chloeisdabomb

the end (and beginning) of a long journey

I quite enjoyed blogging for my Human Rights class this past semester.  I think that blogging is something that should be utilized more frequently in other classes.  It worked especially well for a class like this because the issues we discussed are relevant to everyone, and it is nice to easily be able to share my thoughts on some of them with people who are not in the class.  I am excited to continue blogging forever about Human Rights issues and about everything else!  I plan on using this blog to keep in touch with teachers and peers as well as document my experiences next year when I am abroad.  I also plan on drawing upon my writing on this blog when I return to Simon’s rock and using it as I work on my senior thesis.  I expect that in addition to what I learn, experience and write about next year, much of what I have already discussed will also be relevant when I am working on my thesis.

I am glad that we were given leeway in terms of what we could write about in our inquiry blogs.  I was originally going to stick primarily to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but I was very happy to be able to jump around a little bit more.  We addressed so many different issues in class and I was always learning about additional human rights topics that I got excited to blog about.  I feel satisfied that my blog has addressed so many different issues in a rather short period of time, and I look forward to continuing.  I have a lot more to do!

There were many sources that I found to be helpful in my research.  I particularly appreciated the Atlantic article we read in the beginning of the semester called “Bystanders to Genocide” because it really opened my eyes to so much that I had been entirely unaware of.  I find myself often still thinking about many of the topics it addressed regarding the genocide in Rwanda during Clinton’s presidency.

The documentary “The Dying Rooms” was also very important in my research, as it is amazingly one of the only bodies of information that exist on the subject. I generally found documentaries and youtube videos to be very useful and engaging to incorporate into my blog.

The 2008 Pew Center on the States study was extremely helpful as it provided me with tons of reliable statistics about the American prison system.

Sarah Palin’s facebook page was an adventure.  It was interesting to read some of her personal thoughts and opinions before I wrote my Palin-bashing post.  It helped to reinforce some of my convictions, as well as fuel my arguments.

SARAH PALIN

There are many horrors facing America today.  Our economy is in a pitiful state, there is corruption in our government and American citizens are suffering.  Our politicians our not delivering what they’ve promised and what the people need.  Yet, of all these dangerous realities and more, there is one that seems to be of the most terrifying: it is the fact that a woman like Sarah Palin can be given any amount of credibility in American politics.  I mean, COME ON, look at this woman!

Is she serious?  HOW CAN SHE BE SERIOUS?  She has absolutely no grasp on any of the issues our country is facing.  I’m convinced she’s putting on an act to mock the American public.

In a recent Facebook post, Sarah blames the recent oil spill on environmentalists.  Of all the positions one can have regarding this issue, THIS is what Sarah Palin concludes?  She writes in the post entitled, Extreme Enviros: Drill, Baby, Drill in ANWR – Now Do You Get It?, “Radical environmentalists: you are damaging the planet with your efforts to lock up safer drilling areas. There’s nothing clean and green about your misguided, nonsensical radicalism, and Americans are on to you as we question your true motives.”

She claims that the efforts of environmentalists are purposefully counterproductive because they prevent drilling in safe areas and outsource drilling projects to anti-American countries who drill in unsafe areas because they don’t care about the environment.

Immediately three things come to mind when I hear this absurd argument.  First of all, I was not aware that there exist safe drilling areas.  Second, last time I checked, BP is a global company with great ties to the U.S.   Finally, and most obvious, environmentalists are not saying “don’t drill here, drill over there with the unsafe evil foreign companies in unsafe areas!”  They’re saying “DON’T DRILL AT ALL!”  To blame them for a tragedy that only proves the drilling Palin and others support is dangerous, is merely a way of taking responsibility off herself and other like-minded politicians and business men.

Sarah Palin has also taken advantage of her family to further her agenda.  Recently, Bristol Palin appeared in a Public Service Announcement with her baby.

So, let me get this straight.  If you happen to be a rich and famous privileged individual like Bristol, go ahead and have all the unsafe sex you want (just be sure to wear pearl jewelry and other fancy clothes so as not to give the false impression that you might be struggling as a teen mom.)  As for the rest of you jean-wearing pathetic individuals who can only afford a fancy hardwood floor apartment without the persian rug, no sex for you! Sorry!

Gimme a break, thats all I can say.

I can’t think of anywhere else in the western world where a person could maintain political support and credibility, meanwhile openly stating that she “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.”  She makes it sound so obvious that evolution cannot possibly be true.  Maybe this would be acceptable if she was an orthodox christian priest, but there is such a thing as separation between church and state, and to advocate for the teaching of creationism in schools is ridiculous, regardless of her personal beliefs.

She’s so ignorant.  I truly believe that if she is given any more power than she already has, she could shred our country and others to pieces.

