Torture’s a thing of the past. Only dictator controlled countries use torture. No civilized person would use torture techniques to obtain forced confessions. Most Americans would readily agree with these statements and who can fault them? Why would citizens of the United States of America ever contemplate torture being used by our government? America’s the land of the free, not the land of the tortured.

 

At least that’s what we’re told. In fact, our own government has been detaining prisoners in different countries and using “severe interrogation techniques” on them in order to obtain information about possible security threats. On top of this, two tapes containing footage from these “interrogations” were destroyed by the C.I.A to supposedly protect their employees and prevent information from being leaked. Give me a break. Why not just destroy every single piece of information they’ve ever collected to “protect their employees”. It’s extremely suspicious that the footage of these interrogations were destroyed right after the techniques being used on the prisoners were questioned. Clearly there’s something more going on than just the run of the mill questioning of suspects. While we’re at, let’s just be honest to ourselves and admit that our so called great government is allowing the use of torture.

 

Bush has supported the use of this program claiming that it has given valuable information to agents that would have otherwise remained unknown. Maybe someone should tell the president that any confessions given under torture aren’t exactly reliable. This fact has only been known for about the past 500 years. Maybe we should send Bush a copy of The Question since the president obviously hasn’t kept up on current readings.

 

The torture of prisoners held by the U.S needs to stop immediately. Torture is banned for a reason. It’s wrong. For the Bush administration to sanction its use is totally ridiculous and hypocritical.

Is a true decent society really plausible?

As presented by Margalit I would not think that it is possible. One can not doing something without hurting or insulting in some way. Of course people always say that in a perfect world it is possible, but we dont live in a perfect world, we never have and we never will. That is in essence asking people to stop being human, to not have emotions.

I was captivated by the bus scenario.  If a elderly person gets onto a bus and no one gets up out of respect for the elder would that be taken as a compliment or an insult?

Well at first reaction people would think it is insulting to not get up for the elderly, but then what if the elderly person took it as a compliment.  Maybe from there perspective they felt that they were being viewed as younger than they actually were.

It is these types of interactions that make it impossible to have a truely decent or perfect society.  Discrimination is what makes this world as it is.  Although many times people are unaware that they discriminating against someone?  If you were in the bus situation and did not rise for the elderly simply because you thought they were younger than they were, but were then chastised how would you feel?  There was no maliciousness, it was not out of disrespect but you can not change the event.  Then if someone else on the bus sees you around somewhere and the only perception of you is as the person who did not respect the elderly then they could discriminate against you.  Then what if that same thing happened  to that person.  People are always indirectly affecting each other whether they realize it or not.  But I think that is one of the great things about being human, that people should observe these interactions and learn from them, not judge people.

                We often think of torture as simply the physical act of humiliation. But torture is so much deeper than that and the repercussions more devastating. We tried in class to come up with a definition of torture and I think this one sums it up: “Torture according to international law is “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” (Wikipedia). Torture of the soul hurts more than physical abuse. Think of the worst thing that any one has ever said to you and multiply it by a hundred to equal torture that people feel when they’re told that they’re family is in jeopardy unless they do as they’re told. Why should we do things such as corporal mutilation, sleep deprivation, brain washing and solitary confinement? Some say it’s for national security but what happens in most cases is that the information that’s procured is wrong anyway. So, all the energy gone into trying to get information is futile and a waste.

                Why do we need torture then? Is it purely for the enjoyment and entertainment of those performing the acts of cruelty or is it just the officials trying to look as though they’re doing something productive? I believe it’s a combination of both and a waste of time and money, money that could be better spent on fixing things at home like Medicare and poverty.

The Questionby Henri Alleg sheds light on an issue that is often pushed back into the recesses of society’s mind: torture.  It’s not that people are unfamiliar with the concept, or even that people don’t know that it has been used in the past.  It’s that people are always shocked to find out that torture is a tactic employed by their own countries.

