WEST
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
The Dangerous Slope
17-Apr-2008
We know torture exists, we know it happens, but since it rarely intrudes into our daily lives we’re wont to think along the lines of ‘out of sight, out of mind’. For the most part we remain oblivious to its contemporary pervasiveness and the steady erosion of international norms that has taken place over the last decade. We pay little attention to the fact that today torture is evermore becoming a tacitly and sometimes openly approved instrument of statecraft. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a host of other international treaties such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions III & IV, were established to prevent the use of torture. At present it unfortunately appears as though a concerted effort to both circumvent and downplay these international legal precedents has been undertaken by the uppermost echelons within the Bush Administration.
Only last month, after both houses of the US Congress passed a bill that would ban waterboarding and other so-called ‘aggressive interrogation techniques’, President Bush chose to invoke his veto, claiming that it would impose unacceptable limitations on the interrogation techniques relied on by the CIA.
The dangerous precedent was first established back in 2003 in a now infamous 81-page memorandum, issued by former US Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo. Yoo, now a law professor at Berkeley, bears a significant brunt of the responsibility in providing the legal rational for the so-called ‘aggressive interrogation techniques’ used in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.1
The gist of Yoo’s argument holds that military interrogators operating outside of the United States, could legally use a number of unspecified techniques as long as they didn’t violate his definition of torture: "intense pain or suffering of the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious injury so severe that death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body functions will likely result." That the intentional infliction of pain just shy of death, organ failure or permanent damage and loss of bodily function has been given a legal rationalization is frankly a terrifying prospect. The reaction has been so strong in some quarters that a number of commentators, pundits and academics have called for Yoo to be arraigned for war crimes.
There is another side to this rather bleak picture. A BBC World Service poll of more than 27,000 people in 25 different countries in 2006 concluded that 59 percent of the world’s citizens are unwilling to compromise on the protection of human rights.2 Majorities in 19 out of 25 countries surveyed supported upholding the rule against torture. What’s more refreshing still is the fact that the survey encompassed a broad range of individuals separated by religion, nationality and culture and yet who despite such differences affirmed their commitment to human rights and their opposition to the use of torture.
The fact is, is that we don’t like to think that western governments could be either involved or complicit in torture; if anything it seems counterintuitive to suggest that liberal and democratic societies could be responsible for the heinous acts we usually associate with so-called third world dictatorships scattered throughout the Middle East and Africa. The conventional wisdom of late however has come under increasing attack in both the media and academia.
Last year for instance, Professor of Political Science at Reed College, Darius Rejali published his prolific and critically acclaimed tome Torture and Democracy, which argued for two central theses, which irrevocably transform the way we view the role and development of torture in modernity and democratic societies in particular. In the course of several hundred pages he proceeds to systematically map out how torture has existed within modern democracies, debunking claims that torture has solely been the province of authoritarian and dictatorial regimes, though it’s of course frequently relied upon in such ‘closed’ societies.
In the course of his argument and with relative ease, Rejali undermines the image usually offered up for public consumption that the two, torture and democracy, are mutually exclusive practices, and so incompatible in principle. The second thesis, in many respects a corollary of the first, is that rather than interrogation techniques becoming more 'civilized' as a result of taking place in open societies, the development of torture techniques within democratic societies has in fact fomented a situation whereby the effects of torture are merely more difficult to discern and uncover after the event. The pain is all too real of course, but soon afterwards the torture victim bears none of the scars, gashes, scraps and broken bones, necessary to corroborate his claims. The horror of being tortured is thus compacted by the horror of nobody believing you were tortured.
How did this situation come to pass? What were the reasons and motivations for the development of so-called ‘clean techniques’ which though exceedingly painful, leave little to no trace of abuse only a short time after the event? In a nutshell, such techniques have developed in large part because of western public demands for openness and the watchful eye of the global human rights regiment which first gained momentum in the late 60s and 70s. Notably, it was during this period that we witnessed the election of the Carter Administration which was elected on a platform of human rights and the mandate to overhaul previous Administrations’ foreign policy bungles and incompetence in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.
It was largely in response to the monitoring and cataloguing of abuses as exhibited in the painstaking work of organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International that torturers have become increasingly adept at covering their tracks and developing techniques that ensure little to no verifiable evidence of torture can be uncovered.
