Academic War CoverageOctober 4, 2006 11:28 pm
Calling all those who will be watching this tomorrow at their schools–Guantanomo: How Should We Respond?–please do find time to post comments. I will too.
15 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://warpost.blogsome.com/2006/10/04/how-should-we-respond/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
In his excellent presentation this morning, Joseph Margulies recommended that we familiarize ourselves with one report which can be found by googling the following words: “ABC News Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.”
Comment by Amitava — October 5, 2006 @ 11:14 am
The journalists’ panel is discussing the prison-log of prisoner Mohamed Al-Qahtani published in TIME magazine. Check it out at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1071284,00.html and http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1071202,00.html
Comment by Amitava — October 5, 2006 @ 11:19 am
In the afternoon panel, I’m right now listening to Professor Alex McCoy who has just told us that the pictures from Abu Ghraib reveal the genealogy of CIA’s techniques of psychological torture, dating back to the 1950s and extending to the present. Psychological torture is the most American form of torture, the professor has said. The picture of the hooded man with his arms spread has two trademarks of the CIA approach: the hood for sensory deprivation and the arms spread out for self-inflicted pain.
Comment by Amitava — October 5, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
Craig Haney speaks about his remarkable 1971 study in which he and his colleagues put a group of people in a simulated prison with one set arbitrarily marked as “guards” and the other as “prisoners.” To their horror, the researchers found out that within 36 hours, the “guards” had begun to torture the prisoners. Instead of the study taking several weeks to get underway, it needed to be closed six days later.
I found Haney’s presentation to be a strong repudiation of the “bad apples” defense offered of the torturers at Abu Ghraib. He alerts us to the need to examine the structure of the barrel itself.
Comment by Amitava — October 5, 2006 @ 4:21 pm
I found it hard to believe that people with good intentions can end up being abusive. Professor Craig Haney argues that this moral complex change is due to the prison environment. Perhaps this is the case, but I am not sure if I completely agree since I have never been in a prison situation before. As for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, I still can’t believe that some of the interrogators are physically and psychologically abusing the prisoners to the extreme. Prisoners are human too. The treatment that the prisoners are receivin are not justified.
Comment by Shirley Shangguan — October 6, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
I was absolutely shocked by the ways in which torture has been used. I felt the same way as Shirley. Prisoners are people and diserved to be treated as such. The teach-in also spoke about the Standford Prison experiment. I learned about this is psychology class, but I didn’t really think that the findings from the experiment were viable. However, after listening to the points by all of the speakers I could see how the greater sense of power felt by the guards, and the dehumanizing of the prisoners just by the standard practises of taking away any bit of individuality could lead to torture and abusive acts that were seen in the experiment. Now I really feel that the only way to prevent torture is reorganizing the prison systems in this country, not just by removing the “bad seeds” from the system.
Comment by Taylor Stewart — October 7, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
I thought Pincus’ point about the difference between the Cold War (when many of the techniques being used presently were developed) and the War on Terror was an interesting one. He said that in the Cold War, our fears were very specific- namely, nuclear annihilation- whereas now, our fears are broader and unfocussed: our enemies are loosely defined as terrorists, and their goals, and consequently our goals in fighting them, are unclear. Pincus alluded to the possibility that this sense of object-less dread might change the way we behave toward our perceived enemies in combat and in prisons without really saying how.
With that in mind, I searched “war” on youtube.com after the presentation. There is a ton of footage there taken by soldiers - both interesting and disturbing. One video in particular showed the “American trademarks” of enhanced interrogation, as well as the conflicts that arise from not knowing exactly who your enemy is. There is a shot of the back of a pickup truck, where five or six men are seated with burlap sacks covering their heads and their hands tied in front of them. One man tries to hold his head in his hands as he cries. The camera then pans left, to three American soldiers dressing a wound on a civilian’s leg. The wailing captive in the truck can still be heard in the background and one of the three soldiers keeps looking nervously over his shoulder in the direction of the prisoners.
Comment by Jamie Stevenson — October 8, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
One aspect of the Guantanomo situation that has always disgusted me has been the “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude the US exudes about it. Prisoners deserve basic human rights and treatment–unless there exists the minutest possibility that they may pose a potential threat to our great nation. In that case, the US will take no chances in defending its way of life. The same seems to go for torture: we publicly condemn torture, whether physical, psychological, etc., but behind closed doors we use the same methods of interrogation the then-hated Soviets employed fifty years ago. The methods we use are bad enough, but the hypocrisy is salt in the wound.
