Torture

As Americans we like to pride ourselves that our country was founded on integrity and a firm set of moral and ethical principles. Principles such as the right to free speech, the right to elect our leaders, and all the other good ole' fundamental American values. People in power, however, often neglect and violate these principles, which isn't too surprising. One issue that came up in class and which has been given some attention in the media in the past is the issue of torture. The very word invokes the image of some kind of Stalinist, dystopian, oppressive government where people live in fear rather than in freedom, but the fact is the United States is a nation which practices torture. Aside from it being a fundamentally un-American concept, I don't think it's possible to ever justify torture nor does it make sense from an intelligence gathering perspective.

Ignoring the dozens of moral objections one could raise about torturing people, I see three major issues with the practice. The first is to me there seems to be a serious contradiction with the presumption of innocence, the second is that it is an unreliable and ineffective means of gathering accurate intelligence, and the third is that it creates a sort of sand-trap where once you begin torturing people you can not simply release them based on their innocence or not. I'll elaborate a bit on each of these.

Firstly, one should establish exactly why presumption of innocence exists. It is not to protect terrorists, or murders or any other species of criminal. The concept is to protect us - the innocent. If we believe in this idea of  "innocent until proven guilty", then we must believe in it wholeheartedly, regardless of how severe or revolting the crimes of the accused may be, or how obvious their guilt is. We can not pick and choose when to apply this principle, and to whom, otherwise the entire concept falls apart. No one argues that it is OK to torture innocent people - this is obviously wrong. However, the argument has been made that it is justifiable to torture terrorists and people associated with organizations like Al Qaeda because these are the "worst of the worst", and the idea seems to be that if you're bad enough, then torture is acceptable.

This type of argument is based on the assumption of guilt however, and directly contradicts the concept of presumption of innocence. If one is assumed to be innocent, then how is it justifiable to torture him? Further, if one is only allowed to torture the "bad guys", and we torture people to extract confession of crimes, we are torturing innocent people by definition - because they have not yet been convicted of any wrong doing. This argument goes as far to show that it is illogical and contradictory to torture people in order to extract confessions, so long as we uphold our legal and most fundamental principles and ideals. One may make the case, however, that once someone is convicted of a crime and proven to be a "bad guy", then it is fair to torture him. I think I can provide arguments to show that this too is absurd.

If one is torturing someone to obtain intelligence and information about other people, there is no reason to believe any confession or revelation will be truthful. The person being tortured has but one goal - to say whatever he can to make his tortures stop. This could mean betraying his comrades, or it could mean lying and proving false information - typically either blaming innocent people or inventing stories. There is no motivation for someone being tortured to tell the truth, only to say what he believes will be the quickest route to ending his suffering. This fact makes any information obtained from torture completely suspect and of very little credibility. Essentially torture defeats its own purpose, if that purpose is to obtain information.

The third issue I raise has to do with people who truly are innocent. The American government can never admit it tortures people - not unless it has to. The status quo will always be to deny the use of the torture, especially if they've stated in the past that they no longer torture people. Further, they especially do not want it revealed what methods and means they use to torture people. So what happens when the C.I.A. disappears some innocent Afghan by either mistaken identity or bad intelligence? They subject him to torture, and realize he's not the right guy - then what?

Are they going to just release him so he can run to the nearest media outlet and tell them what he's been through? Are they just going to say "sorry, our mistake"? No, they simply aren't going to release him, despite his innocence. We now have a situation where people - innocent or not - disappear into these black holes and can't ever leave. We are setting up these institutions which essentially are functioning as gulags, and that is a very dangerous thing.

Not only is torture a violation of American principles, the law and of our sense that America is supposed to be better than the rest, but it is an erosion of the rights and freedom of innocent people and it serves no useful purpose, save perhaps to satiate the desire of some to punish their captives - but that is what the legal system is for. There simply is no excuse or justification to be torturing people, even if they "deserve it".

Pakistan and Afghanistan's Future

The situation in Pakistan is an interesting one, at least as interesting as it is dangerous. Pakistan is a nation whose military's sole purpose seems to be to prepare and wait for the next confrontation with India, and whose slimy intelligence agency - the ISI - seems to justify anything by always relating it to India.The ISI seems to never tire of playing both sides of the fence, and the military seems completely reluctant to stem the growth of Jihadist movements within its borders... and this is our ally in the region...

