|
|
Tags for This Article:
Propaganda (1055) Torture (678) Guantanamo Prison (362) Denial (137) Abu Ghraib (89)
|
Add to My Group
On June 22, the NY Times ran an article by Scott Shane entitled "Inside a 9/11 Mastermind's Interrogation." Almost immediately in his article, Mr Shane indirectly justifies torture and paints a fantastic picture of the interrogator: "Mr. Martinez came in after the rough stuff, the ultimate good cop with the classic skills: an unimposing presence, inexhaustible patience and a willingness to listen to the gripes and musings of a pitiless killer in rambling, imperfect English." He then goes on to describe the "rapport" that Martinez built up with KSM, as well as the "ad-hoc nature of the [CIA interrogation ] program," and even painting the CIA as "nearly devoid of expertise in detention and interrogation." The rest of this article is more of the same. He gives a brief bio of Martinez that sounds like it might have been plagiarized from a Clancey novel's introductory bio of Jack Ryan. Next, he goes on to describe, in glowing fashion, Martinez' work - even concluding the article by describing Martinez doing "more lucrative work with government contractors" at "a consulting company run by former military psychologists who advised the C.I.A. on the use of harsh tactics in the secret program." Mr Shane never mentions the CIA Kubark manual from 1963, which encourages the use of psychological torture, nor the updated version from the 1980s that was widely used in Central America. The CIA's knowledge of "detention and interrogation" goes back to at least 1950, when they started funding academic studies - and it can easily be argued that it goes back to the end of WWII when they were still the OSS recruiting Nazi scientists. Mr Shane never mentions that the CIA manuals say that "all coercive techniques are designed to induce regression" and that: "The deprivation of stimuli induces regression by depriving the subject's mind of contact with an outer world and thus forcing it in upon itself. At the same time, the calculated provision of stimuli during interrogation tends to make the regressed subject view the interrogator as a father-figure. The result, normally, is a strengthening of the subject's tendencies toward compliance." It's clear to me that Mr. Martinez was playing the role of the "father-figure" here. The idea that Martinez is some kind of hero because "He chose to leave the infliction of pain and panic to others, the gung-ho paramilitary types whom the more cerebral interrogators called “knuckledraggers”," is absurd. Martinez, intentionally or not, was playing a role in a method of interrogation that has been laid out by the CIA for over 40 years! I didn't look all of this up after I read the NYT article - it has been freely available for years. The CIA manuals have been public since 1997, and there has been plenty of analysis by folks far more knowledgeable than myself. Stephen Soldz has written many understandable-to-the-layman articles discussing both the psychological and moral aspects, both on OEN and his own blog. For those with short attention spans (like myself), there was this article published almost two years ago on KOS that explained the basics of CIA torture! With such a wealth of research on the subject, the NYT article can only be explained - IMHO - in two ways. Firstly, Mr. Shane and the editorial staff are complete fools who wouldn't know journalism if it came up and slapped them in their faces! Or, Mr. Shane and the editorial staff knew exactly what they were doing, and this is possibly the most tasteless and morally bankrupt piece of propaganda ever written in this country (although I have to admit - as propaganda, it's slick!) In other words, the question is whether they are ignorant or willing tools. In the end, I wonder if it even matters? Torture has been a topic of public debate since the revelations from Abu Ghraib in 2004. When I read an article like this in 2008, I can't help but think how far public perception (and morality) in this country has slipped in that short time-span. We've gone from saying - as a country - that torture is completely unacceptable, to debating what circumstances it should be used in! In public debate (outside of a few bloggers), the idea of psychological torture is not distinguished from physical torture. In fact, the concept of mental coercion isn't even mentioned in the public discourse! Kudos to the NY Times and Mr Shane! I've never understood how a nation could undergo a collective denial of reality like the Germans under Hitler, but they've made it clear as day how it works now! Dave is a freethinker currently living in Colorado. He promises to someday make his bio either more informative or more entertaining.
This quote summarizes the nature of my concerns and the content of personal experiences which stir my activism:
Something to put on the public radar: Thank you so much Dave for exposing this glaring and very well-researched truth! You must have a strong stomach. Thank you for working for the sake of justice and the general good. Something which gets me about these reports is that they talk about these "terrorists"...as if a mere newspaper photograph, or their mere claim that they have a terrorist in captivity, is enough "proof". All interrogation techniques aside--I am shivering just thinking about it and not having read a single link-----the fact is that we ought to be questioning who they are holding in the first place, and the legitimacy of their "terrorist" claims. After all, the Military Commissions Act bars habeas corpus, detainees are not allowed to see their lawyers, "evidence" coughed up under torture is bound to be 99.9% false, and without habeas corpus there is simply no proof of innocence or guilt. So we are the fools for believing everything we read (articles claiming "Terrorist") and see (a mere photograph). America is not thinking, and we need to stress the urgency of not believing ANY claim of a terrorist in captivity, until we have concrete and LEGITIMATE proof (not coughed up under torture, tried in a court of law with legal access and in public view). Times Magazine also wrote a falsehood: Describing a "belly slap" what they did not say is that these "slaps" are done with steel cables two inches thick. One released detainee said on TV that "the pain lasted for six months". Thank you! by
Kathryn Smith (85 articles, 2 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 323 comments)
on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 1:15:00 AM
Exactly! The press has the responsibility to keep the people informed in a democracy, and the people have a "patriotic duty" to question their government! I don't think it would be too far-fetched to say most people reading blogs like this are well-aware of the failure of the press. Doesn't that mean it's now our patriotic duty to question both the press and the government? Is there even a difference between the two anymore? That questioning needs to be done with every statement made by the government and it's propaganda outlets, not just about terrorism. by
Dave Wheeler (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 4:03:47 PM
probably the latter "Or, Mr. Shane and the editorial staff knew exactly what they were doing, and this is possibly the most tasteless and morally bankrupt piece of propaganda ever written in this country (although I have to admit - as propaganda, it's slick!)" See this? Thanks for the great reserach. They should just rebrand themselves as Pravda 2.0. by
Kathlyn Stone (35 articles, 210 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 581 comments)
on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 10:14:30 AM
And, in Guantanamo, Meanwhile in Guantanamo about 270 prisoners are still being held, more than 190 of whom have appealed against their "Enemy Combatant" classification. Today, that has happened for one inmate, when a US court said the Pentagon must free Huzaifa Parhat, or transfer him, or hold a new hearing, as they declared the military's "enemy combatant" ruling "invalid". He is simply a Muslim from China, although he cannot return there as he would face persecution. A sad aspect of the new ruling is that "Huzaifa Parhat is now in his seventh year of imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, and he doesn't even know about this ruling because he's sitting in solitary confinement and we can't tell him about it." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7470405.stm by
Aurora (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 329 comments)
on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 12:45:16 PM
Hubris by
Dave Wheeler (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 4:30:19 PM
Who pays the torturers' wages? Is it, ultimately, the taxpayer? by
Aurora (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 329 comments)
on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 1:37:34 PM
Morally complicit too Yep, we are paying the taxes (or we're buying products from the corporations that are). More importantly, aren't we also morally complicit? This was done by the US government in the name of the US people. Any continuation of this policy, now that it's public knowledge, can't be justified with ignorance. According to our own foreign policy, we should be held responsible for our leaders' actions! by
Dave Wheeler (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 4:43:21 PM
Pravda 2.0 I couldn't agree more - the NYT and "Fair & Balanced" Fox News. by
Dave Wheeler (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 4:20:55 PM
|
|
