Short Writings
Language/Doublespeak/Euphemisms
1.With the videos we watched in class in mind, summarize the "Doublespeak" article and share your thoughts on the power of language. / Why is it important to understand the ways in which language is used? (about a page)
It is no secret that language is a powerful tool. In the article “Doubts About Doublespeak,” the author William Lutz talks about a dangerous language that “pretends to communicate but doesn't . . . makes the bad seem good, the negative seem possible, the unpleasant seem attractive, or at least tolerable. It is a language which avoids, shifts, or denies responsibility.” It is a language that dances in the tongue of the clever and is all around us, misleading and deceiving.
As William Lutz stated, there are four kinds of doublespeak: euphemism, jargon, gobbledygook or bureaucratese, and inflated language. The first kind, euphemism, is a phrase or indirect word designed to substitute or avoid another that is considered harsh. The second type is jargon, specialized words or expressions used by professions, or similar groups, such as doctors, lawyers, plumbers, car mechanics, etc, to make it difficult for others to understand. The third kind of doublespeak gobbledygook or bureaucratese which is “a matter of overwhelming the audience with words,” as Lutz put it. Lastly, the fourth type is inflated language, “which is designed to make the ordinary seem extraordinary, to make everyday things seem impressive, to give an air of importance to people to people or situations, to make the simple complex” (Lutz).
While not an actual act of lying, doublespeak is structured in a way that subconsciously pushes us to believe those half truths, proposing a more palatable outlook on the topic in question and making it so that they never have to confirm a condition or event. The careful verbiage is used to discourage the ingestion of a topic, when it is an undesirable subject, and offer the audience more promising descriptions and thought processes to consume instead. This way makes it easier for people to overlook and accept their words. They soften the blow of negative situations, using optimistic language instead.
Language in itself can't do any damage, it is the way in which it’s used or phrased together that can do the harm. Words are simply scribbles or vibrations in the air. However it is both the deliverance and meaning put behind the word(s) that can affect us in a negative way. The “n” word (didn't want to write it out just in case you find it offensive) is a perfect example. This word is split between being “bad” and “not bad.” It is seen as “bad” because it was and is still used as a racial slur. However, this word is also used as a friendly term of address, such as “friend” or “brother" depending on who you ask. Therefore, just because a word is offensive to a person, that same word may not mean the same thing to the other person or that they meant it as an offense.
In my opinion, words themselves are not inherently bad, but words are the tools of communication for many of us and these tools can be used both destructively and constructively. You can use them in a positive way or in a negative way (using it to offend others). In general, most people are offended by profanity, arguing on the premise that it can hurt many and therefore should not be used at all. Whether or not the words themselves are inherently bad is up to the person itself. I think people have to realize not to mix meanings and uses. We are the ones who put a definition to words.
2.How does Doublespeak affect our ability to participate in our democracy? (about a 1/2 page)
Doublespeak affects our ability to participate in democracy by increasing the difficulty of interpreting information accurately. In a democracy, we decide what candidates and policies to back up by listening to the public discourse. However, because the discussions are carried out in doublespeak, the organizations are deliberately misleading the people so they do not know what is really going on, and inevitably, wind up making decisions of social importance based on false truth.
If a politician or business (or anyone really), speaks out to the public or creates a contract in such a way that makes it hard for people to understand (or make it so that people think they understand what is being said, when in reality they don’t really know) what is being proposed or what the consumer’s obligations are, they may end up agreeing to something they are not able to understand and ultimately cannot fulfill. When anything other than straight-forward clear language is used to describe a promise or the terms of an offer, they are not dealing honestly and are setting it up so that they are not held accountable for being unable to carry out their so-called “promise” or for setting up the public to fail.
In addition, doublespeak increases a gap between what organizations are saying and what the people are hearing. It causes cognitive dissonance, people forgetting/changing beliefs when their party does something. In the article, Lutz wrote a quote from George Orwell in 1946 how doublespeak is “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind,” how “defenseless villagers are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets. This is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry. This is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers.” They soften the blow of the many negative things by using optimistic language instead, giving the illusion that it’s “not as bad.” Most of the time, when political figures or candidates that are good speakers take a position that we may be on the fence about or have not thought about at all, we are most likely to be bias towards supporting their position and agreeing with their ideals due to the way they present their ideals. Sadly, doublespeak affects us more than we’d like to, and not only plays a huge role at our ability to participate in our democracy but goes even beyond that.
It is no secret that language is a powerful tool. In the article “Doubts About Doublespeak,” the author William Lutz talks about a dangerous language that “pretends to communicate but doesn't . . . makes the bad seem good, the negative seem possible, the unpleasant seem attractive, or at least tolerable. It is a language which avoids, shifts, or denies responsibility.” It is a language that dances in the tongue of the clever and is all around us, misleading and deceiving.
As William Lutz stated, there are four kinds of doublespeak: euphemism, jargon, gobbledygook or bureaucratese, and inflated language. The first kind, euphemism, is a phrase or indirect word designed to substitute or avoid another that is considered harsh. The second type is jargon, specialized words or expressions used by professions, or similar groups, such as doctors, lawyers, plumbers, car mechanics, etc, to make it difficult for others to understand. The third kind of doublespeak gobbledygook or bureaucratese which is “a matter of overwhelming the audience with words,” as Lutz put it. Lastly, the fourth type is inflated language, “which is designed to make the ordinary seem extraordinary, to make everyday things seem impressive, to give an air of importance to people to people or situations, to make the simple complex” (Lutz).
While not an actual act of lying, doublespeak is structured in a way that subconsciously pushes us to believe those half truths, proposing a more palatable outlook on the topic in question and making it so that they never have to confirm a condition or event. The careful verbiage is used to discourage the ingestion of a topic, when it is an undesirable subject, and offer the audience more promising descriptions and thought processes to consume instead. This way makes it easier for people to overlook and accept their words. They soften the blow of negative situations, using optimistic language instead.
Language in itself can't do any damage, it is the way in which it’s used or phrased together that can do the harm. Words are simply scribbles or vibrations in the air. However it is both the deliverance and meaning put behind the word(s) that can affect us in a negative way. The “n” word (didn't want to write it out just in case you find it offensive) is a perfect example. This word is split between being “bad” and “not bad.” It is seen as “bad” because it was and is still used as a racial slur. However, this word is also used as a friendly term of address, such as “friend” or “brother" depending on who you ask. Therefore, just because a word is offensive to a person, that same word may not mean the same thing to the other person or that they meant it as an offense.
In my opinion, words themselves are not inherently bad, but words are the tools of communication for many of us and these tools can be used both destructively and constructively. You can use them in a positive way or in a negative way (using it to offend others). In general, most people are offended by profanity, arguing on the premise that it can hurt many and therefore should not be used at all. Whether or not the words themselves are inherently bad is up to the person itself. I think people have to realize not to mix meanings and uses. We are the ones who put a definition to words.