More on the american dream and its embedment in the american education system

The education system is the most influential institution that exists.  Not only does it condition us to think the way that we do, but also its importance is so stressed in our society that it is inescapable.  In order to be successful in this country, at least a college degree is necessary in most instances.  A job’s respectability is ranked based on the education level that it requires, or, more accurately, the degree the worker has earned.  Similarly, people seem to only be respected in this country if they have the ability to sound educated.  We learn from a very early age that we need an education in order to be taken seriously as a person.
From the beginning of each child’s schooling career, he or she is taught about the benefits of being an American.  It is during our primary education that the seeds are planted in us that will later keep us submissive to the system.  We learn about all of the freedom’s we are said to have the right to as citizens.  We learn about how America is seen as a “Land of Opportunity” and people come from all over the world to make lives for themselves in this country.  We learn about the Civil Rights movement and all the progress we have made towards achieving equality, and, finally, we are often given examples of people who rose themselves up from the bottom and are now successful role models.  When we are taught about these things starting from such an early age, we learn to believe that America is in fact the land of opportunity and that we too can become successful if we just work honestly within the system.  We can see how the American dream is so embedded in our thoughts and beliefs based on what we learn as children.  We know, however, that this goal is conditional upon remaining on the track society has paved for us.  Continuing education is portrayed to be the first step in becoming successful and achieving this so called “American Dream.”

Both the public and private school systems in this country are competitive.  Starting from the very beginning, students and parents go through intense application procedures to get into various high schools, middle schools, elementary schools, and in some cases even preschools.  Naturally, it is primarily the upper-middle-class parents who can afford to take the time to go through this process with their children.  It is the bourgeoisie who designed the education system and, perhaps without knowing, made it in to the support system it is for them.  Therefore, these are the parents that usually want to make sure they find the perfect school for their “gifted” child to thrive.  Often times this means paying thousands of dollars annually to institutions that have good names and reputations.  The children of the working class more often tend to go to their neighborhood schools because they cannot afford private schools.  In addition, often times the working class parents do not know enough about the school system and do not have time to search for public schools that are also considered prestigious.  Therefore, the school you attend is often a representation of your family’s social status and, for much of the bourgeois, a means of advertising that status.  Students in the school system see how class differences affect which schools people attend.

One might ask, why then, if it is so obvious how the better education is reserved for a certain type of person, do the working class continue to settle for this unfair treatment?  The answer is that while in reality, the overwhelming majority of students at private schools come from wealthy white families, schools do an excellent job of bringing in several minority students as well as a couple who are from the working class (I bring up race because it goes hand in hand with class status in this country).  Private institutions love to advertise these token students in order to make themselves look good.  They offer all sorts of scholarships for these students because they claim to value diversity and believe in not depriving someone of a good education for financial reasons.  Regardless of whether or not these claims are true, enrolling just these few students is enough to keep the rest of the working class believing in this false hope of equal opportunity.

Institutions of higher education are exceptionally effective in keeping the class system in place.  While everyone is encouraged to go to college, it is not a plausible possibility for many people in the working class.  According to the College Board, the average cost of tuition at a four year private institution is $26,273 and at a school like Simon’s Rock, tuition and fees can amount to double that.  Students who cannot afford that have to work extra hard in order to receive grants and scholarships to make their college education possible.  They are encouraged by their goal of individual success earned from hard work and by publications such as the College Board’s “Education Pays, The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society.”  Often, children who come from well off families do not have to worry about being outstanding in order to be accepted into college because they can afford to buy their way into prestigious universities.  Acceptance into many schools throughout the country is primarily based on each student’s financial situation; merit is a secondary advantage.

Furthermore, one of the primary factors in earning acceptance into these institutions is SAT scores.  The SAT in itself is geared toward the success of the bourgeoisie and upper class.  Studies show that SAT scores directly correlate to family income.  The wealthier you are, the better you do on your SATs.  This is because companies like The Princeton Review and Kaplan are paid by these wealthy families to teach their children not the actual skills they need to know in order to take the test honestly, but rather teach them the test itself.  These privileged students do not need to learn extensive Math and English skills.  They simply have a tutor teach them the different categories each question falls under, and how to answer accordingly.  Furthermore, the writing and verbal sections of the test are very obviously testing the student’s knowledge of a dialect used specifically by middle class non-immigrant and highly educated families.  Thus, those born privileged have yet another leg up on the working class .