The whole situation is a complete mess. On the one hand the stability of Pakistan is crucial to our success in Afghanistan - we rely on them for trucking routes, to help provide intelligence and as an important political ally in the region. Yet, they almost seem to undermine every American effort... it seems that we need Pakistan, and it seems that the real enemy is Pakistan.Things might not be so complicated if it weren't for the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and is controlled by an unstable government which is now facing a rising insurgency of its own... and in the background looms India and the never ending Kashmir dispute, a weak economy and a population who is largely impoverished and prone to radicalism.

I really don't think America can have its cake and eat it too. It seems to me that so long as Pakistan remains a safe haven for the Taliban, one which they can freely  cross into and gain access to weapons and a continual supply of recruits, we will never be able to gain enough ground in Afghanistan to be able to leave. And so long as the war continues, there is little hope of economic recovery and development within Afghanistan, which means the Karzai government will remain weak and fragile and completely dependent on America to pay for and manage its armed forces. At the same time, the ISI continues to support the Taliban so as to stamp out any possible influence from India in the country, and the knowledge that the military is unlikely to move against them in Pakistan boosts Taliban moral all the more.We cannot secure the border on our own, and even if Pakistan could, they would never be willing to deploy large resources on their Western border with big bad India to the east.

It seems as time goes on, the Taliban position only gets stronger. The longer the Americans stay, the more civilian casualties will occur and the more hatred for America will exist in Afghanistan. This not only strengthens the Taliban, but it is crippling to the Karzai government who at this point seems hopelessly unable to assert any true authority over the country. It seems at this point, America is simply staving off collapse of the Karzai government and hoping to God that Pakistan remains stable and is willing to accept what meager support they offer. There have been talks of negotiations with the Taliban, but at this point it almost seems like they have the upper hand - which is not good for us.

What America really needs is a stable Pakistan who is willing to fight against the Taliban on its side of the border and one who is willing to actively work to dampen the Islamist movement by providing the things its people expect of it. This doesn't seem like it can ever happen though so long as India remains the sole obsession of the military and the Kashmir remains an issue. I believe that our ability to withdraw from Afghanistan and to see the country rebuild its self is directly dependent on support from Pakistan... support which we are not recieving. If we were to withdraw with things as they are, I have no doubt that the Taliban would quickly defeat the Karzai government and re-gain power, and we'd be back to 2001, or perhaps back to 1992 in the midst of another civil war. In addition, without aid from America there is a real possibility that Pakistan may find its self in a civil war against the Pakistan Taliban, and the stakes are much higher there than in Afghanistan.

I don't think its possible for America to leave this region any time soon. Even if we get Afghanistan sorted out, we are too tangled up with the mess in Pakistan that some American presence is going to be needed for a long time, and many billions more are going to need to be spent. If defeat of the Taliban is the goal, we're never going to leave. If nation building and the solidification of the Karzai government is the goal, we're going to have to work out a deal with the Taliban, and still American presence and money is going to be required. There just aren't any quick ways out...

Zero Accountability

I remember when I was younger, sometime around 2003 when America was gearing up for the invasion of Iraq, hearing about this strange news organization called "Al Jazeera". It sounded suspiciously like "Al Qaeda", and indeed some people, including Donald Rumsfeld, were actually comparing it to some kind of propaganda engine for the terrorist organization. Somehow, no one seemed to correct this flat out lie, and that impression stuck with me until years later when I finally realized that not only was Al Jazeera a credible, world-wide news organization, but that it was less biased and had a far better depth of coverage than any American news outlet. I had forgotten about this act of demonization, but was reminded by it while reading a news story today about the refusal of American cable companies to carry Al Jazeera English on their networks.

This makes me wonder - in this "age of information" where knowledge is freely available to anyone - at least to anyone in America - (if not through the television networks, but through the internet) how is it possible for people like Donald Rumsfeld to go on National T.V. and blatantly lie, and no one seems to hold him accountable? The American public I can understand - most people rely on American broadcast news stations or their local newspapers to get their information (if they are interested in the news at all), and I believe the American media does a horrible job of holding our politicians and government to any kind of scrutiny, but what of the informed people in America? Have they no voice in the mainstream media? It appears they do not. As another example, this one more recent, the story of the so called "Kill Team" that have been accused, and so far at least on person already convicted of, murdering innocent Afghan civilians for sport. It took a German newspaper to break this story, and weeks later and I've seen very little of it mentioned in the American media - but the latest person voted off American Idol is a headline story. Where is the outrage? Why does it seem that no one is demanding the military explain why it took a German Newspaper to reveal these atrocities, and question had this story not been broken would the American public ever had known about these events?