An additional consequence which has been pursued with vigor by the Bush Administration is that of extraordinary rendition otherwise known as torture by proxy, whereby suspected ‘enemies of the state’ are whisked away to so-called ‘black sites’ around the globe in countries governed by regimes with a more lax attitude and legal lassitude toward the torture and coercion of detainees. The question of Guantanamo Bay is of course related to all this, but opens a whole other can of worms altogether, which we can’t adequately address here.3
The collusion of the CIA with the intelligence services of Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Uzbekistan in the practice of torture by proxy has been confirmed by multiple sources, including sources within the American intelligence establishment.4 Suspected terrorists including citizens of western governments have been for all intents and purposes kidnapped and flown to foreign ‘jails’ to be interrogated. Robert Baer, who worked as a CIA covert officer in the Middle East for 21 years has put it thus: “The ultimate destination of these flights are places that are involved in torture”. He continues: “If you send a prisoner to Jordan you get a better interrogation. If you send a prisoner to Egypt you will probably never see him again; the same with Syria.”5
Rejali and others in brief have provided us with the conceptual apparatus as well as empirical evidence to plot a trajectory from the monstrous techniques employed by the Nazis and the Soviet Union to the practice of water boarding in modern-day democracies; a development that is in large part indebted to the symbiosis of two, at least superficially, antithetical practices, torture and democracy. This of course doesn’t impugn democracy as the paramount model of political organization, even if it is our best worst option as Winston Churchill once quipped. What it does suggest is that despite a plethora of treaties and international agreements established to safeguard against and categorically condemn torture, such agreements are ultimately incapable of preventing governments from pursuing such a line if they decide, all but in name, to abrogate their international responsibilities.
Finally, numerous torture experts have been arguing for some time that torture is fundamentally incapable of providing actionable intelligence. Prior to the Iraq War key members of the Bush Administration cited proof of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and that the former had somehow been complicit in carrying out the 9/11 attacks. The ‘proof’ in question was extracted by means of torture and has since been shown to be baseless by the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq. It was a Libyan by the name of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi who was rendered to Egypt from Afghanistan and under protracted interrogation reported “that Iraq had provided chemical and biological weapons training to the terrorist organization [al-Qaeda].”6
The ticking time bomb scenario which is invariably invoked by torture’s defenders and apologists has virtually descended into myth in present-day culture, when in reality it’s highly unlikely that torture under such circumstances will provide genuine and actionable intelligence. Reliable intelligence, as evinced in the case of the London bombings, is afforded instead by the cultivation of strong communal ties and local informants, not torture or ‘torture lite’ as some like to refer to it.
The fact of the matter is that our cultural perception of the issue has been distorted and slanted as a result of the tragic events of 9/11, Madrid and London; and shows like 24, backed by the demagoguery of Fox News, have also played a significant role in ‘a dangerous shift of norms’7 which has been underway for several years and continues unabated under the current US Administration. In contrast to the poll mentioned at the outset of this essay, another poll conducted by AP-Ipsos makes it plain that we are gradually being acclimatized to view the issue of torture through the lens of a ticking digital clock with a mushroom cloud over LA, NYC or London upon the clock’s expiration. The practice of torture has thereby been framed and skewed so that we’re increasingly receptive to the idea of torture ‘in rare circumstances’. The problem we then find ourselves in of course is where do we draw the line and what exactly constitutes ‘rare circumstances’.8
Often we’re posed the question in explicitly personal terms: ‘What would you do if your wife or child were held hostage and you only had a matter of days if not hours to save them, and you suspected that a guy in captivity possibly knew something?’ Megan McArdle, at the Atlantic Monthly, posed the question is just these terms back in 2003 and replied with a candid, if not downright scary answer: “Now, are you going to give him back to the Feds to be sent to Gitmo in the hopes that a couple of years down the road, he might tell you something – if they haven’t already gassed your child, that is? Or are you going to whip out the toolbox and get to work?”9
The massive problem with all this is that torture is contagious and though initially sanctioned ‘under unique circumstances’ soon becomes rife, sullying everything it touches, as the scandal of Abu Ghraib back in April 2004 can testify.10 Techniques supposedly restricted for use by the CIA, get taken up by the army, and these in turn are adopted by private contractors working for companies like Blackwater, and basically the end result is that all hell breaks loose. It’s a dangerous ‘slippery slope’ which has ceased to be merely a hypothetical and has unfortunately become all too real.
