Big Brother is Watching You

[neoplacebo]

Most US citizens have never spent any extended period of time outside the country and because of that they have an insular, detached, ambivalent view of what the US does in other parts of the world in their name....and they wonder and bitch and moan about why others hate America. Then they express opinions and views that tend to feed on and intensify their own illusions and misconceptions and fears.

I for one don't have any illusions as to how badly the US has stepped on its own dick with foreign relations. Maybe for a brief period we were the "good guys" after WWII, but by the mid-fifties, we were the "Ugly American". Kennedy didn't help with Bay of Pigs and the related sabre-rattling, and then there was Vietnam and it's all been pretty much downhill since then. But much like the eternal conflict among Sunnis and Shi'ites, between Israelis and Arabians, not all hate is dependent on what we actually do. In any case, whatever the cause, we can either defend or roll over. I'm not much for rolling over.

Yeah, once we became the ugly American in South America sixty years ago, I guess someone decided we need to export that to other parts of the world. The Sunni / Shia and Arab /Jew conflicts are none of our business, and probably wouldn't be now if weren't for Aramco oil company back in the 1920's. As far as I'm concerned, and I think the US should reflect this position.....those conflicts are like someone you don't really know that bought a fucked up used car from the other party; it is not our problem. Throw in a big dose of cultural and historical ignorance and you have a recipe for disaster. And here we are.

[O Really]

Yeah, my first choice would be to stay out of fights in which we have no dog. And not send our dog to start fights where they might not otherwise occur. And not to try to be the world police. Or the world morality police. Or the arrogant self-aggrandizing better-than-you people. But nobody in charge asked me for my input.

[neoplacebo]

Yeah, that happened to me, too. Nobody called.

[O Really]

O Really, is it possible that you're describing TV's effect on you as much as other "people"?

The ‘24’ Effect
Did the TV drama convince us that torture really worked?

Possibly, although it wouldn't have been "24" since I didn't watch that one. But it isn't necessary to watch contemporary TV/films or read newish books to find numerous instances of -ummmm - "enhanced interrogation". Pretty much throughout history, people have had the idea that they can coerce something out of someone through pain or threat. I think a lot of the issue is found in the definition of whether "it works." I suspect it's neither "all the time" nor "none of the time."

[O Really]

Cheney tosses Bush under the bus... http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-BBgEbYn

[rstrong]

The article doesn't even mention "torture" or "torturer" even once. It uses interrogation / interrogator 14 times.

This is the propaganda version.

Senate staffer tries to scrub 'torture' reference from Wikipedia's CIA torture article

[O Really]

The article doesn't even mention "torture" or "torturer" even once. It uses interrogation / interrogator 14 times.

This is the propaganda version.

Senate staffer tries to scrub 'torture' reference from Wikipedia's CIA torture article

Not to say it isn't propaganda, but looking at it from a non-political perspective, which is the more emotionally loaded term, "torture/torturer" or "interrogation/interrogator"? Propaganda thrives on emotionally loaded terms that create a gut-level response. Want to get people to hate the CIA? Call them "torturers." Want to get people to like the CIA? Call them "interrogators." Propagandists all.

[bannination]

O Really, is it possible that you're describing TV's effect on you as much as other "people"?

The ‘24’ Effect
Did the TV drama convince us that torture really worked?

Possibly, although it wouldn't have been "24" since I didn't watch that one. But it isn't necessary to watch contemporary TV/films or read newish books to find numerous instances of -ummmm - "enhanced interrogation". Pretty much throughout history, people have had the idea that they can coerce something out of someone through pain or threat. I think a lot of the issue is found in the definition of whether "it works." I suspect it's neither "all the time" nor "none of the time."

I have no doubt torture works. They will talk. Problem is, they may not even have the information the torturer is seeking. (They may even be innocent.) Also, following up on every lead not knowing when the subject has actually been broken is a huge waste of time. I personally think that it's completely ineffective because of those reasons.

At any rate, I find it morally wrong. Either shoot them on the spot, or interrogate them using non-torturous and in my opinion more effective methods.

[rstrong]

The article doesn't even mention "torture" or "torturer" even once. It uses interrogation / interrogator 14 times.

This is the propaganda version.