When The Question came out, France had been engaged in the Algerian War for Independence, and French citizens were stunned when they learned of the horrible methods their government was using, not only against the “enemy,” but against its own citizens, such as Alleg.  The government immediately banned the book, though this did not keep the message from reaching the public.

Most people would agree that the torture that Alleg underwent was inhumane and inexcusable; no person should have to endure that sort of treatment under any circumstances.  Yet governments seem to feel that torture is an effective means of gaining information from the other side.  The practice is not foreign to the United States, either.  Our government, particularly during this war, has been clandestinely using methods of torture.  Now, if this is an effective means of gaining information, and the government really is doing a sufficient job of protecting us, why can’t they share this information with the public?  Why are videotapes of interrogations being destroyed?  Why are these practices kept under such tight wraps?

It’s illegal! That’s why. It is against the law to engage in these methods and in doing so the United States is breaking the law.  Even if you completely ignore the immorality of torture, it is still illegal.

I wonder, if someone tortured by the U.S. came forward and wrote a graphic book detailing his or her experiences, would our democratic government ban it?

Shocked yet?

Think about the world we live in today. It’s certainly not perfect, so what would it take to make the world into Utopia? The idea of Utopia, proposed by Sir Thomas More in his book Utopia (1516), is “an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect”. Although I hate to be pessimistic, I doubt that there is any simple way to convert the world we live in today into Utopia. What seems more attainable is to strive to live in a world that is at least a “Decent Society.”

Avishai Margalit is the author of The Decent Society, and in this book of his, he expresses his ideas of what a decent society would consist of. He brings up topics such as humiliation, rights, honor, respect, etc.

Throughout his book, Aviashai Margalit tends to focus on the issue of humiliation. Essentially, he believes that eliminating humiliation in a society would greatly increase the chances of the society in becoming a “decent society.” One of the radical points that Margalit makes is that one of the biggest causes for humiliation is “the very existence of governing institutions.” In the absence of governments, we might live in a more decent society. I found this idea to be somewhat extreme, however it did encourage me to ponder and consider the idea.

I believe governments are a strong and necessary foundation in order for a community or society to be successful. To be completely honest, I’m not sure that I could imagine our country lacking a government. In fact, governments have played a huge role in the commencement and persistence of all different types of communities throughout history and around the world.

Margalit argues that the elimination of governments might help to reduce the presence of humiliation among the citizens of a community who are living under the rule of a government. The idea caught me off guard because it did seem quite radical. However, I tried to consider it and thus I thought about what the world would be like if we never lived under the rule of governments. Since it was so difficult for me to fathom such a world, the only conclusion I came to was that each person would not have to live by any rules. However, could this really yield to a decent society? If no one had to follow any rules, they would be free to do whatever they please. I think this would only work if everyone had enough respect for themselves, which, only then, would lead to everyone respecting everyone else.

After much thought, all I could think of was that with all the wars that have been and are currently being fought, with all the crimes committed, and with all the hatred expressed in this world today, the idea of a decent society seems simply unattainable. However, I then tried to give more hope for our society. I believe that even though trying to build a decent society seems impossible, I still think there are tinier steps that each individual can take in order to help our society improve. I think about those commercials on television where one person does a small good deed for a complete stranger; that stranger, deeply touched by the other person, is then encouraged to also do a good deed to another complete stranger; and a domino effect is created. I think little things like this can immediately make a small difference in our society, which can certainly be transformed into a huge improvement in our society.

So although I initially found Margalit’s idea to be very farfetched, I now realize that there are smaller steps that can be taken to improve our society. It is indeed possible to attain a decent society; it just requires a little bit of effort from each individual.

