in the press had reason to challenge.
When I looked at these photos, I did not see snapshots of simple brutality or a breakdown in military discipline. After more than a decade of studying the Philippine military�s torture techniques for a monograph published by Yale back 1999, I could see the tell-tale signs of the CIA�s psychological methods. For example, that iconic photo of a hooded Iraqi with fake electrical wires hanging from his extended arms shows, not the sadism of a few �creeps,� but instead the two key trademark�s of the CIA�s psychological torture. The hood was for sensory disorientation. The arms were extended for self-inflicted pain. It was that simple; it was that obvious. |
The article goes on to discuss the supposedly benign use of 'stress positions' and the actual reality of the awful consequences on the victims. It also describes at how it feels to experience that 'non-torture' technique of waterboarding.
To read full article click here |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I see you've adopted the R.S. Refugee method of creating a thread, as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Many in the United States have accepted in theory and fantasized about torture -- under certain conditions.
See Tom Clancy's Clear and Present Danger and especially Without Remorse for but two popular literary examples.
On the other hand, this is a pervasive and ubiquitous Homo sapiens-wide issue, present throughout human history, everywhere, and it is a mistake to single out the United States as if it were the problem, root and branch, so to speak.
That is one reason why this line of attack will not succeed, Big_Bird: its obvious and usually bitterly-articulated selectivity fails to actually address the full dimensions of the problem; and it is openly partisan -- dare I say antiAmerican. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
That is one reason why this line of attack will not succeed, Big_Bird: its obvious and usually bitterly-articulated selectivity fails to actually address the full dimensions of the problem; and it is openly partisan -- dare I say antiAmerican. |
Of course it is. Look who brought in the "article" and espouses its virtues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
On the other hand, this is a pervasive and ubiquitous Homo sapiens-wide issue, present throughout human history, everywhere, and it is a mistake to single out the United States as if it were the problem, root and branch, so to speak.
|
There are many issues that are 'pervasive and ubiquitous Homo sapiens-wide issue, present throughout human history' but we've tried to tackle them. Things like racism and the treatment of women as second class citizens have been recognised in the West (and increasingly in other places) and now they are being addressed, finally, after thousands of years. We don't have to accept things as they are and have always been. But the first step to changing things is recognising the issue. And we don't have to keep to the status quo just because other cultures/nations are.
I grew up believing the US and West were basically 'good guys' and probably the 'best guys' and was dismayed to find out over the years how regularly we betray our own supposed ideals whenever they get in the way of greed and other forms of self interest.
With respect to the moral progress of humankind (for want of a better term), the Geneva conventions were great steps forward. As a youngster I naively thought they provided a code that our governments unswervedly adhered to. It's with disgust that I've watched both your government and mine seek to 'get around' this code of conduct on the most trivial of pretexts. How can we ever persuade the rest of the world to follow these noble and lofty ideals, if we can't do so ourselves?
Nobody is surprised that a nation like China fails to acknowledge international law or the Geneva conventions; they've not spent the last century or so patting themselves on the back about this stuff. America proclaimed itself a light unto other nations, and it should be no surprise that people will sit up and take notice whenever it fails to live by the ideals that it so loudly and proudly gave lip service to. America was the nation that so many looked to as the main leader and defender of human rights. It's no surprise that people (including many Americans) will continue to write about this betrayal.
Going back to my point about recognising a problem, I think this is a problem that hasn't been properly recognised. Many nice decent Americans believe the 'bad apple' excuse. Only when enough people are aware of it and make enough objection to it will there be any chance of addressing it.
As for torture, it has dubious value from the perspective of gathering intelligence anyway. One example that illustrates this is that of the desperate British prisoners in Guantanamo who eventually, under torture, confessed to having been in a video with Osama Bin Laden. All the time US authorities only had to check with their British counterparts that the original story (that they'd been in the UK at the time) was in fact utterly true. Instead they applied 'stress positions' and whatever else have you to procure false confessions from these poor desperate lads, who will live with the insidious psychological, and often physical, effects of having been tortured for the rest of their days.
You are welcome to interpret the OP as anti-American if you will; I see it as anti-torture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
You are welcome to interpret the OP as anti-American if you will; I see it as anti-torture. |
You're wrong. The article is anti-American in its thesis, as it aims to show that America has been trying to use torture as a legitimate tool since the 1950s.
This is false, as one can merely sense by reading your article. If it were true, he'd have a whole lot more to tell us.