Moreover and to simplify the matter somewhat, the repercussions of such actions for the US’s global standing are twofold: firstly: the US’s moral superiority and stature have taken a devastating hit, not just in the Arab and Muslim world, but even amongst the publics of some of the US’s staunchest western European allies.11 Second, and coming off the first point, resentment and anti-Americanism have been given even greater impetus, as if the invasion of Iraq hadn’t already done enough to confirm many people’s worst fears regarding US intentions for the region. The images at Abu Ghraib have been irrevocably seared into people’s memories and the degrading and dehumanizing tactics supposedly employed in order to garner intelligence have been exposed for the grotesque psycho-sexual manipulations and effronteries to human dignity they indisputably are.
The US practice of torture abroad has justifiably received a considerable amount of media attention in recent years. Apart from scores of articles and op-ed pieces in the mainstream press, the cinematic domain has shone a much needed light onto the US abuse of detainees; the film Rendition starring Meryl Streep and Jake Gyllenhall, and the documentary Taxi to the Dark Side, awarded Best Documentary Feature at the Oscars, have pointed to the stark reality of both torture by proxy and the fate of many detainees held in US captivity who’ve been subject to arbitrary arrest and denied due process. Taxi to the Dark Side takes its point of departure from the death of a young Afghan man, Dilawar, who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was consequently beaten to death by American soldiers while being held in extrajudicial detention at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan.
The poll adduced at the opening of this piece shows that a clear majority of us, from disparate backgrounds, religions and ethnicities abhor the use of torture (when framed in clear terms not skewed to mesh with the nightmarish scenarios starring Jack Bauer & Co) and in light of such patent disapproval we must surely continue to draw attention to and criticize in no uncertain terms the practice of torture wherever it rears its ugly head and unmask the desensitized lexicon which lulls us into acceptance of a inhumane, morally reprehensible and degrading practice.
| Recently by sadegh | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Optimism and Nightmares | 2 | Jun 18, 2009 |
| The Quest for Authenticity | 6 | Mar 18, 2009 |
| Thirty Years On | 39 | Feb 01, 2009 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
I wonder
by Dariush (not verified) on Wed Apr 23, 2008 04:57 PM PDTI don't say you don't criticise IRI or forget about Iran! Read it again! Just criticize west for their crimes as you do IRI, so west don't misunderstand you and use you to attack Iran.
If you can not speak the whole truth then don't speak at all!
You picked a good example. "Cuba"
Same rich people who ran away from Cuba and start condemning Castro are like the "Monarchy's" who ran away from Iran and condemn Iran. The same sanctions west put on Cuba because Cuba didn't want to give free ride, west put on Iran for not giving free ride. Despite all the pressures Cuba has more doctors per ca-pita and free health care than U.S. and if it wasn't for the pressure and sanctions they would have better economy than U.S. as well. The same way is Iran trying to excel in science, technology, economy, agriculture and etc, but west is applying the same pressure and sanctions to prevent that.
Do you see what I have problem with?
That is why I can not take side with totally criminal against partially criminal.
This is not defending partially criminal, it is not supporting totally criminal.
Just as Cuba, the pressure from west on Iran, has put Iran on 24/7 defence mode for the past 30 years, leaving them no room and making them to act irrationally to some issues.
Because of our decades of bitter experience with west and east.
For the most parts those issues relates to politic, but there is no excuse for mistreatment of minorities and public. All these should be changed, by Iranians or countries that are in a just position in world, not with the involvement of countries who are criminal themselves!
I like to make another point here.
Would you the minorities be any better if you were in majority?
You as a MEK member could not even question the MEK leaders or their goals! Same goes to communist! Same goes to most religions. After revolution minorities such as MEK were using knives, acid, guns and etc attacking extremists just as extremists were attacking them.
The only group proved humane and democratic when they ever had majority, was the nationalist group.
Dear Mr. Bijanam
by sadegh on Sun Apr 20, 2008 01:14 AM PDTDear Mr. Bijanam,
First of all thank you for your thoughtful reply. Let me just respond to your important observations and questions:
It is not my intent to defend any US administration or any western administration, but I have real hard time finding a way to stop terrorism “now”.
