public radio torture
Sep. 13th, 2002 11:19 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
whispercricketOn my way into work, I listened to part of the 10-11am show on public radio. They were talking to a civil libertarian and touched on the subject of torture. The civil libertarian's point was that torture is evil, but it happens in our country anyway, and it's better for it to be state-sanctioned and controlled instead of hidden under the table as it is now.
This started me thinking. Torture is not a generally accepted part of modern, civilized life (at least not as I know it), which is why it's hidden away if it occurs. It's the same way that if you do something that you think you need to do, but you feel guilty about it or have a nagging feeling that you shouldn't have done it, you don't run around telling everyone about it. What would happen to the mindset of the American people (wow, I'm getting pretentious and generalistic) if it was decided by the powers that be that torture should not be hidden under the rug and instead should be used openly, albeit only in very extreme and proscribed situations? An example scenario described by the civil libertarian (I never caught his name) was when the torture of a foreigner (not sure from where) led authorities to thwart a terrorist plan and stop the destruction of a dozen or so planes over the Pacific.
Now it seems that the fact that a person was tortured to get that information is fairly well-known. However, what would happen if this was accepted and legal, if we turned on the news and saw, "Top news tonight - the Federal Torture Commission has approved the petition to torture [random_person], who is suspected of being part of a terrorist plot that threatens our national security."? How many people would accept that, because the government says it's okay, and how many would be shocked (at least for a few minutes)? If we are shocked, but nothing has changed except that we now know about it when it occurs, does that mean that it is okay for the ends to justify the means as long as we don't have to know how we get to the ends?
I'm still mulling this over (I only heard it on the radio about 5 minutes ago), but there's something extremely disturbing about someone proposing that torture should be open and governed by the state. However, it's more disturbing to me when I think about it and realize that if I hadn't heard about this, I would have been perfectly willing to continue on in my happy little oblivious world and not wonder how they coerced people into giving them information when they're short on time. I guess it's hard when I make myself notice that civilization is less civilized than it likes to think that it is.
[segue]
(This is good. I haven't really written anything, personal or otherwise, since I left college, except for random work e-mails and documents that don't really count. I don't really write as well as I used to, but it's getting a bit better, and I like doing it.)
This started me thinking. Torture is not a generally accepted part of modern, civilized life (at least not as I know it), which is why it's hidden away if it occurs. It's the same way that if you do something that you think you need to do, but you feel guilty about it or have a nagging feeling that you shouldn't have done it, you don't run around telling everyone about it. What would happen to the mindset of the American people (wow, I'm getting pretentious and generalistic) if it was decided by the powers that be that torture should not be hidden under the rug and instead should be used openly, albeit only in very extreme and proscribed situations? An example scenario described by the civil libertarian (I never caught his name) was when the torture of a foreigner (not sure from where) led authorities to thwart a terrorist plan and stop the destruction of a dozen or so planes over the Pacific.
Now it seems that the fact that a person was tortured to get that information is fairly well-known. However, what would happen if this was accepted and legal, if we turned on the news and saw, "Top news tonight - the Federal Torture Commission has approved the petition to torture [random_person], who is suspected of being part of a terrorist plot that threatens our national security."? How many people would accept that, because the government says it's okay, and how many would be shocked (at least for a few minutes)? If we are shocked, but nothing has changed except that we now know about it when it occurs, does that mean that it is okay for the ends to justify the means as long as we don't have to know how we get to the ends?
I'm still mulling this over (I only heard it on the radio about 5 minutes ago), but there's something extremely disturbing about someone proposing that torture should be open and governed by the state. However, it's more disturbing to me when I think about it and realize that if I hadn't heard about this, I would have been perfectly willing to continue on in my happy little oblivious world and not wonder how they coerced people into giving them information when they're short on time. I guess it's hard when I make myself notice that civilization is less civilized than it likes to think that it is.
[segue]
(This is good. I haven't really written anything, personal or otherwise, since I left college, except for random work e-mails and documents that don't really count. I don't really write as well as I used to, but it's getting a bit better, and I like doing it.)
no subject
Date: 2002-09-13 08:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-13 10:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-13 10:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-13 12:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-13 01:51 pm (UTC)yes, iam talkign abouthte Vorkosigan books, and i have most of them ifyou wnat to borrow, they are so absolutly delicious :) this is why i love sci-fi :)
what is darkover?
no subject
Date: 2002-09-13 03:07 pm (UTC)Sodium Pentathol: A ultra-short-acting barbiturate that depresses the central nervous system, slows heart rate, and lowers blood pressure. In the relaxed state produced by the drug, subjects are more susceptible to suggestion and are therefore easier to interrogate. The drug does not actually guarantee that prisoners will tell the truth, however. Often, it makes subjects "gabby" without revealing any important information.
Darkover is Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover, a large series of books about a world called, strangely enough, Darkover (one of the "early Earth colony ship got lost and broken and had to land on closest hospitable planets" books). More later. Thanks for offer - may do so after I finish reading through these (I have like 15 to go).