2.How does Doublespeak affect our ability to participate in our democracy? (about a 1/2 page)
Doublespeak affects our ability to participate in democracy by increasing the difficulty of interpreting information accurately. In a democracy, we decide what candidates and policies to back up by listening to the public discourse. However, because the discussions are carried out in doublespeak, the organizations are deliberately misleading the people so they do not know what is really going on, and inevitably, wind up making decisions of social importance based on false truth.
If a politician or business (or anyone really), speaks out to the public or creates a contract in such a way that makes it hard for people to understand (or make it so that people think they understand what is being said, when in reality they don’t really know) what is being proposed or what the consumer’s obligations are, they may end up agreeing to something they are not able to understand and ultimately cannot fulfill. When anything other than straight-forward clear language is used to describe a promise or the terms of an offer, they are not dealing honestly and are setting it up so that they are not held accountable for being unable to carry out their so-called “promise” or for setting up the public to fail.
In addition, doublespeak increases a gap between what organizations are saying and what the people are hearing. It causes cognitive dissonance, people forgetting/changing beliefs when their party does something. In the article, Lutz wrote a quote from George Orwell in 1946 how doublespeak is “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind,” how “defenseless villagers are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets. This is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry. This is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers.” They soften the blow of the many negative things by using optimistic language instead, giving the illusion that it’s “not as bad.” Most of the time, when political figures or candidates that are good speakers take a position that we may be on the fence about or have not thought about at all, we are most likely to be bias towards supporting their position and agreeing with their ideals due to the way they present their ideals. Sadly, doublespeak affects us more than we’d like to, and not only plays a huge role at our ability to participate in our democracy but goes even beyond that.
Dehumanizing Language/Immigration Ban
1. What are some of the ways in which the first article ("Dehumanizing People and Emphasizing War") cites as examples of language used to dehumanize groups of people? What are some examples of the ways in which this has been happening in the last 15 years? (Larger context: how language is used and why)
2. In the second article, a tweet from Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) read "We bomb your country, creating a humanitarian nightmare, then lock you inside. That's a horror movie, not a foreign policy." What does this mean to you? Do you agree/disagree with his sentiment. Explain. (Larger context: Post 9/11 foreign policy)
As Haig A. Bosmajian stated in his article Dehumanizing People and Emphasizing War, the way a “perpetrator will attempt to clear his conscience is by clothing his victim in a mantle of evil, by portraying the victim as an object that must be destroyed.” He talked about how dehumanizing metaphors allow people to express, in an acceptable way, the hostile thoughts and sentiments which should be considered unacceptable and inhumane. Unfortunately, as Bosmajian mention, our nation has always “contained people who, needing to denigrate and dehumanize others, have relied on racist and sexist language.” It is such language that has contributed to keeping the subjugated in their place and helping influence people’s perceptions in a negative way towards that group of people. To make matters worse, when such language is spoken by religious leaders, politicians, presidents, or high authorities with power, it gives the metaphors another level of meaning.
Expressing their destructive aggression against those so called “enemies” allows the audience to cheer this type of way of thinking, deeming it acceptable to joke about these things and encourages us to take severe measures against the subjugated. There was a quote by Bosmajian that really stood out to me, “the brutality and inhumanity of our policies and practices are hidden behind euphemisms. During the Vietnam war, when government officials talked of “regrettable by-products,” they meant civilians killed by mistake; “pacification” meant the forcible evacuation of Vietnamese from their huts, the rounding up of all males, the shooting of those who resisted, the slaughtering of domesticated animals and the burning of dwellings; “incursion” meant another invasion of another country; creating a “sanitized belt” meant forcibly removing all the inhabitants of the area being “sanitized,” cutting down the trees, bulldozing the land and erecting “defensive positions” with machine guns, mortars and mines.” The vocable that was used functioned as euphemism hiding the horrors of weapons and war, making these abhorrent acts seem tolerable even.
Fear is a monster living within our minds and the reason it’s so dangerous is because when many recall past fears or occurrences they end up injecting them into current situations, 9/11 being the perfect example. Why do we always expect it to be of a certain race? The hatred of that one terrorist attack stimulates the fear of another one being committed by the people whom the terrorist “belonged to,” which would be more accurate to say categorized in. It is the exaggeration of those past experiences which cause dehumanization. We have a very simple way of thinking in order to justify our actions, and that way portrays one group as extremely heroic while the other as inhumane or barbaric. Today's leaders use this to their political advantage, making a person be seen as a member of a whole group rather than as an individual. We dehumanize those whom we perceive as a threat to our well-being and/or values. Take prisoners for example. Morality is removed when talking about those who committed a criminal act and are made to seem undeserving of basic needs and fair treatment, committing inhumane treatment to the prisoners and viewing it as irrelevant and morally justified. It is a very sad and ironic thing we do.
Ther way I took the tweet from Senator Chris Murphy, “we bomb your country, creating a humanitarian nightmare, then lock you inside. That's a horror movie, not a foreign policy," was the destroying of their country and home, creating a living nightmare for these human beings and then removing the hope of escaping that hell into a relatively safe place by shutting the door in their face and telling them that the people committing terrible acts in their country represent all of them. In my opinion, the few people carrying out atrocious acts do not represent the whole. Just how there are people perpetrating inhumane acts over there, we too are committing them here. No matter where you go, heinous acts were, are, and will be effectuated. We as humans have a way of not letting the go of the past which in return makes us run around like hamsters in a wheel and not only that but we are also hypocrites. We fall into the same patterns over and over, pinning the blame onto others instead of accepting responsibility, expecting to be asked for forgiveness from the victim, causing inhumane acts towards to those who caused inhumane acts (like obtaining peace through war), and so many others. If I am completely honest, I don’t know what to think because from past experiences it seems like we can’t just seem to help ourselves to stop from fearing, dehumanizing, and putting ourselves before everything else. Then again, it is that same thought that brings us to the same place every time.
2. In the second article, a tweet from Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) read "We bomb your country, creating a humanitarian nightmare, then lock you inside. That's a horror movie, not a foreign policy." What does this mean to you? Do you agree/disagree with his sentiment. Explain. (Larger context: Post 9/11 foreign policy)
As Haig A. Bosmajian stated in his article Dehumanizing People and Emphasizing War, the way a “perpetrator will attempt to clear his conscience is by clothing his victim in a mantle of evil, by portraying the victim as an object that must be destroyed.” He talked about how dehumanizing metaphors allow people to express, in an acceptable way, the hostile thoughts and sentiments which should be considered unacceptable and inhumane. Unfortunately, as Bosmajian mention, our nation has always “contained people who, needing to denigrate and dehumanize others, have relied on racist and sexist language.” It is such language that has contributed to keeping the subjugated in their place and helping influence people’s perceptions in a negative way towards that group of people. To make matters worse, when such language is spoken by religious leaders, politicians, presidents, or high authorities with power, it gives the metaphors another level of meaning.
