My View on Torture, Blog #4

First of all, let me start off by saying the issue question for this packet is ridiculous. The question reads, "Is It justifiable to Put Suspected Terrorists under Great Physical Duress?" It should say something along the lines of, "Is it OK to torture people we think could be terrorists?" Sounds different now, doesn't it?
I believe that torture is never OK. The argument for "interrogation techniques" is severely flawed. First, calling torture "interrogation techniques" is showing the embarrassment of those for that side; one can't be embarrassed of something he supports. Second, in the article George Bernard Shaw says there should exceptions that should be made in the case of the "ticking time bomb." In class we had a discussion about the hypothetical situation of a bomb in New York City. If someone is in custody and the government is absolutely 100% sure this person knows where the bomb is, is it OK to torture that person? There is rarely a time where we know the person in custody is 100% guilty. There are very few things in this world we can be sure of. There is no excuse to torture another human, even if there was a way to know for sure. My favorite argument of the other side is "Well, we should torture this person to save thousands." Again, maybe we would save thousands, maybe not. Maybe the bomb is fake. Maybe this isn't the person. Maybe there was miss information. It is never OK to torture because it is extremely unethical, and we cannot be sure of the information (possibly coming from another man being tortured to make his own pain stop).
The fact is, there will always be someone or some force out to get us. What shows true character is not stooping down to that forces level. Krauthammer explains a very important point. Torture spreads. Sure, it may be effective at first in a small prison, but once word gets out that it works, it will spread like wildfire. Krauthammer also explains how at first torture was isolated, only used in the most extreme cases. Within months of that, it spread to Iraq at Guantanamo Bay and also Abu Ghraib. Krauthhammer's quote is brilliant when he says, "The lesson is that it is impossible to quarantine torture into a hermetic box; it will inevitably contaminate the military as a whole."
Who wants to support a country with the belief that hurting others is OK?

Dead Teen Walking

The reoccurring theme of Nature vs. Nurture helps man try to decipher and understand actions. Nurture affects how man is molded. For example, White Fang in the novel White Fang became only as vicious as he needed to survive. Society, and his surroundings, hardened him. Like the young black boys in the article "Dead Teen Walking," White Fang learned to fight in order to ensure his own survival. Those boys grew up in some of the toughest conditions imaginable. Being young boys, they looked up to older men who were not good examples. After figuring out how important it was to have others backing one up, they joined gangs and often found themselves in quite a bit of trouble. I was disgusted by what Republican Governor Pete Wilson of California's spokesman said in the article about 14 year old boys being able to be on death row. He claims the gangs use young boys as the "triggermen" because gangs know younger boys won't get the death penalty. He says "We need, as a society, to see if there is some action that can be taken. And, by God, the death penalty is a deterrent." So, if I am correct, this man thinks we should all think killing a 14 year old boy is OK? Is rehabilitation not an option? It seems to me that society isn't willing to fix a problem it created. If Nature vs. Nurture is, in fact, true, we should be trying to fix the root of the problem: how these boys are raised and how society around them acts.
I am totally, one-hundred percent against the death penalty. I don't care what age the offender is, what he did, or what he says. Killing is wrong, plain and simple. There is a quote out there that says "Why do we kill people, who kill people, to tell them killing is wrong?" I find our country to be rather hypocritical (ex. other countries are not allowed weapons of mass distruction, but we can have them set up and ready to fire). In our class discussion we learned that about 70 innocent people died on death row in the last 5 years or so. That is simply not acceptable. It sickens me how easily this is comparable to Abu Ghraib. We tortured (and most likely killed, even if the government won't admit it) hundreds of Iraqis in search of some far-fetch information only some would have. America figured, "Hey, what the heck, so we tortured some innocent men, but we did get really important information for our country." That is an attempt to rationalize what happened, and not many buy it. How is that any different to death row? OK, so we kill some innocent guys, but we also kill some really, really bad ones...so it's fine. It wasn't OK in the case of Abu Ghraib, and it isn't OK in the case of death row.

Abu Ghraib

The scandal of Abu Ghraib will forever be an example of America taking matters way too far. Through "harsh interrogation techniques" (torture) American officials attempted to receive important information from Iraqis. However, after physical AND psychological torture, these officials only received information from an estimated 20 to 25% of detainees. The theme of nature vs. nurture is a prolific idea which will endlessly torture man and cause him to do things he wouldn't normally do. In Lord of the Flies by William Golding, power was almost more important than the idea of being rescued. Ralph and Jack were in a constant power struggle, and when power was gained, the thirst became an insatiable quest for more. Those two characters can be compared to Charles Garner. He had power over prisoners, and he used that power. Unfortunately, Garner wasn't able to control himself with this power and exercised control over living beings (like the little boy in the pond with the stick in Lord of the Flies). On the other side of the idea of nature vs nurture, there is the belief that society effects man. Like the novel White Fang by Jack London, society (higher ranking officials) effected the actions of soldiers working the prison. Some questioned the "techniques," but ultimately didn't ask questions. This proves that man will be effected by outside forces. It is hard to believe anyone would treat another human being so poorly, even if told to do so, but this shows society effects man's actions drastically.
The "disciplinary" actions taken against the people involved are absolutely horrible. I believe these people should be punished with more than a couple of years in prison. Under no circumstance is it OK to treat people like those soldiers treated those prisoners. The opposition may say they were just doing as orders told, but the soldiers should have known better. How they acted was/still is an embarrassment to our country and what we are supposed to represent. Also, the fact that there are pictures disgusts me. These solders took pictures with the detainees while they were nude, in "stress positions," and on the floor. I can't believe in these pictures the soldiers are smiling, thumbs-up and proud. The most disturbing picture to me was the one with a woman soldier, by the body of the only reported homicide of Al-Jamadi. The soldier was sitting by it with a smile on her face. She said "it was supposed to be just a dead guy." Maybe she didn't know he was murdered, but why would anyone take a picture with a dead body?
I understand the times and conditions were rough, but in no instance is it OK to treat humans like the Iraqis were treated at Abu Ghraib prison. This is yet another example of man at his worst, and how he attempts to rationalize it.

Senior Social Blogs

Out of the two books assigned this summer, Lord of the Flies was my favorite by far. I am really interested in the psychological part of humans, and that book really touched upon why humans act the way they do. The author, William Golding, did an excellent job in using strong characterization to create humans who represent a larger group of people. Lord of the Flies was a well written novel that portrayed humans and primal instincts which we unknowingly fight. I didn't care for White Fang because of the authors writing style. Jack London wrote with lengthy descriptions and I felt the whole book could have been half the size, and the reader would have still received the same message that society effects man. I found myself becoming increasingly uninterested as the story went on.