While it is not something that most people ask themselves, I question now – Would you be able to torture someone for information? Up until recently, I never would have dreamed that I would ever need to ask myself this. However, doing more reading on the concepts of torture brought me to a conclusion. No, I could not so much as physically torture an animal, let alone a human being. I care far too much for the well-being of most things to ever be capable of physical abuse. It was in class, however, that I came to realize that physical pain is by no means the worst way to torture someone. And, as odd as it may sound, I do believe I would be capable of mentally torturing someone. And I am a supporter of such tactics for the sake of gathering information from a hostile enemy.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not some sadistic person who gets pleasure out of the pain of others. I have a very low threshold for pain myself, and could not imagine inflicting it in an extreme way on others. But the inner workings on the mind are something I would not mind exploring. It was brought up that people under physical duress are usually quick to give a response so that the pain will stop. Those sorts of answers are widely unreliable, and wholly ineffective. However, mental duress can cause just as much strain on a human. Solitary confinement is an effective means of punishment – just look at putting children in “time out”. So why would it not be an effective means of “torture” for use with interrogations?

Brain-washing has been in the books for as long as I can remember, depictions of dark rooms and bright lights, with the necessary deep Russian accent drilling the person strapped to the chair with questions, with subtle hints at what they should be thinking. Once the mind is broken, who is to stop information from flowing? I don’t know about you, but I would tell my “best friend” everything, if not just to let out all of that pent up frustration at the volumes of knowledge I have.

Thinking on this brings up an important point. “What constitutes torture?” Some things are obviously torture. Any sort of undue, unwilling physical duress are forms of torture. What about the aforementioned mental tortures? Do they really constitute torture? I do not know if most of us are entirely sure. It is easily argued that mental “torture” has more lasting effects. The human body is surprisingly resilient, and might recover from physical duress far quicker than the mind would from mental duress.

When it comes down to it, the biggest issues I have with torture are the victims. Deciding who merits torture either physically or psychologically is nigh impossible. There are too many subjective elements that fall into play for anyone to decide which one of the enemy prisoners is going to be selected for interrogation. But it does make you wonder – Could you torture another human being?

 

Never before could I find a cause of President Bush to stand behind. It is now, with this War on Zombies that I can stand behind our President wholeheartedly. Zombies are a menace to society, and becoming an increasingly realistic threat. There is scientific proof towards the possibility of a Zombie Apocalypse. Thankfully, our President is firmly behind this program for the defense against these horrific creatures. We are fighting a war on terror. And what is more terrifying than flesh-eating zombies? Perhaps now, if the funding is granted, we can be truly ready. I would suggest first handing out a copy of “The Zombie Survival Guide” to each and every household, to really prepare our nation for the threat of a zombie attack. While I have never read said guide, I have a full understanding that it gives you all the details towards living through a cataclysmic zombie apocalypse.

Zombies are generally not very friendly individuals. What with all that thirsty for blood and craving for flesh, they may as well be animals. It is frightening to think of them as once human. A War on Zombies is certainly what I would refer to as a “just war”. Zombies are out to kill you, and as President Bush points out, they are a threat to your children.

(Disclaimer: Remember this is satire, and I myself am a practicing Catholic. No offense is meant.)Would this war be sanctioned by God? If we disregard the notion made by non-believers that Jesus rising from the dead might be an example of zombification, then I believe so. Man is not meant to rise from the dead without the behest of the Almighty. Zombies are clearly the manifestation s of heathen religions, or at the very least abominations created by Satan. Why wouldn’t we have the full of support of our Lord and Savior? It is unfortunate, however, that at our side we do not have such great champions of God as Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, El Cid Campeador. El Cid and his Knights, blessed by God, would be wonderful Marshalls to our army against Zombies. Why, do you ask? – Because swords do not run out of ammunition.

However, the rights of the zombies involved with the war must be protected. They were human at some point, and those invaluable human rights must be protected. The zombie civilians are not to be harmed, and the zombie children protected at all costs. While they may no longer be human, we most certainly are!

I applaud President Bush for his movement towards funding in preparation of a Zombie Apocalypse. And woe to those nay-sayers who would argue that it is frivolous spending of taxpayers’ money. Say that again when the flesh-hungry undead are knocking on your door.