The short answer is, by condemning the practice and publicizing its false premises and lobbying our elected officials to repudiate torture in whatever circumstances – on the issue of torture there is no compromise whether it be in the US or IRAN because it is an irrevocably slippery slope which eats away at the basis of our freedoms from within – just as Chalmers Johnson has argued that democracy and imperialism cannot coexist, neither can the practice of torture and democracy. Not only is it morally reprehensible but it doesn’t even work – it doesn’t yield actionable intelligence and even if it ever does, the percentages are so meager that I reject it’s ever worth endorsing at the cost of democracy. The vastly superior option to which I alluded, is that of cultivating good relations with the Muslim community in western countries to denounce and expose extremists and potential terrorists. This is the way forward not collective punishment and brutalization a la Israel – has 60 years of Israeli brutality and military dictatorship yielded peace? – of course it hasn’t, all it has done is radicalize Palestinians and undermine secular opposition to the occupation. Just as the invasion of Iraq, continued occupation of Afghanistan and saber-rattling against Iran has only provoked world-wide resentment against the US – a fundamental change in how the US comports itself to the rest of the world is as you said the long-term goal.
Your second point:
I wonder how you would categorize the practice of indiscriminate killing of innocent human beings by suicide bombers and the doctrine that promotes that action?
All due respect Bijanam jan, but I hope it is more than obvious that if I condemn torture that I must also condemn suicide bombing against innocent civilians. I also condemn the use of phosphorous chemical weapons against innocent civilians by the US army in Fallujah and the use of phosphorous chemical weapons, illegal under international law, used by the Israeli Defense Force against Lebanese civilians in the Summer of 2006. I’m sorry but many on this site are plain hypocrites (I’m not suggesting you are for one moment, you reply was without a doubt one of the most honest and thoughtful and again I thank you) and fail to denounce the crimes toward which their tax dollars contribute – unless you also pay Iranian taxes and then you contribute to criminal activities in both the east and the west. My article isn’t really a comprehensive perspective on the issue it’s only really a modest journalistic incursion dear Bijanam. I suggest you read Darius Rejali’s work, it is really a sight to behold – he has also written a book on torture in Iran which is definitely worth reading. Thanks and best wishes, Sadegh.
Dear Ari and others
by sadegh on Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:02 PM PDTI condemn the theocratic regime's human rights violations unequivocally - they are unforgivable and inexcusable. They are in a word DESPICABLE. All the bullies and thugs on this site who claim that by criticizing anyone other than the theocratic regime one is in fact endorsing it are intellectually and morally bankrupt and not even worth dignifying with a response because fundamentally their minds are hermetically sealed shut - they are dogmatists who aren’t open to discussion or alternative points of view. There will always be people enraptured by hatred, ignorance and stupidity and the best thing is simply to ignore them and engage those who disagree but are at least inclined to civility, dialogue and debate. This is the way forward – the Mesbah Yazdis and their equivalent on the other side of the ideological spectrum are a waste of time and space. Ari, Mammad, Bijanam and others thanks for reading my article and thanks for your thoughtful responses.
Killjoy!
by Mammad (not verified) on Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:26 PM PDTHow did you reach the conclusion that I am a supporter of status quo in Iran? It seems that, you believe that, the only way people like me can prove that they are not what you think (not that it actually needs any proof) is by advocating war or sanctions against Iran.
Well, if that is the "proof" you need, yours truly cannot provide it. So, rest assured that you were correct all along. But, if you want to have a real debate, you must do better than that.
Naazokbin
by Mammad (not verified) on Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:19 PM PDTThere are many people who comment in this site and blog, who either advocate explicitly bombing and attacking Iran, or sanctions which usually lead to war. They praise George W. Bush, and now have fixed their hope on John McCain. My comment was directed towards them. Apparently, for whatever reason that only you are aware of, you took it upon yourself to respond to this comment who was directed at a certain group of people.
Just read a comment in this column in which someone claims that Sadegh, I, and all those who advocate peaceful changes are supporters of status quo! Yeah, in view of such people, the only way to "prove" that one is not an IRI supporter is to advocate war or sanction, and praise whatever the Bushies do.
Now, if you want to deny that such people do exist, then, with all due respect - and the emphasis is on respect - it is you who should get real.
No, I have not forgotten how massively-popular the 1979 Revolution was, because I also supported it. And I agree with you that the people did not get what they had hoped for. I just do not understand what such slogans have anything to do with what I said.
Unlike what you think, the support that the mullahs have for Palestinians is not crocodile tears. The support has ideological roots. Historically and idelologically, the Rouhaniyat in Iran has been opposed to Israel. This has been true since 1327 (1948) when Israel was established. So, perhaps, it is you that needs to read a bit of history to see whether what I am saying is true.