Expressing their destructive aggression against those so called “enemies” allows the audience to cheer this type of way of thinking, deeming it acceptable to joke about these things and encourages us to take severe measures against the subjugated. There was a quote by Bosmajian that really stood out to me, “the brutality and inhumanity of our policies and practices are hidden behind euphemisms. During the Vietnam war, when government officials talked of “regrettable by-products,” they meant civilians killed by mistake; “pacification” meant the forcible evacuation of Vietnamese from their huts, the rounding up of all males, the shooting of those who resisted, the slaughtering of domesticated animals and the burning of dwellings; “incursion” meant another invasion of another country; creating a “sanitized belt” meant forcibly removing all the inhabitants of the area being “sanitized,” cutting down the trees, bulldozing the land and erecting “defensive positions” with machine guns, mortars and mines.” The vocable that was used functioned as euphemism hiding the horrors of weapons and war, making these abhorrent acts seem tolerable even.
Fear is a monster living within our minds and the reason it’s so dangerous is because when many recall past fears or occurrences they end up injecting them into current situations, 9/11 being the perfect example. Why do we always expect it to be of a certain race? The hatred of that one terrorist attack stimulates the fear of another one being committed by the people whom the terrorist “belonged to,” which would be more accurate to say categorized in. It is the exaggeration of those past experiences which cause dehumanization. We have a very simple way of thinking in order to justify our actions, and that way portrays one group as extremely heroic while the other as inhumane or barbaric. Today's leaders use this to their political advantage, making a person be seen as a member of a whole group rather than as an individual. We dehumanize those whom we perceive as a threat to our well-being and/or values. Take prisoners for example. Morality is removed when talking about those who committed a criminal act and are made to seem undeserving of basic needs and fair treatment, committing inhumane treatment to the prisoners and viewing it as irrelevant and morally justified. It is a very sad and ironic thing we do.
Ther way I took the tweet from Senator Chris Murphy, “we bomb your country, creating a humanitarian nightmare, then lock you inside. That's a horror movie, not a foreign policy," was the destroying of their country and home, creating a living nightmare for these human beings and then removing the hope of escaping that hell into a relatively safe place by shutting the door in their face and telling them that the people committing terrible acts in their country represent all of them. In my opinion, the few people carrying out atrocious acts do not represent the whole. Just how there are people perpetrating inhumane acts over there, we too are committing them here. No matter where you go, heinous acts were, are, and will be effectuated. We as humans have a way of not letting the go of the past which in return makes us run around like hamsters in a wheel and not only that but we are also hypocrites. We fall into the same patterns over and over, pinning the blame onto others instead of accepting responsibility, expecting to be asked for forgiveness from the victim, causing inhumane acts towards to those who caused inhumane acts (like obtaining peace through war), and so many others. If I am completely honest, I don’t know what to think because from past experiences it seems like we can’t just seem to help ourselves to stop from fearing, dehumanizing, and putting ourselves before everything else. Then again, it is that same thought that brings us to the same place every time.
EO/Immigration
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), created by the Obama administration in June 2012, allows certain undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children apply for a renewable two-year period work permit and relief from deportation. There are of course a few guidelines, such as coming to the United States before turning 16 and residing in the U.S. since July.15.2007, being under the age of 31 as of June.15.2012, and not being “convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety” (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2016). In November 2014 President Barack Obama announced the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), an immigration policy that allows certain undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2010 and have children who are lawful permanent residents or American citizens to apply for a renewable three-year period exemption from deportation and work permit. Just like DACA, a few guidelines have to be met such as what was stated above about not being convicted of a felony, and have lived in the U.S. since January.01.2010 (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2015). Of course, these were only a few of the criterion needed.
However, after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced expanded DACA and DAPA, 26 states filed a lawsuit alleging that President Obama’s executive order “violated the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) because DHS failed to undergo the notice-and-comment rulemaking process, which requires agencies to notify the public of new rules and allow the public to provide feedback,” also arguing that “DHS lacked the substantive authority to implement the DAPA program under the APA,” and that “DAPA violated the president’s duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ under Article II of the U.S. Constitution” (Cornell University Law School). Furthermore, the states claimed they would suffer a financial injury. The American Immigration Council specified that in “their brief to the Supreme Court, the states assert, ‘Texas would lose over $130 per license… Texas therefore would lose millions of dollars if even a small fraction of DAPA-eligible aliens applied for driver’s licenses.’ The federal government counters that such claims ‘are nothing more than allegations of indirect or incidental effects from the [DAPA] Guidance, not invasions of any legally-protected interest under the Constitution.’”
As stated in the article written by the Cornell University Law of School, the United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari, the name of a “certain appellate proceedings for re-examination of actions of a trial court,” which they granted on January 19, 2016. The article also stated that “the power to deport undocumented immigrants lies exclusively with the federal government, and that by virtue of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), the Secretary of Homeland Security (the “Secretary”) can take necessary actions to administer and enforce the INA. Therefore, the United States argues, DHS’s guidance policy is a legitimate exercise of the Secretary’s power,” which is why President Obama believed it to be a legal Executive Order, due to the power to deport undocumented immigrants lies within the power of the Executive Branch. However, as the Stanford Daily stated, “the Court is deciding, in part, whether the executive can form its own de facto immigration policy or whether only Congress can set such priorities,” given that Texas argued DAPA was instated without input from Congress, therefore in violation of their legislative authority. On June.23.2016, the Supreme Court’s votes resulted in deadlock of 4-4. According to the National Immigration Center, because it is a split decision, the execution of DAPA and expansion of DACA remain from being implemented. However, this decision does not impact the original DACA program launched in 2012.
Twinem, Alex. "The curious case of United States v. Texas." Stanford Daily. N.p., 20 Apr. 2016. Web. 07 Feb. 2017.
"What Supreme Court's Tie Vote Means for DAPA and DACA." National Immigration Law Center. N.p., 24 June 2016. Web. 07 Feb. 2017.
Austin, Maame E., and Crhis N. Avila. "United States v. Texas (15-674)." LII / Legal Information Institute. Ed. Chris Milazzo. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2017.
"DAPA and Expanded DACA Programs." National Immigration Law Center. N.p., 02 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Feb. 2017.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). N.p., 22 Dec. 2016. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. N.p., 30 Jan. 2015. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.
"Defending DAPA and Expanded DACA Before the Supreme Court." American Immigration Council. N.p., 11 Apr. 2016. Web. 07 Feb. 2017.