Senate staffer tries to scrub 'torture' reference from Wikipedia's CIA torture article

Not to say it isn't propaganda, but looking at it from a non-political perspective, which is the more emotionally loaded term, "torture/torturer" or "interrogation/interrogator"? Propaganda thrives on emotionally loaded terms that create a gut-level response. Want to get people to hate the CIA? Call them "torturers." Want to get people to like the CIA? Call them "interrogators." Propagandists all.

Police detectives interrogate suspects all the time without:

- Painful stress positions for days on end
- Slicing into the suspect's balls with razor blades
- Making suspects shit themselves
- Telling them that they'll only leave the cell dead
- And occasionally making it happen
- Fake burials
- Threatening to rape their family
- Sodomizing them and beating them for "capture shock"
- Drugging them

All that is TORTURE, not interrogation. It's the proper term. You'd only dismiss it as "emotionally loaded" if you're trying to get into the Guinness Book of World Records for "Most Pathetically Dishonest."

[O Really]

. You'd only dismiss it as "emotionally loaded" if you're trying to get into the Guinness Book of World Records for "Most Pathetically Dishonest."

Not really. Recognizing emotionally loaded language doesn't mean approval nor "dismissal" of the action. Now you're going to lecture a lawyer on the impact of words? Undoubtedly most of what is euphemistically termed "enhanced interrogation" is indeed torture. That doesn't mean every report or article has to use the term "torture" every chance they get in regard to all interrogations.

[rstrong]

That doesn't mean every report or article has to use the term "torture" every chance they get in regard to all interrogations.

And that's not what's being done here.

Yes, there were interrogations that really were mere interrogations. No-one is complaining about those. The uproar is about what is honestly, correctly, without "emotionally loaded language", torture.

When talking about this report, it's "interrogation" that's "emotionally loaded language." It's a "Glittering Generality."

A glittering generality (also called glowing generality) is an emotionally appealing phrase so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that it carries conviction without supporting information or reason.
[...]
A glittering generality has two qualities - it is vague and it has positive connotations.

"Interrogation" implies merely asking questions, as the hero police investigator on TV would do. It leaves out the electric shocks, sodomy and slicing of testicles that these folks were doing.

More simply, it's doublespeak:

Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable.

[O Really]

I just noticed the original title of this threat, "Big Brother.."
Interesting that torture was a central theme in "1984," definitely effective in the story.

[O Really]

First, sure it's fun to use "Big Brother" to imply a government infringing on people, but if anybody thinks that the US - at it's worse - is anywhere close to a real dictatorship, they're totally blowing smoke. I lived for a couple of years in Greece during the rule of the hard-core right wing military junta that ruled from around '67 to 74ish or so and the control was harsh. But even then, most people could avoid getting hauled away in the middle of the night and having their feet beaten by keeping a low profile and their mouths shut with regard to the government. They didn't have hi-tech electronic monitoring, but they did make an effort to get people to report on each other, much like in "1984" and they did go on witch hunts, harassing and (gasp) torturing people over what they may or may not know. Jail was not very humane. In fact, they didn't actually feed you much if anything. If nobody brought you food, you eventually starved. Not that I think what those guys did was right, but they are somewhat of a standard with me against whom I judge "repression" "spying" "torture" or "dictator."

So not many years ago, I would have been on the barricades with the rest of you denouncing inhumane treatment of prisoners of war and demanding that somebody's head roll. Like William Calley's should have. Wars had sides, defined usually by countries, and each side's warriors generally understood some version of rules of engagement. Remember the story where German and Brit troops in WWI took a brief informal and unofficial Christmas truce to play a pick-up game of futbal? Countries had objectives - expansion of power or influence, acquisition of resources, whatever. And when a country lost, they were able to call off their warriors and everybody went home. Oversimplified, sure, but basically right. But what do we have now? We've got renegade organizations, subject to no government or country, led by hitleresque men with no objective other than total cultural and physical domination of all around them. These are people who respect no law other than their version of Islam, and who have no hesitation to kill their own as well as themselves. They thrive on terror and have no respect for anything but strength.

So do I care if some of these people were tortured? Nope, I don't. Do I care if about a fourth of the ones known to be tortured weren't all that (if any) guilty of what was suspected? Yes, but not all that much. I doubt any of those people were accountants just going about their business and arbitrarily selected for torture. Do I care if the torture didn't always lead to accurate and useful information? Not all that much, as long as it struck fear in the hearts of those not yet caught. What do you do to a person who is willing to blow themselves up along with a whole public marketplace? What do you do to a person who chops off heads for demonstration of power? Or to a person that happily kills his sister because she was raped? Sure, there's the argument that treating them poorly just makes them meaner - and I don't doubt that the prison in Iraq created the conditions for ISIS, but it's an equally good argument that treating them better just makes them think you're weak and thus an even better target.