Money, like Marx says, is what runs everything in a capitalist society.  There is no difference within the education system.  The value of the education itself has been reduced and is almost insignificant compared to the value of the degree that allows the privileged to keep their high status positions, and the hard working middle class to believe they have a chance at that position.  The reason the education system is so corrupt in this country is because the primary concern is making money.  Marx believed that this is an inevitable fact about every aspect of capitalist society.  This seems to be a logical belief.  I wonder if it is possible for people in a capitalist society to be more concerned with the genuine value of having a good education and being a well-rounded individual, than how much money they will make in the end.  Can money and class differences exist at all without being the primary concern of everyone?  We have been conditioned to believe that money is the key to happiness.  The way we can fix our education system as well as corruption within other areas of society that stem from capitalism and greed, is if everyone would seriously reevaluate what is most important to them.  People need to see that personal wealth is not the most important thing and through community, culture, and honest intellectual growth, this becomes more and more obvious.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Human Rights

Since the Islamic Revolution and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the country’s leadership has hardly improved.  There have been more moderate leaders than Khomeini who have succeeded in making some social changes, but the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has since reversed many of those reforms.

Cute, isn't he?

Ahmadinejad has virtually no concern for the human rights of people living in Iran.  Shirin Ebadi, who founded several organizations including the Defender’s of Human Rights Center, has been the victim of many attempts to thwart her efforts fighting for human rights under Ahmadinejad’s presidency.  In August of 2009, Ebadi wrote a letter to president Ahmadinejad explaining the injustices her organization has faced under his leadership and requesting that he make amends and work to ensure better treatment of human rights activists.  Among the many roadblocks Ebadi’s organization has faced is the closing of the DHRC’s offices, and the illegal confiscation of many of the organizations documents and records.

Also in her letter to the president, Ebadi explains, “You have repeatedly claimed at the international level that ‘Iran is the freest country in the world’ and seeks to bring kindness and justice to the world and wants to impose a justice order on the world, so how is it that at the national level human rights defenders who have committed no crimes but defending the basic rights of the people, are treated in such an abhorrent manner?”

Indeed, Ahmadinejad is full of s**t.  The president of the “freest country in the world” has also made claims denying the holocaust, denying the existence of Iranian homosexuals, and calling for the destruction of Israel (referring to the country as the “banner of Satan.”

Interestingly enough, while homosexuality is a punishable offense in Iran, (men are sentenced to death after one offense, women get two “free passes” and the third offense gets them 100 lashes.  If they get a fourth infraction they are given the death sentence.) transsexuality is allowed!  In 1987, Khomeini legalized gender reassignment surgery.  The government recognizes transsexuality as legitimate and will even cover up to half of the cost for the surgery if the patient needs financial assistance.  Official documents are changed to match the new gender.  Because of this, many gay people become transsexual and get the surgery even though they would not otherwise identify as such, as it is the obvious loophole that allows them to be with who they want.  Iran has the second largest transsexual population in the world, after Thailand!!

In Iran, other offenses that are punishable by death include blasphemy, drug related offenses, prostitution, and politically opposing the Iranian government.  If a person is caught consuming alcohol, he or she can be severely beaten and lashed, or, if it is not the first offense, the person can be sentenced to execution.  If you engage in premarital sex, you can be whipped.  Trivial robberies can warrant the amputation of limbs.  A boy can be sentenced to death at the age of 15, and a girl as young as 9.

If a man is convicted of murder, he can be sentenced to death if the victim was a man.  If the victim’s family chooses not to have the perpetrator killed, they can instead accept diyya, or blood money, from the perp’s family.  Blood money for a man is twice the amount than for a woman, therefore, if a man is convicted of murdering a woman, he cannot be given a death sentence unless the victim’s family is ready to reimburse the other half of his blood money.

The above punishments are all according to Iranian law.

Who wouldn’t want to live in such a free country?

The Human Thirst for Revolution: A Source of Hope, or a Danger to be Avoided?

In Iran Awakening, Shirin Ebadi discusses how her rights and freedoms were systematically taken away from her when Ayatollah Khomeini took power in Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution which overthrew the monarchy under the Shah.  What is interesting, or, more accurately, frightening, is that Ebadi, along with many of her coworkers and friends had supported this revolution.  At the time of the revolution, people in Iran and around the world were anxious and excited to take part in big change.  So excited, that they ended up willingly putting into power a government that ultimately lost Ebadi her job, and brought her lifestyle back to historical times.  This instance is not the first in history where a revolution took place, and ended up bringing about a worse situation than there was to begin with.  What does this say about people’s desire for change and readiness to support whichever group or pursuit provides hope?  Furthermore, how do we be careful to avoid these false hopes?  How do we know what we can support that truly has the people’s best interest at heart?

Before World War II, Germany was facing many social and economic problems.  Of the many problems, the country was experiencing a massive inflation, and Hitler provided the people with hope that he could fix the problem.

Germany Pre- World War II. It was less expensive to burn money for heat than to purchase firewood.