However, after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced expanded DACA and DAPA, 26 states filed a lawsuit alleging that President Obama’s executive order “violated the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) because DHS failed to undergo the notice-and-comment rulemaking process, which requires agencies to notify the public of new rules and allow the public to provide feedback,” also arguing that “DHS lacked the substantive authority to implement the DAPA program under the APA,” and that “DAPA violated the president’s duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ under Article II of the U.S. Constitution” (Cornell University Law School). Furthermore, the states claimed they would suffer a financial injury. The American Immigration Council specified that in “their brief to the Supreme Court, the states assert, ‘Texas would lose over $130 per license… Texas therefore would lose millions of dollars if even a small fraction of DAPA-eligible aliens applied for driver’s licenses.’ The federal government counters that such claims ‘are nothing more than allegations of indirect or incidental effects from the [DAPA] Guidance, not invasions of any legally-protected interest under the Constitution.’”
As stated in the article written by the Cornell University Law of School, the United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari, the name of a “certain appellate proceedings for re-examination of actions of a trial court,” which they granted on January 19, 2016. The article also stated that “the power to deport undocumented immigrants lies exclusively with the federal government, and that by virtue of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), the Secretary of Homeland Security (the “Secretary”) can take necessary actions to administer and enforce the INA. Therefore, the United States argues, DHS’s guidance policy is a legitimate exercise of the Secretary’s power,” which is why President Obama believed it to be a legal Executive Order, due to the power to deport undocumented immigrants lies within the power of the Executive Branch. However, as the Stanford Daily stated, “the Court is deciding, in part, whether the executive can form its own de facto immigration policy or whether only Congress can set such priorities,” given that Texas argued DAPA was instated without input from Congress, therefore in violation of their legislative authority. On June.23.2016, the Supreme Court’s votes resulted in deadlock of 4-4. According to the National Immigration Center, because it is a split decision, the execution of DAPA and expansion of DACA remain from being implemented. However, this decision does not impact the original DACA program launched in 2012.
Twinem, Alex. "The curious case of United States v. Texas." Stanford Daily. N.p., 20 Apr. 2016. Web. 07 Feb. 2017.
"What Supreme Court's Tie Vote Means for DAPA and DACA." National Immigration Law Center. N.p., 24 June 2016. Web. 07 Feb. 2017.
Austin, Maame E., and Crhis N. Avila. "United States v. Texas (15-674)." LII / Legal Information Institute. Ed. Chris Milazzo. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2017.
"DAPA and Expanded DACA Programs." National Immigration Law Center. N.p., 02 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Feb. 2017.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). N.p., 22 Dec. 2016. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. N.p., 30 Jan. 2015. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.
"Defending DAPA and Expanded DACA Before the Supreme Court." American Immigration Council. N.p., 11 Apr. 2016. Web. 07 Feb. 2017.
Semantics/Fighting Words
1. In class we discussed how "[b]y definition, terrorism is a concept or category that describes human actions... To war against terrorism, therefore, is to war against a classification, a description, a word." How is going to war against a concept/description/word problematic in terms of identifying what success looks like and how to achieve it? Feel free to discuss not only the "War on Terror" but also the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty" in your answer if you would like.
Going to war against a concept/description/word makes it so that the problem is viewed through a “war framework,” implying that the perceived problem can be attack through regular war methods such as military tactics one would see in warfare and aggressive law enforcement measures aimed to seek out and eradicate. However, that is not the case with the wars described above. How could success even be measured/what would it look like? Not only that, but how could it even be achieved? One problem with this is that the way these are phrased “War against Terrorism,” “War on Drugs,” and “War on Poverty” makes it sound as if their goal of completely annihilating the problem can actually happen, but it is just an unattainable and laughable concept that is merely struggled to be obtained. However, what is the price paid in order to try and achieve this goal?
While one may see -as you would call- good results at first, the outcome of that would be thousands of deaths. Take for example the 1.3 million lives lost on the “War on Terror” or the thousands of lives lost on the other two “wars.” Even if “success” could be reached, could it really be called success if millions of lives would be lost? Because regular war methods were used, treating this type of conflict/struggle against a so called word as a war, it was thought to be able to fight head on. But how can you fight against such a broad concept? Especially one when the enemy isn’t even something you can physically attack.
2. In 2001, President Bush said about our country's response to the attacks on 9/11: "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while." Think about all 3 parts of that quote, and discuss the ways in which it frames the discussion of our "War on Terror". How might Muslims in general, and Muslims who believe they are "estesh'hads" and their apologists in particular, interpret Bush's quote?
In the article, Jim Guirard states that “the first difficulty they face is that Islam expressly forbids suicide.” Islamic ethics underline five ”unpardonable sins” two of them being murder and suicide, which are considered to be evil deeds that cannot be undone, so “to void such awkwardness, the apologists of terror recently abandoned the term entehari (‘suicidal’).” The term shahid cannot be used for the men who self-detonate in civilian areas because it is as one would describe a “complex” term. Guirard explains that “although it also means “martyr,” it must not be focused with the Christian concept of martyrdom. In Islam, Allah himself is the first shahid, meaning “witness” to the unity of creation. The word indicates that individuals cannot decide to become martyrs⎯that choice belongs only to God.”
Being the honor that it is, there are only a dozen or so “shahids” in the history of Islam which are “people who fell in loyal battle in defense of the faith, not in pursuit of political goals.” However, to get around this, the word etsesh’had, meaning “martyr-like.” The way Muslims in general, and Muslims who believe they are "estesh'hads" and their apologists in particular might interpret Bush’s quote as something offensive and unnforgivable. I do believe that Muslims who do not believe they are “estesh'hads” would agree with what their goal is and what they are doing is wrong, but because of the way Bush stated what he was going to do, making it sound as if all must be annihilated and that their belief in both Allah and the term “shahid” is wrong, many would take offense.
Going to war against a concept/description/word makes it so that the problem is viewed through a “war framework,” implying that the perceived problem can be attack through regular war methods such as military tactics one would see in warfare and aggressive law enforcement measures aimed to seek out and eradicate. However, that is not the case with the wars described above. How could success even be measured/what would it look like? Not only that, but how could it even be achieved? One problem with this is that the way these are phrased “War against Terrorism,” “War on Drugs,” and “War on Poverty” makes it sound as if their goal of completely annihilating the problem can actually happen, but it is just an unattainable and laughable concept that is merely struggled to be obtained. However, what is the price paid in order to try and achieve this goal?
While one may see -as you would call- good results at first, the outcome of that would be thousands of deaths. Take for example the 1.3 million lives lost on the “War on Terror” or the thousands of lives lost on the other two “wars.” Even if “success” could be reached, could it really be called success if millions of lives would be lost? Because regular war methods were used, treating this type of conflict/struggle against a so called word as a war, it was thought to be able to fight head on. But how can you fight against such a broad concept? Especially one when the enemy isn’t even something you can physically attack.