[O Really]

Who said "dictatorship"?

."

... We've got renegade organizations, subject to no government or country, led by hitleresque men with no objective other than total cultural and physical domination of all around them. These are people who respect no law ... and who have no hesitation to kill their own as well as themselves. They thrive on terror and have no respect for anything but strength.

I lost track, are you describing jihadists or Americans?
Oh puh-leeze.
So do I care if some of these people were tortured? Nope, I don't.

Do you care if US and international law is broken?
Not particularly. Hey, I'm a card carrying PETA member, but if I'm attacked by a dog that doesn't follow the human/dog rules, I'm gonna whack him.
Do I care if about a fourth of the ones known to be tortured weren't all that (if any) guilty of what was suspected? Yes, but not all that much. I doubt any of those people were accountants just going about their business and arbitrarily selected for torture.

You have tremendous faith in Big Brother
Not really. Mistakes happen. But I think they are largely mistakes, not arbitrary sadism.
Do I care if the torture didn't always lead to accurate and useful information? Not all that much, as long as it struck fear in the hearts of those not yet caught.

It's created more enemies without deterring anyone that we know of. You should care about that. Plus, it was secret and is still being largely denied. That's not a sensible point.
Secret is the point.

What do you do to a person who is willing to blow themselves up along with a whole public marketplace? What do you do to a person who chops off heads for demonstration of power? Or to a person that happily kills his sister because she was raped?

Try and imprison them if they're not killed at the time or during capture, as the civilian, non-torturing justice system has been doing far more successfully than the military has.
Works well in the US civilian, garden variety criminal system. Not so well in the world of jihadists.
Sure, there's the argument that treating them poorly just makes them meaner - and I don't doubt that the prison in Iraq created the conditions for ISIS,

Point proven.
Not really. Sometimes there isn't a win-win solution. Sometimes you have to weigh one devil against another.
but it's an equally good argument that treating them better just makes them think you're weak and thus an even better target.

Our prisons are "weak"?

As compared to the treatment the jihadists give their opponents and each other, yes. Almost luxurious.
Your "reasoning" justifies torture by any government, anytime.

[O Really]

So - I wondered why it was that I seemed to defend CIA torture, or at least found the harumphing to be a bit extreme. I think this article explains it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-bach ... lp00000592

The harumphing is hollow because it is from people who pretend the US is different from what it is. It is a refusal to admit the degree that US citizens are a violent, cruel people. If we were all sweetness and light, we would have a right to be aghast that the CIA is torturing and the military is drone-bombing in our name. But we're not. We feed the violence. We nurture the evil. We are who we are.

[O Really]

Violent US citizenry - majority think CIA torture techniques justified. A lot shrug.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... -shrugged/

[JTA]

[JTA]

When I was a young girl sitting on my momma's knee
she told me to love freedom and to keep my dignity
out in the country down in Georgia.
In the tallgrass and Queen Anne's lace I began to love America.

When I went to elementary school I learned to cuss,
learned to pray to a protestant God and in Him we trust.
I pledge allegiance to America...
in the concrete walls and wooden desks I learned the scriptures of America.

When I went to high school I learned how we hate
all the fears and shadows we use to segregate
the people of America.
We hold some lies to be self-evident in America.

When I was in Dallas I stood up all night long
thinking about ... murder
and what it takes to buy a soul in America...
(hums)
...but it's still my America.

Down in Alabama where the crosses burn so bright,
way out in the desert where your eyes can't hold the light,
and from the mouths of fools who tell you money always makes right...
comes the darkness of America,
our America.

From the glitter of Miama to the wild Alaskan shore,
and the greed of the wealthy and the faith of the poor
this is all our America.
And if they tell you we can't use her freedom anymore,
well they don't stand for our America

If they tell you miles of freedom is a cost we can't afford,
they shore up the government, and keep us hard at war
til one by one give up our rights til our borders seem secure,
and disagreement will be treason, we'll have no voice anymore.
They just don't understand America,
my America,
our America,
my America.

That is a great song. So much so I'm about to go out and drive around town in circles listening to it. Peace.

[neoplacebo]

After that go with Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World." That's a good one, too.

[JTA]

After that go with Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World." That's a good one, too.