Sunday, January 25, 2009
New president, new policies on violence
We haven't really been talking about violence inflicted by governments, but I think that President Obama's decision this week to take a stand against state-endorsed torture sends a message that our country is headed in a different direction on human rights. It seemed like an incredible inconsistency to me that for the last several years, the same justice system that permitted torture in its prisons was also responsible for protecting us from violence on the streets and in our homes. The NYC police officers who were (rightly) held to account for abusing Michael Mineo were being held to a different standard of conduct than the federal officers who mistreated foreign detainees. I think that kind of hypocrisy has damaged not only our international image, but our own notions of what constitutes "acceptable" violence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When I was growing up we were always told "Policemen are you friends." Sometimes it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys.
ReplyDeleteHuman Rights, both here and abroad and infractions of human rights that lead to collective violence are extremely important to acknowledge and discuss.
Maybe someone wants to do their mideterm on this?
I was watching CNN this morning as they were showing snapshots of 'Gitmo Bay' prisoners. I think the most disturbing images were the computer simulated graphics of "water logging" torture methods. The report stated that there are 6 methods of "approved" torture that the Army can use. I cannot even begin to imagine all of the types or how they can determine what is humane.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI just had a conversation with my brother this weekend about Guantanamo - he actually justified these methods by stating that it's "worse" in other countries, and it was done for the greater good of America. I'm really not sure I even believe this, I know there are more humane ways to withdraw information. I think it goes back to our different perceptions of what is humane vs. inhumane. Also, asking myself the question, "What would I do in this situation?" in order to understand what was going on. I sympathize for the inmates, but at the same time, what kind of psychological turmoil do you think the soldiers were going through? Surely, not all of them believed this was a moral decision. Furthermore, they are now dealing with the consequences of their actions and for me, that's a far worse thing to live with.
ReplyDeleteI also applaud Obama for taking a stance against these human rights violations. Torture should not be condoned at any level of government.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned Micheal Mineo and there are a host of other individuals, mostly minorities that have been violated by NYPD officers. Obama is sending a message that human rights violations by government officials will not be tolerated. Hopefully the effects of this will trickle down to other government bodies.
It is amazing how power, if misused, can always result in individual or population violence. Afghanistan would never capture and trial American solider because Afghanistan is lower on the political ladder. However, because the United States is the number one country in the world, tragedies like Guantanamo has happened (with the aide of bad administration).
ReplyDeleteThe same happens with the police or abusive partners (dictators, prison security guards, etc.)
Does power = violence in the hands of some people? What is it intrinsic in human qualities that make people become like that?
Although I do not condone the involvement of our government in torture anywhere, I agree with Thao -- we must be cautious not to heap the blame for "administrative" decisions on soldiers. Many are young men and women, who have faced and may continue to face horrors that we cannot begin to imagine, then encouraged or even ordered by their superiors to engage in violent acts against those they are told are the enemy, the cause of the suffering. How can we predict how any of us would respond in such a situation?
ReplyDeleteBecause of this I think Gitmo is different from the Mineo case; in one, the state is responsible for violence, in the other a rogue individual.
I apologize for not being so active on this blog, but now I intend to make up for it:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, here is yet another example of the abuse of power, which ties into this week and last weeks' posts: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/washington/29inquire.html?ref=world
I had always learned that rape was not about seeking sexual pleasure, but rather about creating and maintaining power over another individual. This truely disgusts me, as I'm sure many of you would agree. I don't understand how this type of act became a symbol of exerting power, but it is utterly dispicable that people we trust with official political (or other types of) power feel the need to use rape to actually victimize people. That is inexcusable.
I was an anthropology major in college and in discussing the war in Iraq one day in one of my classes, our professor told us how anthropologists were sent over to Iraq to work for the U.S. military and report on Iraqi culture to discover ways to use Iraqi culture against inmates. Many forms of sexual abuse/torture, especially homosexual-related acts, resulted (see: Abu Ghraib).
In other news, I thought this might be interesting, given everything we were saying about stalking, etc.: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/28/velez-mitchell.stalking/index.html
Ok, see you all later tonight.
These certainly has generated a great discussion. Wendy asked if Power = Violence.. I don't know. Or is it Violence = power??
ReplyDelete