This article on supermax prisons is an extremely interesting read.  First the living conditions of the prison are described; the prisoners are kept in small cells for 23 hours of the day.  Their furniture often consists of a bed and a sink and they are constantly under the watch of the guards, either directly or through the use of cameras.  They have absolutely no human contact except occasionally with the guards and a rare visit (where they sit behind Plexiglas windows).  They even exercise alone.  For one hour a day the prisoners are taken one at a time into a somewhat larger cell or barred off outside area where there may be a pull-up bar or a ball of some kind and they are allowed their time of “recreation”.

               Interestingly the majority of the supermax population is not who would be expected to be placed there.  Most of the prisoners are not mass murderers or terrorists, many of them are sent to supermax prisons because they either tried to escape from another facility or behaved violently towards guards or other inmates.  I thought this quote was enlightening in respect to what can get a prisoner sent to a supermax, “There is evidence that the inmates most likely to be placed in such units are there for non-violent or otherwise petty verbal responses to guards.”  So a person gets years or even decades in solitary confinement because he mouthed off to a guard?  Amazing penal system we have in operation.                The effects on the inmates are terrible as expected.  These quotes really speak for themselves.     “ . . . People come in here with a few problems and will      leave sociopaths.  Isolation causes people to become bitter,      angry and disassociated from reality.  They become worse      people."        "Check out any caged animal and you will see what happens in      CSP.  I've seen people just crack and either scream for      hours on end or cry, people become very depressed, anti-social and want revenge on society for building it.  In      short CSP creates monsters and they are trying to keep      people here for five to ten years."          "I have noticed a sense of total hopelessness.  I don't      think I will ever leave.  Plus my anger has gone to the      point of a silent rage.  It's like they want to build a      killer.  I don't know.  It's hard to explain[.]  I am      beginning to really hate people."        "I also feel that I have some mental problems and so do      they, but the medication really does nothing but slow me      down physically and it only prolongs a problem until I get      out.  But what then?  I want to make it out there. . . ."        ". . . They impose a variety of petty little rules and play      petty little games to try to break a person down mentally.       The DOC [Department of Corrections] realizes if they control      you mentally, it is easier to control you physically.  And      mental abuse leaves no evidence behind as does physical      abuse."   Another thing the article mentions is the effect on the prison guards, which is not something normally, talked about when discussing prison conditions and reforms.  The guards have complete control over every facet of the prisoners’ lives, something that occasionally (or not so occasionally) goes to their heads.  They will often rule by fear and domination.  The article suggests they do this because like the prisoners, the guards are cut off from the regular world.  For both groups the prison is the only thing.  Also the guards often tend to see the prisoners as the “worst of the worst” assuming that every one of them is an extreme danger to society.   Here is a link to the article if anyone wants to read it http://www.spunk.org/texts/prison/sp001611.txt   It’s clear that we need a more effective way of dealing with prisons and especially the supermax.  As they are now, the prisons offer no form of rehabilitation and only compound whatever problems the prisoner had before he came there.  I think of Eldridge Cleaver who enters prison because he smoked marijuana and comes out a rapist.  Clearly we are doing something wrong here and the system is in need of massive reform.

 

 

Fear – It’s a theme I think has run the course of this class, the discussions, as well as in all moral theory. Fear, on a much larger scale, holds back mountains of progress. The fear of change is in the back of everyone’s mind; no one is wholeheartedly ready for anything to change. On that same token, what if there was no room for change? I find that idea to be more frightening than the world around me changing drastically. There are, and have always been too many things wrong with our society. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that our world is evil, I am just implying that we are imperfect, and there is always room for improvement. And more often than not, it is this sense of fear that either motivates these changes, or hinders it.