2. In 2001, President Bush said about our country's response to the attacks on 9/11: "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while." Think about all 3 parts of that quote, and discuss the ways in which it frames the discussion of our "War on Terror". How might Muslims in general, and Muslims who believe they are "estesh'hads" and their apologists in particular, interpret Bush's quote?
In the article, Jim Guirard states that “the first difficulty they face is that Islam expressly forbids suicide.” Islamic ethics underline five ”unpardonable sins” two of them being murder and suicide, which are considered to be evil deeds that cannot be undone, so “to void such awkwardness, the apologists of terror recently abandoned the term entehari (‘suicidal’).” The term shahid cannot be used for the men who self-detonate in civilian areas because it is as one would describe a “complex” term. Guirard explains that “although it also means “martyr,” it must not be focused with the Christian concept of martyrdom. In Islam, Allah himself is the first shahid, meaning “witness” to the unity of creation. The word indicates that individuals cannot decide to become martyrs⎯that choice belongs only to God.”
Being the honor that it is, there are only a dozen or so “shahids” in the history of Islam which are “people who fell in loyal battle in defense of the faith, not in pursuit of political goals.” However, to get around this, the word etsesh’had, meaning “martyr-like.” The way Muslims in general, and Muslims who believe they are "estesh'hads" and their apologists in particular might interpret Bush’s quote as something offensive and unnforgivable. I do believe that Muslims who do not believe they are “estesh'hads” would agree with what their goal is and what they are doing is wrong, but because of the way Bush stated what he was going to do, making it sound as if all must be annihilated and that their belief in both Allah and the term “shahid” is wrong, many would take offense.
Analysis/Reflection for "Psychological Implications of Virtual Reality"
1. What are 2 positive implications mentioned in the article that most interest you? Discuss the impact of these implications. (ex. Why do they interest you? What is the potential of developing these uses of VR?
The first positive implication mentioned that caught my interest was the potential for VR to be used in education. Most people nowadays find school and education to be pointless. Why is that? Because they simply find school to be boring. However, introducing practical knowledge to the classroom without actually leaving it would make educational experiences incomparable. Rather than listening to lectures, students would be able to experience it virtually (of course I go against the idea of spending the whole lecture inside the VR). I think that most students would agree with me that they would learn more due to the fact that they are having fun. Of course it would require time and the adjustment of the technology for the learning purposes. The second is the Oculus Rift being considered as a therapeutic tool. I think it is truly amazing that virtual reality can be used in such a way, helping people suffering with 'phantom limb syndrome’ by correcting their mental 'body map’. Knowing that virtual reality can also be used for something like this and not just for entertainment (which is also really cool) gives the hope that its technological advances will move to benefiting the many patients.
2. Discuss 2 things in the article that made you raise your "bullshit" flag? (i.e. What are two things mentioned in the article that you don't believe or is based on an assumption that you don't believe.) Defend your difference of opinion.
I think I have reread it another three times to try and find something that I did not believe or is based on an assumption that I do not believe, however, I do not know enough about the topic and found it truly hard to think about what in my opinion is a lie. Given the fact that this is my first time finding out about all these things, I can't for certain know what are facts and what are opinion. To me, the whole article looked fine. I could not seem to find anything that raised my - as you would call it - “bullshit” flag. If I had to take a guess, I think that the first paragraph on the last page seems like it was just written to fill up the page. Besides that there really was not anything else. As I have mentioned before, because I did not know anything about virtual reality until... really this year and specifically more this semester, I believe what this article was saying is true.
The first positive implication mentioned that caught my interest was the potential for VR to be used in education. Most people nowadays find school and education to be pointless. Why is that? Because they simply find school to be boring. However, introducing practical knowledge to the classroom without actually leaving it would make educational experiences incomparable. Rather than listening to lectures, students would be able to experience it virtually (of course I go against the idea of spending the whole lecture inside the VR). I think that most students would agree with me that they would learn more due to the fact that they are having fun. Of course it would require time and the adjustment of the technology for the learning purposes. The second is the Oculus Rift being considered as a therapeutic tool. I think it is truly amazing that virtual reality can be used in such a way, helping people suffering with 'phantom limb syndrome’ by correcting their mental 'body map’. Knowing that virtual reality can also be used for something like this and not just for entertainment (which is also really cool) gives the hope that its technological advances will move to benefiting the many patients.
2. Discuss 2 things in the article that made you raise your "bullshit" flag? (i.e. What are two things mentioned in the article that you don't believe or is based on an assumption that you don't believe.) Defend your difference of opinion.
I think I have reread it another three times to try and find something that I did not believe or is based on an assumption that I do not believe, however, I do not know enough about the topic and found it truly hard to think about what in my opinion is a lie. Given the fact that this is my first time finding out about all these things, I can't for certain know what are facts and what are opinion. To me, the whole article looked fine. I could not seem to find anything that raised my - as you would call it - “bullshit” flag. If I had to take a guess, I think that the first paragraph on the last page seems like it was just written to fill up the page. Besides that there really was not anything else. As I have mentioned before, because I did not know anything about virtual reality until... really this year and specifically more this semester, I believe what this article was saying is true.
Analysis/Reflection of "The Good and the Bad of Escaping to Virtual Reality"
1. On 6th page of this reading, the author mentions "digital natives, whose perception of a healthy social life has been shaped by platforms like Facebook and Gchat." (and SnapChat, and Instagram, etc., etc.) You are a digital native (i.e. you've been raised in the age of "social media" and thus a high level of "connectivity"). Do you feel that this has inhibited/hurt or expanded/helped your reality and your relationships with other people. Explain.
To be completely honest, I don’t use social media often. I have an account for almost all the popular social media apps that are “in” right now like Facebook, Instagram, SnapChat, Twitter, Tumblr to name a few, but I rarely ever check them considering there are better ways to spend my time than to worry about what other people are doing or how many likes I got on a picture. However, I have seen how much of an effect it has on everyone around me; both good and bad. I feel that social media both inhibits/hurts and expands/helps people’s reality and their relationships with other people. In my opinion I don’t think there’s an either/or and think that people should look at it this way instead of one or the other.
Social media enables us to connect with many different types of people, we can meet and connect with others who share our same interests, and at the same time it allows us access to a myriad of ideas and resources. Not only that, but it can really help build relationships with the people you work with. One thing I notice a lot is how people tend to talk a lot about a funny youtube video or post they saw, something that caught their interest. What I found interesting is how if you found that same post or thing they found on social media interesting or even not interesting, relationships would build off of that; showing each other and talking to each other about the many more things they found to be funny or cool. Also, social media can help keep in touch with people who have moved far away or don’t see each other often, and shares with others whatever you want to really.