And further, where is the accountability? The accountability of the military, of our government and of our media. It seems to me sometimes, that given enough time when attention spans have waned, there is none. Former U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter gave a talk at my school a few years ago, and one of his topics was this very same issue - of holding the government accountable for its actions and failures. I asked him how one is supposed to do so, and his answer I think was both realistic and honest - by simply being informed. Its easy for Donald Rumsfeld to go on T.V. and claim Al Jazeera is a terrorist news station, or point to a map of some amourphous shape which you're told is Iraq, and say "WMDs are here, here and here." if his audience cant even find Iraq on a map. To try the same trick on someone who was informed about Iraq at the time or a reader of Al Jazeera, however, would have been completely absurd. Politicians, the military and the government can never be held accountable if the average person is too ignorant to even realize that they're being taken advantage of.

This is where the American media fails so miserably. Although, I have to question whether "failure" is the correct term, because often I feel the media intentionally neglects to point out when the government lies, or when our troops commit horrific crimes, or when its blatantly obvious that there is more to be said than has been. This is what really baffles me, and its something I don't quite understand. Is it that the American people just dont want to hear about these kinds of stories, and its a ratings issue? Does the government pressure the major news outlets not to cover these stories, or cable companies not to allow Al Jazeera to be broadcast on their networks? Does the media ignore these stories for their own agenda? I really don't have a clue, but it is incredibly frustrating to me at times, and I suspect it is some combination of the three. I've personally give up watching CNN or any other American News station - that's my way of holding them accountable for their lousy reporting - I won't give them any ratings - but it seems that many people don't share my feeling of dissatisfaction as these news channels get huge ratings.

Perhaps I'm wrong about the American public - maybe they are more well informed then I assume, after all my peers are mostly dumb twenty year olds who mainly rely on facebook banter for their source of news (and I will gladly lump myself in with the dumb twenty year olds part), but honestly I don't think I'm all that far off. Of course, a lot of what I am reacting to comes from reading Rashid, and I have the benefit of hindsight and informed sources telling me about how things really happened but still, are people not accountable when they lie and manipulate the American public, regardless of whether they are currently in office or not, and when we learn of past lies and untruths, should we not be wary of our current officials and hold them to an ever higher standard?

Hair-trigger

"Terry Jones says the “Braveheart” film poster in his Florida office gives him spiritual sustenance." - NY Times

This is a caption from a  NY Times article about the Floridian pastor whose actions have apparently sparked violent protests in Kandahar which have resulted in at least ten deaths and nearly one hundred people wounded so far. The pastor has apparently "supervised the burning of a Quran", which provoked the wrath of Afghans all over Afghanistan. This seems like a bit of an over-reaction on the part of the Afghan people at first, after all why should they care if some idiot from Florida burns a Quran he likely got from a local Barnes and Nobel? I think it's clear though, that these protests have really very little to do with this particular event, and much more to do with the pent-up anger and frustration the Afghans are feeling following ten years of occupation, and killing by American forces in their country.

This is, so to speak, simply the straw that broke the camels back, although in this case it seems that this camel had its back broken long ago. I think these recent events are a grave indication of just how far we are from "winning" this war. The reports mention people running through the streets waving Taliban flags and shouting anti-American slogans - and this is in Kandahar, the chosen capitol during the Taliban rule. Have people forgotten the brutality and prison of fear they lived in during the time the Taliban were in power, or has America so badly mismanaged this war and its relationship with the Afghan people that they would choose to go back to the Taliban rather than to suffer any further American occupation? My guess is people haven't forgotten.

I think events like this force us to seriously consider the likely hood of ever wining over the "hearts and minds" of these people, who if they have forgotten what life was like under the Taliban, have certainly not forgotten the actions of the U.S. military. Things like these, far more than any opinion poll, really highlight the deep hatred and anger many Afghans have for the U.S., and personally I am doubtful that we can ever repair our image in Afghan eyes. If in the future it turns out that more and more Afghans find themselves in favor of the Taliban, the underdogs of the Afghan civil war and who are Pashtun and more importantly deeply Islamic - how can America ever compete with that? In one hand, I feel as though America owes it to Afghanistan to help rebuild the damage we have done, but on the other hand, and events like this are beginning to sway my opinion in the opposite direction, and perhaps we'd be doing them a bigger favor by just leaving and preventing further harm.

It'd probably be cheaper to simply supply the Afghan government with foreign aid and let them work out a settlement with the Taliban, and let Afghans sort out the problems of Afghanistan. Of course, in the past this has simply led to interference from Pakistan and other neighboring countries and to civil warfare. I suppose my reaction to these recent events is simply this: If there is any possible progress to be made in Afghanistan, it doesn't appear as if we're making it, and I have to seriously question what is going on in the minds of the men whose job it is to manage this war, and what our motivation for continued occupation is.