Fear is a funny thing. It has been said “we have nothing to fear but fear itself”, which I find to be interesting in itself. If fear was the only thing we had to fear, the world would be a better place. Sure, there are many people afraid of being afraid, but there are far more people afraid of being alone, of being with a home, of being unable to feed their families, of going to war, of losing their lives, of being invaded, of being bombed, and of so many other things that grasp the attention of peoples’ thoughts far more than just being afraid. Throughout this semester, it became increasingly clear to me that people fight for human rights, for women’s rights, and against discrimination because they are afraid. It makes perfect sense for women to fight for their rights, or for those discriminated against to fight for their rights, but why do other people champion others’ rights? I say it is because in the back of the mind, there is the thought that if it does not start somewhere, that it could very well fall back on them.

The same logic can be applied in many cases to the reasons behind the waging of war. Does this make war okay? No, most definitely not. But it does justify it in many minds. Although there may be no basis for this in any sort of psychology, I am a firm believer that the majority of aggressive behavior stems in a sense of fear; fear of not being good enough, and thus needing to lash out. Think on the number of “inadequacy” jokes that could be made on world leaders who start wars. Take the “War on Terror”, for instance. It is a touchy subject at best, and yet it can be boiled down to the simple concepts of fear. Why was the American populace so gung-ho for “hunting down the terrorists” initially? Because of a fear that another attack might hit our shores. Why is it so difficult for the military to be withdrawn from Iraq now? Because of the fear of admitting how wrong it is to still be there, a fear of showing weakness.

Finally, the imprisonment of “criminals” is perhaps the clearest example of fear guiding society. It was been clearly expressed in our class that having those that commit “crimes” in prison makes us feel better. There is a subtle comfort in knowing that in the menagerie of people convicted of victimless crimes, there are a number of true monsters locked away. That fear blinds us from the idea that perhaps these prisons are what breed a lot of the monsters we look at from afar. Those details don’t worry us as long as we can just lock them up again, right? Right?

Fear – perhaps the primary reason it has taken me so long to blog-post. Just remember, “we have nothing to fear but fear itself”. Too bad fear has us all by the nape of the neck – just ask everyone taking finals. That sure “puts the fear of God” in us.

Soul on Ice is a narrative that truly captures a mans struggle in his society.  He begins by telling us about how he was arrested for having marijuana.  He explains why he does not think it is wrong him to get high while other people can go around and drink.  He had been smoking for 4-5 years when the police arrested him.  While in prison he began to believe that god did not exist, so therefore to him all religions were “phony.” 

As his narrative goes on he begins to bring up some comical points.

For one he thought that conjugal visits were unfair.  He believed that single prisoners needed “action” just as much as married ones.  He then grew odious of white woman, who were to him in essence a symbol of what a black man could not have.  

I was greatly amused by his explanation of his time with his psychiatrist.  At the end of the session with his psychiatrist the psychiatrist believed that he hated his mom. And as put by Cleaver

“How he arrived at this conclusion ill never know, because he knew nothing about my mother; and when he asked me questions i answered him with absurd lies”

For whatever reason that part has stuck in my head.

I think this narrative is a phenomenal example that shows what prison does to criminals.  Granted, Cleaver could have been mentally unstable before he went to jail.  It destroyed his character and he became the way he was because of jail.    

When a person smokes they are not doing anything detrimental to society.  They are not stealing someone else’s belongings or physically imposing harm upon others.  I am not condoning smoking, because I never have and I never will smoke, but i do find that jail is the correct punishment.  Why not just have them do community service? If all a person does is smoke then they are not a danger to society, if anything going to jail would turn them into a criminal.  Have the smokers clean up local parks make the town/city look better, which LOWERS crime.  When people are in an area that they feel is safer or cleaner it will bring more guardians of place and targets, and there will be less potential to do crime. 

But there is a huge difference between the casual smoker and then the smoker who also commits other crimes such as robbery, theft or homicide.  I believe they without hesitation should be sent to jail.

But the casual smokers are not doing anything detrimental to society, as long as they are not committing other crimes.  I believe that community service would be a great punishment, although that may not be the best word, for smokers.  They would be helping the society that they live in and helping to prevent other crimes.