While there is the good to social media, there is also the bad. There are people who feel self-conscious due to the fact that they didn’t get “enough” likes or don’t have “a lot” followers. There is also the problem of cyberbullying which can be even worse considering that you can always go back to look at what other people wrote about you, this of course would make you want to withdrawal/escape from both people and reality. Not only this but many people act differently online than in real life which can affect whether or not you like the person online better. There are many more examples but only included a few (didn’t want to bore you with a five page essay).
2. This article addresses the concept of escapism with respect to virtual reality and social media and asks the question "can virtual escapism ever be used for good?" Yesterday's reading mentioned treating PTSD and treating Invisible Limb Syndrome. This reading mentions visiting remote destinations around the world. Share and discuss 2 ideas (not already mentioned in yesterday's or today's readings) for which VR worlds could be used for good.
There are so many ideas for which VR worlds could be used for good, like therapy or to relieve stress, or even allowing surgeons in training to watch a procedure first-hand. However, it could also be used for something that could benefit everyone (well everyone with a VR headset). How many people don’t like to exercise at the gym? Lots. Why is that though? No one really likes to exercise while staring at themselves or a plain wall. What if you could be somewhere beautiful while doing your workout on the treadmill, or watch movies, or exercise while playing a game? I mean seriously, no one likes working out while staring at a tv without sound, it’s just boring. Wouldn’t it make exercising way more fun and something that could actually come to be enjoyed?
Many people look towards the negative side of virtual reality, but what if it could really help people? For people who don't have the ability to get out in the real world, whether they are disabled or elderly or have something that prevents them from being able to move or leave their room (like cancer or cerebral palsy or a mental health issue), virtual reality could really improve their quality of life when they'd otherwise be confined to a single residence or even a bed. Virtual Reality would let them experience the outside. Not only the outside, but they could even enjoy their time playing games, watching movies in 3D or as if they were at an actual movie theater, or even in space or flying.
To be completely honest, I don’t use social media often. I have an account for almost all the popular social media apps that are “in” right now like Facebook, Instagram, SnapChat, Twitter, Tumblr to name a few, but I rarely ever check them considering there are better ways to spend my time than to worry about what other people are doing or how many likes I got on a picture. However, I have seen how much of an effect it has on everyone around me; both good and bad. I feel that social media both inhibits/hurts and expands/helps people’s reality and their relationships with other people. In my opinion I don’t think there’s an either/or and think that people should look at it this way instead of one or the other.
Social media enables us to connect with many different types of people, we can meet and connect with others who share our same interests, and at the same time it allows us access to a myriad of ideas and resources. Not only that, but it can really help build relationships with the people you work with. One thing I notice a lot is how people tend to talk a lot about a funny youtube video or post they saw, something that caught their interest. What I found interesting is how if you found that same post or thing they found on social media interesting or even not interesting, relationships would build off of that; showing each other and talking to each other about the many more things they found to be funny or cool. Also, social media can help keep in touch with people who have moved far away or don’t see each other often, and shares with others whatever you want to really.
While there is the good to social media, there is also the bad. There are people who feel self-conscious due to the fact that they didn’t get “enough” likes or don’t have “a lot” followers. There is also the problem of cyberbullying which can be even worse considering that you can always go back to look at what other people wrote about you, this of course would make you want to withdrawal/escape from both people and reality. Not only this but many people act differently online than in real life which can affect whether or not you like the person online better. There are many more examples but only included a few (didn’t want to bore you with a five page essay).
2. This article addresses the concept of escapism with respect to virtual reality and social media and asks the question "can virtual escapism ever be used for good?" Yesterday's reading mentioned treating PTSD and treating Invisible Limb Syndrome. This reading mentions visiting remote destinations around the world. Share and discuss 2 ideas (not already mentioned in yesterday's or today's readings) for which VR worlds could be used for good.
There are so many ideas for which VR worlds could be used for good, like therapy or to relieve stress, or even allowing surgeons in training to watch a procedure first-hand. However, it could also be used for something that could benefit everyone (well everyone with a VR headset). How many people don’t like to exercise at the gym? Lots. Why is that though? No one really likes to exercise while staring at themselves or a plain wall. What if you could be somewhere beautiful while doing your workout on the treadmill, or watch movies, or exercise while playing a game? I mean seriously, no one likes working out while staring at a tv without sound, it’s just boring. Wouldn’t it make exercising way more fun and something that could actually come to be enjoyed?
Many people look towards the negative side of virtual reality, but what if it could really help people? For people who don't have the ability to get out in the real world, whether they are disabled or elderly or have something that prevents them from being able to move or leave their room (like cancer or cerebral palsy or a mental health issue), virtual reality could really improve their quality of life when they'd otherwise be confined to a single residence or even a bed. Virtual Reality would let them experience the outside. Not only the outside, but they could even enjoy their time playing games, watching movies in 3D or as if they were at an actual movie theater, or even in space or flying.
TED: Isaac Lidsky: What reality are you creating for yourself?
At the beginning of his TED Talk, Mr. Lidsky talked about how “our lives are full of fish swimming backwards. We make assumptions and faulty leaps of logic. We harbor bias. We know that we are right, and they are wrong.” What he talked about sounded really similar to what the “Beyond Feelings” reading chapter 3 and 2. These two chapters talked about how our truths can be distorted by our emotions or by how something is presented to us. Sometimes what we think we saw, our memories, never actually happened. We are bias when trying to find the answer to something, always claiming our way of thinking is right and therefore the other person has to be wrong. We base judgments on personal preferences and feelings, clinging onto our belief even when proven wrong; assuming our views to be error-free and unwilling to listen to others’ views.
When he was giving his advice, it reminded me of the characteristics of a critical thinker. Similar to how critical thinking can be taught, how to live life with “eyes wide open” is a learned discipline. Fear is a great manipulator, it causes us to make assumptions, jump to conclusions and strain for unbelievable perfection. Don’t let the fear of being wrong stop us from seeking the truth, acknowledge that there are various possibilities instead of setting for one answer because that will result in tunnel vision. We shouldn’t allow what we see or feel control our movements. Mr. Lidsky feared going blind wouldn’t let him succeed, but he fought his way out of that fear and it turned out even better for him, he found vision. Our fears are only stories our brain created, blocking our vision so it shouldn’t dictate our lives.
What really stood out to me the most was the part where he talks about how “fear beats a retreat deep inside your mind, shrinking and distorting your view, drowning your capacity for critical thought with a flood of disruptive emotions.” This really stood out to me because of how true this statement is and how much we struggle with it. Yet there he is, someone lost his sight one day at a time, succeeding even more.