The fact is, American policy has been altered by the Bush administration. I am anti-torture, and I reject that the CIA should be able to torture anyone. I don't think they should 'rendition' anyone to other countries for torture, either. But the idea that the Bush administration is a continuation of anything is nonsense. The author even admits it, as he describes Abu Ghraib, where the military took part in torture, even though in the 1950s it was supposedly only the realm of the CIA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I grew up believing the US and West were basically 'good guys' and probably the 'best guys' and was dismayed to find out over the years how regularly we betray our own supposed ideals... |
I would submit that just as almost no one fits into the villain's black hat, so, too, few exclusively ride the hero's white horse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Nobody is surprised that a nation like China fails to acknowledge international law or the Geneva conventions; they've not spent the last century or so patting themselves on the back about this stuff. |
They did not even bat an eye, Big_Bird, at Tiananmen (1989). Neither did Mexico at Tlatelolco (1968), for that matter.
To date, no official acknowledgement, no commission hearings, no nothing.
Contrast these (non)events with the near immediate condemnation of Abu Ghraib we saw in the United States and the Western press at large.
Particularly important as China and, to a lesser extent, Mexico are hailed by many as the future.
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| America proclaimed itself a light unto other nations... |
Probably a problem with any hegemon which has justified its hegemony with such claims as America has for quite a while now. I would moderate, restate, or simply withdraw these claims in favor of promoting a more adult debate. But I just do not see that happening anytime soon.
All of these words and vague propaganda concepts ("freedom," "democracy," etc.) may do us more harm than good. What we have is a smoothly-functioning liberal democracy and a fairly balanced political economy in the classical Adam Smith sense. Not a perfect system, although we are constantly tweaking it. Not a monopoly on justice and happiness, either, as there are other systems for other peoples and cultures. And I agree that forcing any of these others to adopt our ways seems morally questionable and simply impracticable as well, such as in Iraq, for example.
This notwithstanding, the United States remains a product of the Englightenment and the French Revolution, and its hegemony, it seems to me, is far preferable than almost any other single nation-state or to resort to Braudelian nomenclature, any other "economic civilization's" hegemony.
We should be aiming to reform and improve what we have, then, rather than denounce or undermine it, thereby throwing the baby out with the bath water and opening the floor up to other potential powers who could not care less about any of your objections (except where you fault the West and especially the United States) and, you must admit, many of whom might even respond very rigidly or harshly were you to criticize their rule or advocate any level of disobedience.
Even Said admitted he could not publish his book on Palestine in the Arab Middle East because publishers there insisted he rewrite or delete any and all criticism treating any non-Israeli Middle Eastern state. And he would not agree to that. Thus even he could not publish there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think its Ok to poug kerosene on Iraqis and light them on fire as long as you don't sign the Geneva convention. Otherwise, you'd be a war criminal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think its Ok to poug kerosene on Iraqis and light them on fire as long as you don't sign the Geneva convention. Otherwise, you'd be a war criminal. |
And once again we are given a view of how insecure, pathetic and uneducated (in the full sense of that word, gnosis) you are. Go back to your back 40 and find a sheep of which to share your enlightened ways....
DD
To any mods who may read this. Yes, I made it personal. No substance in reply needed and his reply only deserves atleast my own retort, for the sake of making this a place where we don't condone any manner of such talk, even if sly done, couched in his hate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think its Ok to poug kerosene on Iraqis and light them on fire as long as you don't sign the Geneva convention. Otherwise, you'd be a war criminal. |
And once again we are given a view of how insecure, pathetic and uneducated (in the full sense of that word, gnosis) you are. Go back to your back 40 and find a sheep of which to share your enlightened ways....
DD
To any mods who may read this. Yes, I made it personal. No substance in reply needed and his reply only deserves atleast my own retort, for the sake of making this a place where we don't condone any manner of such talk, even if sly done, couched in his hate. |
I don't see what "gnosis" has to do with it?
Is this another swipe at (Gnostic) Christianity?
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Many in the United States have accepted in theory and fantasized about torture -- under certain conditions.
See Tom Clancy's Clear and Present Danger and especially Without Remorse for but two popular literary examples.
On the other hand, this is a pervasive and ubiquitous Homo sapiens-wide issue, present throughout human history, everywhere, and it is a mistake to single out the United States as if it were the problem, root and branch, so to speak.
That is one reason why this line of attack will not succeed, Big_Bird: its obvious and usually bitterly-articulated selectivity fails to actually address the full dimensions of the problem; and it is openly partisan -- dare I say antiAmerican. |
Bull. "It's OK 'cause others do it too" is about as far down the ethical reasoning scale as one can get. It is Concrete thought, i.e. the sort of reasoning those between 5 and 12 years old use. Look it up if you are in doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
You are welcome to interpret the OP as anti-American if you will; I see it as anti-torture. |
You're wrong. The article is anti-American in its thesis, as it aims to show that America has been trying to use torture as a legitimate tool since the 1950s.
This is false, as one can merely sense by reading your article. If it were true, he'd have a whole lot more to tell us.