Please Read !
by Killjoy (not verified) on Fri Apr 18, 2008 04:35 PM PDTMammad, Sadegh, Ahmad, Naghi and all those defending the status quo in Iran download and read the post bellow and stop making excuses for the mullahs:
//www.7tir.com/news/index.php/849/
Please help me.....
by bijanam (not verified) on Fri Apr 18, 2008 09:02 AM PDTMr. Sadegh, congratulation on an extremely well composed article.
You have presented a factual and undeniable argument in support of “erosion of international norms in favor of torture”. Your article provokes in me many thoughts and debates within myself about morality, democracy, human rights, human nature, religion, laws, nationality,…..the list is virtually endless.
My biggest struggle is how to defend democracy (assuming that it is the desirable mode of existence), without violating the codes of morality dictated by it. Without getting into details of how to define torture, etc…your article points to the argument that torture (aggressive interrogation) will not produce the desired result in protecting democracy. But, your article does not provide any lights on how to get there. I realize that the debate over how to get there is beyond the scope of your article. But I think it is fair to admit that it is a legitimate debate. And, I think your presentation of Megan McArdle’s question (without an answer) is admission of legitimacy of the debate.
It is not my intent to defend any US administration or any western administration, but I have real hard time finding a way to stop terrorism “now”. I do appreciate (with all my heart) that there is a longer term solution, and that is to re-think our way of international conduct, but that takes time and the will of people. How do I protect it now?
You end your article by:
“to draw attention to and criticize in no uncertain terms the practice of torture wherever it rears its ugly head and unmask the desensitized lexicon which lulls us into acceptance of a inhumane, morally reprehensible and degrading practice”.
I wonder how you would categorize the practice of indiscriminate killing of innocent human beings by suicide bombers and the doctrine that promotes that action?
Please, please, don’t assume that I am suggesting that one justifies the other. I am just puzzled as how can I defend my freedom and democracy without violating my moral codes? It would be too late if the answer comes after the democracy is dead.
Best regards,
And, may we all live in peace
Get Real Mammad!
by Naazokbin (not verified) on Fri Apr 18, 2008 07:55 AM PDTYou wrote:
"I hope that your article can wake up those who, because they have transformed their hatred of the mullahs (which can be completely justified) into hatred for Iran, have declared the US and the West bastions of democracy and respect for human rights."
Is that all you can do, accusing others of hating Iran because of their criticism of the criminals in Tehran while hiding your true intention of covering up their crimes by concentrating on the West?
The West has had very little to do with the brutalities perpetrated by the current regime against Iranians. The authorities' human rights abuses are the result of their intolerance for any form of demcracy and democratic freedoms.
What is this nonsense about "hatred?" What has hatred got to do with the realities of Iran? Why such blatant hypocrasy? Have you forgotten that the revolution of '79 which received the support of all the anti-imperialist forces had its roots in the revolts against violation of human rights by the former regime?
You need to revisit the history books and try to unforget why the masses rose against the Shah. AND recall what they got instead.
Most of those organizations which supported the revolution were against foreign meddling in the internal affairs of Iran one way or the other.
Also remember most people turned aginst the current regime because of its violation of the very basic human rights and not because of their "hatred of the mullahs."
Shedding crocodile tears for Palestinians and Iraqis is as hypocritical as accusing the critics of the regime in Tehran of hating Iran. Remember that this is the same regime which despite the rising death toll of Iranian and Iraqi soldiers was not prepared to accept all the peace initiatives to end the Iran-Iraq war for six long years.
The billions of dollars spent towards war efforts could have been used for building homes, schools and hospitals for the poor in Iran and Palestine.
Mammad,
Let's not forget that it was the self-righteous and arrogant attitude of the authorities added to their thirst for power which gave rise to their totalitarian rule in the first place.
What really bothers you Mr. Dariush? something to hide?
by I wonder (not verified) on Fri Apr 18, 2008 06:02 AM PDTAs far as I know Cuban Americans do everything possible in their power, to influence the events in their country of origin Cuba, to expose the crimes, human rights abuses and atrocities of Fidel's government in order to somehow help improve people's lives and their civil rights in Cuba, yet they do not remain oblivious to what is going on in their adopted country.
Why is it that we Iranian Americans should forget all about Iran and focus all our efforts and attention on the events going on in our adopted country, America?! what is so taboo about that?