Comment by Michael Spencer — October 8, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
The Stanford Prison experiment was fascinating. The scientists’ initial hypothesis was so moderate in comparison to what actually occured. Nurture over nature I suppose. The experiment’s findings bring to mind Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Mob mentality and the brainwashing power of ideology - thinking you are working for a greater conceptual good so you can ignore the concrete evil you are committing. And yet as much as people are lured into doing bad things, we in “civil society” are lured into thinking it would never happen to us. The “bad people” who torture and debase people in prisons are horrible and revolting. But we are just seperating ourselves and dehumanizing the torturers as sick and evil just as the torturers seperate and dehumanize their victims. It is easy to condemn the oppressors and sympathize with the afflicted. But weren’t the prisoners often oppressors to other victims? And aren’t we oppressors to the Guantanomo prison workers? Don’t we all just want to oppress and condemn someone else to keep from admitting that we have the same potential within ourselves? Just something to think about….
Comment by Shelby Wardlaw — October 8, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
Seeing a panel of men in US military uniform speaking with passion about the failures of the governmental and military policy that they’re forced to enact in Guantanamo was really refreshing. It is important, I think, to hear intelligent voices of humanitarianism coming from the military, especially its lawyers whom it is so easy to villify. It was a perspective I hadn’t thought about, that of military prosecutors who couldn’t sleep because of the unfair way that they were forced to prosecute these men in Guantanamo with insubstantial evidence. The fact that the people who are paid to handle prisoners’ cases are outraged by the way that the trials are held and that policy still isn’t changed is infuriating. The idea that a man can be sentenced to death while kicked out of the courtroom, not even knowing what kind of evidence is being presented to convict him…it seems cliched to say it, but as one JAG put it, it is “Orwellian.” In a fight to supposedly preserve democracy and freedom, using such unconstitutional tactics only brings up the sad notion that the ideals of democracy are already withering away. Still, to know that a military lawyer actually took a case to Supreme Court on the behalf of a Guantanamo inmate was not only a deeply impressive action, but a hopeful one. Hearing that lawyer speak, still in his uniform, but more concerned with human rights than military policy, was the kind of experience that made the teach-in idea so valuable.
Comment by Lucas Mann — October 8, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
It was incredibly fascinating to see Prof. Haney on the panel, and I was most struck by what he had to say. I saw a video of the experiment in my AP Psych class, and it really is the most chilling thing. (As a class, we were incredibly disturbed that the reasearchers let it go on as long as they did.) It’s utterly astonishing to see just how fully people will take on what they feel to be the characteristics of the role they’ve been assigned-–the guards became belligerant and abusive, and the prisoners became passive and depressed (some of the prisoners, in interviews, reported that they began to feel as if they actually deserved the treatment they were getting.) And of course it has a lot to do with the mob mentality as well, especially in the case of the guards–things that you are reluctant to do by yourself suddenly become quite reasonable when several of your peers are doing it. One of the other panelists (I forgot which–I didn’t take notes, sorry) mentioned this, that the more people involved, the easier it is to spread whatever guilt you may feel around. And of course, when an authority is telling you what to do (as in the Millgram experiment, another terrifying insight into psychology I think we’d all like to pretend isn’t true), well then, the burden of blame can be lifted almost completely and the age-old rationale–”I’m just following orders”–takes its place.
I think it’s extremely important that people become aware of these things. As Shelley said above, the idea that this kind of sadism and disregard for the humanity of others is something anyone is capable of…well, we’d really rather not acknowledge that. So we point fingers, we find scapegoats, and in doing that we ignore the real heart of the problem. It is not the case of a few “bad apples” getting carried away–it’s the system that is rotted.
*If anyone has the time and inclination, the video is available on GoogleVideo. It might be worth a look:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2683701783583080634&q=stanford+prison+experiment
Comment by Stephanie Taverna — October 8, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
I was most struck by the comment of the Protestant minister during the religious discussion, in which he quoted Dietrich Bonhoeffer as saying that “Only those who cry out for mercy for the Jews have the right to sing Gregorian chants.” The minister insisted that today, only those who cry out for detained Muslims have the right to sing Gregorian chants. As a member of the Body of Christ, I am often appalled by the evagelical agenda that conservative politicians so often espouse. Christ called us to be advocates for the poor, the imprisoned, the “untouchables.” Yet so often modern Christianity turns into something that is merely self-serving, rather than worshipping God by seeking justice for all people. This disconnect resonates with the question put to the panel as to whether religious leaders across the country are failing to preach against torture, or whether political leaders are abusing religious power. I agree with the consensus of the panel that both are serious issues that all faith communities should address seriously.