When he was giving his advice, it reminded me of the characteristics of a critical thinker. Similar to how critical thinking can be taught, how to live life with “eyes wide open” is a learned discipline. Fear is a great manipulator, it causes us to make assumptions, jump to conclusions and strain for unbelievable perfection. Don’t let the fear of being wrong stop us from seeking the truth, acknowledge that there are various possibilities instead of setting for one answer because that will result in tunnel vision. We shouldn’t allow what we see or feel control our movements. Mr. Lidsky feared going blind wouldn’t let him succeed, but he fought his way out of that fear and it turned out even better for him, he found vision. Our fears are only stories our brain created, blocking our vision so it shouldn’t dictate our lives.
What really stood out to me the most was the part where he talks about how “fear beats a retreat deep inside your mind, shrinking and distorting your view, drowning your capacity for critical thought with a flood of disruptive emotions.” This really stood out to me because of how true this statement is and how much we struggle with it. Yet there he is, someone lost his sight one day at a time, succeeding even more.
Research Project
Rough Draft Literature Review
“There are absolute standards. Those standards are embodied in our law. They're in the Military Commissions Act, for example. They're in how we ratify the Convention Against Torture. They're in domestic US law that forbid different aspects of torture. Some things are just absolutely forbidden. Some things are just wrong. And they're mentioned very specifically.” So where does enhanced interrogation play its part?
In this research paper I will briefly be talking about Guantanamo Bay and the controversial topic of waterboarding which plays a big part on enhanced interrogation. Interrogation by torture has long been a controversial issue, becoming one of the many ethical questions being debated. While torture is prohibited, there have been ways to get around this; such as calling it “enhanced interrogation” for starters. It is undeniable that the use of torture interrogation surely brings up a lot of problems as well as criticism, many arguing while the information gathered is not always accurate it does have the potential of saving lives, while others believe it to be unreliable and immoral. But how do we know whether it is effective at all?
Since news of the mistreatment and possible torture of detainees in U.S. custody first surfaced, Congress has debated and legislated on the subject of the legal and moral limits on interrogation tactics. On one side we have people leaning towards morality when viewing this ethical dilemma, and on the other we have people arguing on the basis that enhanced interrogation is not in fact torture. One of the most common examples that has been brought up throughout the years, has been the instance of Guantanamo Bay, which was a detention facility where enhanced interrogation of suspected terrorists sequel to the 9/11 attack in 2001 occurred.
On the hearing before the subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties of the committee on the judiciary house of representatives, Trent Franks stated that in the article which appeared in the New York Times, nowhere in its entirety did it state that the confidential legal advice in question authorizes torture, simply describing as what is characterized as severe interrogations. It was after this he claimed, “on the American side of the ledger, let me be very clear, Mr. Chairman: Torture is illegal. Torture is banned by various provisions of law, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 19 U.S.C. 893 and the 2005 Senate amendment prohibiting the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of anyone in U.S. custody. In fact, the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay are treated so well in their confinement that they have gained an average of 15 pounds. They have been given the best medical and dental care and the utmost in religious accommodation, including Korans and the ability to pray 5 times a day, undisturbed, in the direction of Mecca.”
Many argue that terrorists make no such accommodations, causing severe consequences, as it was seen in the 3,000 American lives that were taken on September 11, and therefore severe interrogations in some circumstances may be necessary to prevent the death of thousands of people. Claiming that the aggressive but legal controlled interrogations have worked well in the past. An example being Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the driving force behind the 9/11 attack, who had stayed quiet for months after his capture, until the interrogators reportedly used some version of what is called waterboarding on him for just 90 seconds, at which he then, according to Franks, “began to reveal information that helped authorities arrest at least six major terrorists, including some who were in the process of plotting the bringing down of the Brooklyn Bridge, bombing a hotel, blowing up U.S. gas stations, poisoning American water reservoirs, detonating a radioactive dirty bomb, incinerating residential high-rise buildings by igniting apartments filled with natural gas, and carrying out large-scale anthrax attacks.”
Taking the opposing side, Amrit Singh, staff attorney, ACLU, stated that government documents showed techniques such as “stress positions, prolonged isolation, sleep and light deprivation, forced nudity, and intimidation with military dogs, all of which were authorized for use at Guantanamo Bay by Secretary Rumsfeld—also came to be used by interrogators in Afghanistan.” According to Steven Kleinman, intelligence and national security specialist, senior intelligence officer/military interrogator, his colleagues in behavioral sciences have cautioned him that “a number of factors, including the excessive stress, insufficient sleep, and other environmental influences can result in substantial memory deficits. These are manifested not just in memory gaps, but in unattended fabrication.” Claiming that it is exceptionally problematic since being exposed to “psychological, emotional, and physical stress, the source is more likely to report a combination of real and imagined facts, believing sincerely that both are true, but ultimately being sincerely wrong on many counts.”
Moreover, regarding the waterboarding, former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School) in San Diego, California explained how the SERE staff were required undergo waterboarding. “I was no exception. I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school’s interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques used by the US army and the CIA for its terror suspects.” What they failed to mentioned, he continued, “was that SERE was designed to show how an evil totalitarian, enemy would use torture at the slightest whim. If this is the case, then waterboarding is unquestionably being used as torture technique.” He explained that waterboarding does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. “It is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration—usually the person goes into hysterics on the board,” and if anything went wrong, it could lead straight to terminal hypoxia (deficiency in the amount of oxygen reaching the tissues or lack of oxygen to the brain). “How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result,” Furthermore, a team doctor is watching for the “quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral” allowing the victim to recover and be threatened with it again and again, unlike with physical scarring.
In addition, the joint armed forces and both intelligence agencies of US (CIA ad FBI) were deployed to Guantanamo with the mandate of interrogation techniques in order to ensure captured terrorists revealed the intelligence to unmask the 9/11 perpetrators and location. According to Singh, “the documents the ACLU has received under the Freedom of Information Act demonstrate that FBI officials who were stationed at Guantanamo Bay, who were closely involved in observing the use of ‘‘SERE’’ methods and other harsh interrogation methods as offensive techniques, these FBI officials were of the opinion that those methods were not producing reliable intelligence. And that appears again and again in the documents. In fact, the FBI was so concerned about the harsh methods that the Defense Department was employing on Guantanamo prisoners that it decided to record its objections on paper. There is a May 2003 electronic communication that the FBI specifically put on the record in order to demonstrate that it specifically objected to Defense Department methods, not only because they were illegal, but also because they were ineffective.”
America has justified it legally at the highest levels of government. According to the president, enhanced interrogation is not a torture, but wouldn’t that give other countries an American legal basis to perform under? Meaning that because it is considered legal and not torture, every hostile intelligence agency and terrorist in the world will consider it a viable tool, which can be used with impunity. It has been turned into an acceptable form of finding information. Whether enhanced interrogation is effective to some degree is still debatable, although waterboarding is classified as torture under international law. What people refuse to address is that torture cannot be defined by specific techniques, creating an unattainable conclusion.