Dariush I am with you on that!
by Abarmard on Thu Apr 17, 2008 09:31 PM PDTAt this point in the Iranian history I believe that Dariush might have a very valid point. Being in the west and not be able to see any, I mean any true criticsm of some countries pinch you a bit. I have not been in Iran for a while and live in the US, so as a citizen and a human being, I am more concerned about the human rights records of the US and the supporting governments of the US. What about you guys?
That does not mean that you should forget about Iran, but you must admit, we don't hear anything bad about the "Friends" of US regardless of their actions. We hear about Iran alot. You guys say the same thing that media repeats daily. Why not go a bit beyond what you hear on the media 24/7?
I guess Ghadafi is a good guy now too! In this case Mr. Dariush I am with you.
Human Rights are Universal
by Mammad (not verified) on Thu Apr 17, 2008 09:04 PM PDTFirst of all, thank you Sadegh for an excellent article.
I hope that your article can wake up those who, because they have transformed their hatred of the mullahs (which can be completely justified) into hatred for Iran, have declared the US and the West bastions of democracy and respect for human rights. This has led them to be more American than the Americans, attacking viciously anybody (including yours truly) who criticizes the US, and especially the criminal Bush administration, while at the same time millions of Amrican themselves despise what this Christian fundamentalist man stands for and has done.
At the same time, human rights are universal. One cannot condemn their violations in one nation or region, but not in other parts of the world, including in Iran.
But, of course, the focus of your article is that the common perception that torture and violation of human rights, and democracy are mutually exclusive is just a myth.
You Have No Business
by Dariush (not verified) on Thu Apr 17, 2008 06:36 PM PDTMy opinion about human rights to you is, If you are not man enough to condemn west and Israel for their crimes and genocide as you do with IRI for their crimes, you have no business to condemn IRI. Plain and simple.
Good Job Sadegh.
Good Question
by Naazokbin (not verified) on Thu Apr 17, 2008 04:57 PM PDTGood question Ari. I, too, would like to know what Sadegh thinks of the lynching of young Iranian women and men in their cells at Evin and other prisons all over Iran sice the revolution that was supposed to bring democracy and human rights to Iran.
Fred:
by Ari Siletz on Thu Apr 17, 2008 03:23 PM PDTYour "24/7" phrase is well put. We are allies. I an curious to know if Sadegh is also an ally. Sadegh, What is your take on the human rights violations of the IRI?
Human rights are 24/7
by Fred on Thu Apr 17, 2008 02:46 PM PDTI am certainly glad that you do, that is how it should be human rights are universal and 24/7. My comment was squarely and exclusively directed to “resident Islamists” who forbid criticizing Islamist Republic for the reason that I repeated. Unless you are one of them, which I doubt, then the comment was not directed to you.
Fred:unsupportable accusation
by Ari Siletz on Thu Apr 17, 2008 02:27 PM PDTMany of us who criticize US torture policy also condemn the human rights violations of the IRI.
Here is a clear example on this website: //iranian.com/Siletz/2007/May/Court/index.html
A prime reason why we criticize US policy is to make sure our democracies do not degrade to the level of the IRI.
Goose & Gander
by Fred on Thu Apr 17, 2008 01:39 PM PDTThe resident Islamists’s prescription to avoid war is in to not provide additional justification/excuse for warmongers in the US, and forgo talking about all the brutality in the Islamist Republic. Were one simple enough to subscribe to this fallacious argument, then its opposite should bear the same value. That is talking about the human rights abuses in the West, and only the West and not a word about the Islamist Republic’s; it could strengthen the hands of the messianic doomsday warmonger preachers who are ruling over Iran. What’s sauce for the goose should certainly be sauce for the gander too
Sadegh:
by Ari Siletz on Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:40 PM PDTGood article! Thank you.
Some thoughts:
As you mention, criticism of torture in democracies has not stopped the practice but has led to improved techinques where physical signs of the torture are absent. To be effective, the criticism must also have consequences beyond disapproval. You state "the US’s moral superiority and stature have taken a devastating hit." How does this translate into something Megan McArdle with the toolbox can feel?
Its the human nature
by Alborzi (not verified) on Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:34 PM PDTIn a very interesting trial a group of volunteer students were divided into two groups. The jailers and the prisoners. The prisoners were routinely abused by jailers. The jailers (in real life) were roommates of the prisoners, however when placed in point of authority they started abuse. This phenomena is well understood (even by neocons like Rumsfeld), but they let the rednecks to believe, it was done by bunch of rogue soldiers, so they can finish the genocide.