Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Rejali makes a case for there being 3 motives behind torture in democracies: interrogation, confession, and maintenance of societal order. Interrogation provokes torture in no small part when those hired by the peoples representatives to carry out work requiring expertise run short of information. Confession principally arises when the instruments of the judicial system favor confessions over circumstantial evidence or witnesses, and is used to ensure the safety of the society (law & order). Maintenance of the social order manifests itself in a variety of ways, by distinguishing a dehumanized class from a citizen class. Note that this third motive is ascribed by others (e.g. Gray) to mass or administrative torture, but Rejali has examples where intimidation is not the motive.
It might be argued that torture in non-democratic societies would differ, however (and I haven't yet finished the book), the examples he gives of torture by the Gestapo and the Soviet NKVD don't differ much in motive.
The individual torturers he details do probably include some people with abnormal psychological tendencies going into the mix, however, he does document that states which torture tend to avoid such people. The invention of torture methods is likewise (at least as far as I have read) not a task that has been done by people with abnormal psychological tendencies either, rather usually an adaptation of existing technology by a technician class of people to the goals of the task at hand.
Note that you can get all sorts of abnormalcy if you move from torture, which is about state actors, to just plain criminal abuse. Torture, you will find if you look closely, is almost always defined by people who study it as something carried out, as the convention says, "under color of law". Many of the tactics originate not in the militaries and in war, but in police interrogations, obtaining confessions, and maintaining the social status quo.
Source for all of the above, Rejali, Torture and Democracy, pp. 1-150, or so, with the motives given in the first chapter.
As for sexuality, the current use in American "enhanced interrogations" is not the norm, as far as I can ascertain from reading him and some others, and was derived from a belief, at the top of the food chain and perhaps elsewhere, that the "Arab mind" was especially sensitive to it, as it supposedly was to dogs. Exactly how Pakistanis and Afghans fit the "Arab mind" I'm not really sure, but the U.S. government we currently have frequently substitutes "Arab" for "Muslim" and vice versa. A case for childhood trauma or sexual problems could probably be made for some of this philosophy, as I had said, but it is also abnormal for technique to flow from top down according to Rejali [Note that this does not mean that the techniques aren't directed at sexual organs because of their sensitivity].
Source for the last para is my own observations from studying several texts, D.Rejali, P.Sands, B.Olshansky, P.Zimbardo, J.Mayer, E. Saar, plus papers, reports, and essays by others, including D.Rejali, G.Gray, M.Benjamin, B.Harrison, S.Grassian, HRW, PHR, AI, ACLU, ICRC, Errol Morris, other rights groups, etc. you can probably find others in the links on Humanity Against Crimes. I have them all saved, but can't remember them all off hand.
I wasn't referencing anyone or anything other than my own experience of growing up and being that age at one time. As you can see from my post, I said that, personally, I think that 16 is closer to the mark of the onset of adulthood than 18. I wasn't speaking authoritatively or scientifically on this, and I don't think that anyone legitimately can. I don't believe that these things can be determined with any kind of scientific precision because psychology is not a hard enough science. Nor is "growing up" a precise enough concept to allow for a clear determination. Beyond 15 or so, I believe any line that is to be drawn between adolescence and adulthood is bound to be arbitrary.
Speaking for myself, there are many ways in which I, at age 33, still haven't grown up past 14 or 15. Maybe I don't have enough myelin, or something. However, generally speaking, 16 was about the time when I found myself able to grasp the principles and perspective that I would need to function as an adult, and to apply this to my life and my decisions. Regarding sexual consent, I am not alone in thinking this way. Most of the rest of the world, including most of first world, puts the age of consent at around 16.
No, I don't have any kids, male or female, but I don't buy your broad generalization about all teenage girls being cluelessly romantic and looking for love in all the wrong places. All teenagers are certainly in the early stages of coming to know themselves, but I don't believe that that makes them all clueless - and it certainly doesn't make them all romantic.
All of that being said, I still haven't made up my mind with regard to whether I think that that arbitrary line should be drawn at 16 or 18. I do believe that, by age 18, most people have already been adults for a few years. However, I can see how a 2 year extension on adolescence may be valuable in terms of providing a safe space for the kind of self discovery that, as I mentioned above, teenagers are only in the early stages of. However, I wouldn't push it any further than that.
By his own party's definition, McCain was not tortured in Viet Nam. Moreover, since our government does that in order to extract valid and actionable intelligence, we must assume that McCain delivered such intelligence to the Vietnamese.
Thank you for your polite response. We may have to agree to disagree.
It is possible for some people not to develop enough myelin even into middle age, but it is not usual.
However, I take it by your name that you are not female. I tell you frankly that that is a bit of a handicap in discussing how girls think. Of course a girl who is 18 will defend her maturity. However, when she is 40, looking back over her life, she is likely to say things along the lines of, "I can't believe I was ever so naive."
I generally take men at their word when they tell me how they think -- as long as they have no special interest in me. Well, except for people like Brightstar. Some people are so unique that they must be their own case study.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