The fact is, American policy has been altered by the Bush administration. I am anti-torture, and I reject that the CIA should be able to torture anyone. I don't think they should 'rendition' anyone to other countries for torture, either. But the idea that the Bush administration is a continuation of anything is nonsense. The author even admits it, as he describes Abu Ghraib, where the military took part in torture, even though in the 1950s it was supposedly only the realm of the CIA. |
And the CIA is not American? And not a significantly large organisation at that? You also have a poor record in your jails. Apparently some inmates have been held for up to 20 years in solitary confinement - most certainly a form of torture.
Not only that, American agents have done a good job over the last few decades of training up foreign military and security personel in how best to torture political dissidentst and other enemies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
This notwithstanding, the United States remains a product of the Englightenment and the French Revolution, and its hegemony, it seems to me, is far preferable than almost any other single nation-state or to resort to Braudelian nomenclature, any other "economic civilization's" hegemony.
We should be aiming to reform and improve what we have, then, rather than denounce or undermine it, thereby throwing the baby out with the bath water and opening the floor up to other potential powers who could not care less about any of your objections (except where you fault the West and especially the United States) and, you must admit, many of whom might even respond very rigidly or harshly were you to criticize their rule or advocate any level of disobedience.
|
Well I actually feel quite worried about new and up and coming superpowers such as China. If the US and the West have managed to behave so badly while the balance of power was in our favour...God help us when these 'less enlightened' powers start flexing their muscles and perhaps, in generations to come, start lording it over us. And the reformers and more 'enlightened' citizens of those powers will not have a leg to stand on when they try to invoke our example...we've been such bloody hypocrits.
I remember watching TV in China during the invasion of Afghanistan. China was supporting the war, and got some nice kickbacks from it (like the US taking pressure off with regard to condemning Sino human rights abuses). But while it didn't officially condemn the war, it allowed daily news coverage which showed the horrific carnage in Afghanistan. I was greeted daily with horrific scenes of mutilated children, dead and dying members of entire extended families etc etc. All maimed and killed courtesy of the the American/coalition war machine. Thousands of innocents were killed in that war...and the Chinese watched it while in the West coverage was pretty much sanitised. All of this for a war of dubious value for us, but good propaganda value for the Chinese government. Look at the wicked West.
So when we ask them to observe human rights, how can they take us seriously. We can't hold ourselves up as an example to be followed. We haven't shown that we could live by the principals and rules that we ask others to emulate.
As for throwing the baby out with the bathwater...I wouldn't advocate that at all. But said baby appears to have pooped and peed in the water while he was left to splash around in his bath. He certainly needs to be taken out of his nasty little bath, soaped down and hosed off. We have to keep an eye on that water, and make sure it's always fresh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
You are welcome to interpret the OP as anti-American if you will; I see it as anti-torture. |
You're wrong. The article is anti-American in its thesis, as it aims to show that America has been trying to use torture as a legitimate tool since the 1950s.
This is false, as one can merely sense by reading your article. If it were true, he'd have a whole lot more to tell us.
The fact is, American policy has been altered by the Bush administration. I am anti-torture, and I reject that the CIA should be able to torture anyone. I don't think they should 'rendition' anyone to other countries for torture, either. But the idea that the Bush administration is a continuation of anything is nonsense. The author even admits it, as he describes Abu Ghraib, where the military took part in torture, even though in the 1950s it was supposedly only the realm of the CIA. |
And the CIA is not American? And not a significantly large organisation at that? You also have a poor record in your jails. Apparently some inmates have been held for up to 20 years in solitary confinement - most certainly a form of torture.
Not only that, American agents have done a good job over the last few decades of training up foreign military and security personel in how best to torture political dissidentst and other enemies. |
You hasten to prove my point, that you are more focused on showing America as in the wrong than evaluating the validity of this particular thesis. Surely, if there were more to the article, you wouldn't have to resort to tangentials on the American prison system.
Let me address your first point, the only one which is relevant. The CIA is certainly American, and it is certainly engaging in torture right now. However, this is entirely new.
The article tries to present a controlled experiment run by the CIA openly at McGill University over 50 years ago as an insidious CIA plot to harness the power of torture. It couples that with another contemporaneous study at Cornell Medical Center. I wonder in what light would this author view the Stanley Milgrim experiments if they had been run by the CIA?
It then skips ahead 40 years to some language fit into a Clinton-era report, not alleging that under Clinton the CIA did anything, even while Clinton prosecuted Al Qaeda with more vigor than Bush did.
Only the reference to the School of the Americas bears any sort of fruit, which apparently gives advice on how to torture to other regimes, based on information found in the above studies.
All of this is hardly of enough basis to allege that the US has always been in the torture business. The US has only been in the torture business during the Bush administration. I have been fairly outspoken against it on these forums, but this professor, or whoever the author is, goes too far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