I think that torture is when sufficient immediate or cumulative force robs said human the capacity of being to say voluntarily what they believe and know to be true. It is the imposement of coercion in order to demolish an individual's ability to resist giving some kind of information, be it true or false. The person being interrogated is eventually brought to a point when such distinctions are less meaningful than simply ending the ordeal. Actually, researchers say that disclosure is more likely to occur faster when a rapport-building approach is used. Although this topic still has many flaws in which there is no definite solution and won’t be one in the near future, I believe that other alternatives should be explored in order to stop losing our humanity, which could even begin as outlawing their most controversial interrogational enhancement.
In this research paper I will briefly be talking about Guantanamo Bay and the controversial topic of waterboarding which plays a big part on enhanced interrogation. Interrogation by torture has long been a controversial issue, becoming one of the many ethical questions being debated. While torture is prohibited, there have been ways to get around this; such as calling it “enhanced interrogation” for starters. It is undeniable that the use of torture interrogation surely brings up a lot of problems as well as criticism, many arguing while the information gathered is not always accurate it does have the potential of saving lives, while others believe it to be unreliable and immoral. But how do we know whether it is effective at all?
Since news of the mistreatment and possible torture of detainees in U.S. custody first surfaced, Congress has debated and legislated on the subject of the legal and moral limits on interrogation tactics. On one side we have people leaning towards morality when viewing this ethical dilemma, and on the other we have people arguing on the basis that enhanced interrogation is not in fact torture. One of the most common examples that has been brought up throughout the years, has been the instance of Guantanamo Bay, which was a detention facility where enhanced interrogation of suspected terrorists sequel to the 9/11 attack in 2001 occurred.
On the hearing before the subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties of the committee on the judiciary house of representatives, Trent Franks stated that in the article which appeared in the New York Times, nowhere in its entirety did it state that the confidential legal advice in question authorizes torture, simply describing as what is characterized as severe interrogations. It was after this he claimed, “on the American side of the ledger, let me be very clear, Mr. Chairman: Torture is illegal. Torture is banned by various provisions of law, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 19 U.S.C. 893 and the 2005 Senate amendment prohibiting the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of anyone in U.S. custody. In fact, the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay are treated so well in their confinement that they have gained an average of 15 pounds. They have been given the best medical and dental care and the utmost in religious accommodation, including Korans and the ability to pray 5 times a day, undisturbed, in the direction of Mecca.”
Many argue that terrorists make no such accommodations, causing severe consequences, as it was seen in the 3,000 American lives that were taken on September 11, and therefore severe interrogations in some circumstances may be necessary to prevent the death of thousands of people. Claiming that the aggressive but legal controlled interrogations have worked well in the past. An example being Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the driving force behind the 9/11 attack, who had stayed quiet for months after his capture, until the interrogators reportedly used some version of what is called waterboarding on him for just 90 seconds, at which he then, according to Franks, “began to reveal information that helped authorities arrest at least six major terrorists, including some who were in the process of plotting the bringing down of the Brooklyn Bridge, bombing a hotel, blowing up U.S. gas stations, poisoning American water reservoirs, detonating a radioactive dirty bomb, incinerating residential high-rise buildings by igniting apartments filled with natural gas, and carrying out large-scale anthrax attacks.”
Taking the opposing side, Amrit Singh, staff attorney, ACLU, stated that government documents showed techniques such as “stress positions, prolonged isolation, sleep and light deprivation, forced nudity, and intimidation with military dogs, all of which were authorized for use at Guantanamo Bay by Secretary Rumsfeld—also came to be used by interrogators in Afghanistan.” According to Steven Kleinman, intelligence and national security specialist, senior intelligence officer/military interrogator, his colleagues in behavioral sciences have cautioned him that “a number of factors, including the excessive stress, insufficient sleep, and other environmental influences can result in substantial memory deficits. These are manifested not just in memory gaps, but in unattended fabrication.” Claiming that it is exceptionally problematic since being exposed to “psychological, emotional, and physical stress, the source is more likely to report a combination of real and imagined facts, believing sincerely that both are true, but ultimately being sincerely wrong on many counts.”
Moreover, regarding the waterboarding, former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School) in San Diego, California explained how the SERE staff were required undergo waterboarding. “I was no exception. I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school’s interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques used by the US army and the CIA for its terror suspects.” What they failed to mentioned, he continued, “was that SERE was designed to show how an evil totalitarian, enemy would use torture at the slightest whim. If this is the case, then waterboarding is unquestionably being used as torture technique.” He explained that waterboarding does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. “It is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration—usually the person goes into hysterics on the board,” and if anything went wrong, it could lead straight to terminal hypoxia (deficiency in the amount of oxygen reaching the tissues or lack of oxygen to the brain). “How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result,” Furthermore, a team doctor is watching for the “quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral” allowing the victim to recover and be threatened with it again and again, unlike with physical scarring.
In addition, the joint armed forces and both intelligence agencies of US (CIA ad FBI) were deployed to Guantanamo with the mandate of interrogation techniques in order to ensure captured terrorists revealed the intelligence to unmask the 9/11 perpetrators and location. According to Singh, “the documents the ACLU has received under the Freedom of Information Act demonstrate that FBI officials who were stationed at Guantanamo Bay, who were closely involved in observing the use of ‘‘SERE’’ methods and other harsh interrogation methods as offensive techniques, these FBI officials were of the opinion that those methods were not producing reliable intelligence. And that appears again and again in the documents. In fact, the FBI was so concerned about the harsh methods that the Defense Department was employing on Guantanamo prisoners that it decided to record its objections on paper. There is a May 2003 electronic communication that the FBI specifically put on the record in order to demonstrate that it specifically objected to Defense Department methods, not only because they were illegal, but also because they were ineffective.”
America has justified it legally at the highest levels of government. According to the president, enhanced interrogation is not a torture, but wouldn’t that give other countries an American legal basis to perform under? Meaning that because it is considered legal and not torture, every hostile intelligence agency and terrorist in the world will consider it a viable tool, which can be used with impunity. It has been turned into an acceptable form of finding information. Whether enhanced interrogation is effective to some degree is still debatable, although waterboarding is classified as torture under international law. What people refuse to address is that torture cannot be defined by specific techniques, creating an unattainable conclusion.
I think that torture is when sufficient immediate or cumulative force robs said human the capacity of being to say voluntarily what they believe and know to be true. It is the imposement of coercion in order to demolish an individual's ability to resist giving some kind of information, be it true or false. The person being interrogated is eventually brought to a point when such distinctions are less meaningful than simply ending the ordeal. Actually, researchers say that disclosure is more likely to occur faster when a rapport-building approach is used. Although this topic still has many flaws in which there is no definite solution and won’t be one in the near future, I believe that other alternatives should be explored in order to stop losing our humanity, which could even begin as outlawing their most controversial interrogational enhancement.