Comment by Brooke — October 9, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
What the stories from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib really underline for me is the disparity between the abstract ideals and the actual practices of America. We like to think we are a nation of justice, and yet deny others due process and detain them indefinitely; we like to believe we are a nation of tolerance, and yet stories surface about abuse of detainees that explicitly violate their religious beliefs; we like to say we are all equals, and yet we place ourselves above the international laws that we expect other nations to follow. Many people have commented on Dr. Haney’s Stanford prison experiment and how guards react when placed in a position of power over prisoners, but what I find equally disturbing was the role of those in medical professions at Guantanamo Bay. Leonard Rubenstein of Physicians for Human Rights was describing how Al-Qahtani went on a hunger strike while in isolation and a first-rate medical team was called in to treat his subsequent dehydration. While this medical team was treating him, they were simultaneously playing music so that he could not sleep, so in effect they were, “patching him up so torture could continue,” as Rubenstein put it. I had this image of a futuristic, totalitarian society from a novel or film, but one that had actually come to life. Rubenstein also relayed the fact that the Pentagon has declared that those in the medical profession stationed at Guantanamo are no longer subject to medical ethics. This I found most disturbing of all, “Orwellian” if we want to go there, because now there is a contingent of professionals with specialized knowledge in the medical field who are endorsed by the government to use that specialized knowledge as the government sees fit; namely, as a weapon against detainees. With a government that is ostensibly so concerned with ethics in the ironically titled “right to life” cause they parade in the media, it is this same government that states in cases it deems fit, ethics need not apply.
Comment by Amanda Melillo — October 10, 2006 @ 8:34 am
What the stories from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib really underline for me is the disparity between the abstract ideals and the actual practices of America. We like to think we are a nation of justice, and yet deny others due process and detain them indefinitely; we like to believe we are a nation of tolerance, and yet stories surface about abuse of detainees that explicitly violate their religious beliefs; we like to say we are all equals, and yet we place ourselves above the international laws that we expect other nations to follow. Many people have commented on Dr. Haney’s Stanford prison experiment and how guards react when placed in a position of power over prisoners, but what I find equally disturbing was the role of those in medical professions at Guantanamo Bay. Leonard Rubenstein of Physicians for Human Rights was describing how Al-Qahtani went on a hunger strike while in isolation and a first-rate medical team was called in to treat his subsequent dehydration. While this medical team was treating him, they were simultaneously playing music so that he could not sleep, so in effect they were, “patching him up so torture could continue,” as Rubenstein put it. I had this image of a futuristic, totalitarian society from a novel or film, but one that had actually come to life. Rubenstein also relayed the fact that the Pentagon has declared that those in the medical profession stationed at Guantanamo are no longer subject to medical ethics. This I found most disturbing of all, “Orwellian” if we want to go there, because now there is a contingent of professionals with specialized knowledge in the medical field who are endorsed by the government to use that specialized knowledge as the government sees fit; namely, as a weapon against detainees. With a government that is ostensibly so concerned with ethics in the ironically titled “right to life” cause they parade in the media, it is this same government that states in cases it deems fit, ethics need not apply.
Comment by Amanda Melillo — October 10, 2006 @ 8:36 am
I do not believe that “saving lives on our side” is a legitimate reason for torture. To echo Amanda Melillo’s use of the word “Orwellian”, I have been doing a lot of thinking about the end of the novel 1984 and the “expansion of the torture-able class.” How is widening the definition of a torture-able criminal the same as bringing torture as a means of investigation closer to non-criminals? I imagine that there is a scale and on one end of this scale there are loathesome, almost inhuman criminals, in the middle there are people who work for the loathesome, almost inhuman criminals, and on the other end there are normal people who are not criminals of any kind. Broadening the scope of who can and cannot be tortured inches torture closer to non-criminals.
Comment by Kelly Stout — October 10, 2006 @ 10:08 am