We all know of the horrors that took place after Adolf Hitler was elected into power in 1932.  While there was plenty of antisemitism preexisting and further enforced by propaganda, hating Jews is not the main reason Hitler got elected.  He gave the German people hope, and then proceeded to orchestrate one of the biggest genocides in history.  One of the main forces that helped allow him to do this was the organization of the Hitler youth.  Hitler took young German citizens who were eager to help bring Germany to the top, and bred them into monsters.

In 1967, Ron Jones, a teacher at Cubberly High School in Palo Alto, CA organized an experiment with his students known as “The Third Wave.”  It started as a one-day “game,” promoted through bribes and threats of students’ grades, but ended up going much farther than Jones had expected.  There were strict rules, salutes, uniforms.  Students obediently chanted the 3rd Wave Slogan “Strength Through Discipline, Strength Through Community, Strength Through Action.”  The movement spread beyond the class and throughout the school.  Students chosen as spies betrayed some of their life long friends to tell Jones of their plots to go against him.  Jones saw fairly quickly that the experiment was going too far, but his expectations that a spectator (a parent, or another teacher perhaps) would interject never happened.  Jones heard of threats to beat up students who were disloyal.  Finally he ended it by holding an assembly during which he showed students footage of gas chambers and explained to them that they had been no better than the members of the Third Reich.  Students were shocked, and devastated.  So quickly they leaped at the opportunity to be part of something, a revolution.   It was not until they were disturbed by the images of people dying that they realized what they had started.

Ebadi and her community were hardcore supporters of the Iranian revolution and it was only after the fact, when they saw the horrible effects of their actions, that they regretted it.  It did not matter whether the revolution supported true rights for the Iranian people, or if it advocated for the worst oppression of the people in decades, they did not know.  Either way, it was a movement that excited them.

LET’S LEARN FROM THE PAST AND BE CAREFUL WHAT WE SUPPORT!

Malalai Joya

In class when we read Malalai Joya‘s A Woman Among Warlords, the class went into a discussion that continued to come up throughout the semester.  Does change come from within the system, or from outside of it?  Does an activist make more progress by compromising, or by sticking firmly to his or her beliefs?

These are questions that I have often struggled with.  Malalai Joya’s famous speech addressing the Loya Jirga in 2003 was very controversial.  She is someone who is not afraid to say the truth, even when it threatens her life to do so.  By speaking up and openly criticizing the war criminals she stood before, did she accomplish anything?  Did she succeed in doing something good for the suffering people of Afghanistan, or did she merely destroy her chances of making any real progress?

I believe that there has been historical progress made by those who entered into the system and compromised and eventually made steps towards their goals, however, in order for real reform to occur, there has to be an activist as brave as Malalai, who is able to maintain the support of the people by NOT making deals with the enemy.  Too often do politicians promise to do something, and then never follow through because they get distracted by the words and technicalities that exist in corrupt government systems.  If the system itself is inherently the source of the problem, trying to work within it can only perpetuate the corruption.  An entire government full of the most corrupt warlords can only be fixed by attacking it head-on.

Just as we saw with America’s response to the genocide in Rwanda, small victories made by activists or politicians are often a way of distracting from the real problems.  They are almost meaningless if they are not part of a broader, uncompromising effort to achieve bigger, indisputable reforms.  The U.S. boasted about saving Monique Mujawamariya in Rwanda, but her rescue was not in any way a side effect of a larger effort to stop the genocide.  Rather, it was a small act that would satisfy the conscience of Clinton and other officials in the Pentagon, as well as “prove” to the media that the U.S. was not a bystander to a genocide that could have easily been prevented.  Such are too often the kinds of accomplishments made by people willing to compromise.  People think that if you address a serious issue immediately suggesting radical change, that makes you crazy and unrealistic.  You have to be ready to make compromises and make change little by little, but the smaller the issue, the less of a priority it becomes, and the longer people are made to suffer.

The problem becomes maintaining hope when it seems that your method is not working.  There are benefits of compromising that could be tempting.  If Malalai was ready to compromise and work more “diplomatically” in parliament, she probably would not be running for her life every day.

Gandhi said that if you do not agree with what your government is doing, stop paying taxes.  “He or she who supports a State organized in the military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in the sin. Each man old or young takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes… Withholding payment of taxes is one of the quickest methods of overthrowing a government.”  Simple as that.  Surely, if every person who disagreed with they government’s actions stopped paying taxes, change would happen, but if you do not have enough support, you will be put in jail and your cause will likely go unaddressed.

This possibility should be taken as more encouragement that we need people like Malalai Joya.  They give real hope to the people and empower them so that they know that they DO have power and they CAN make change.  Without strong and persistent activists to motivate the people, the masses will be quieted and corruption will continue without opposition.

The American Dream Myth

I find it hard to believe that anyone an grow up in America without hearing countless accounts of successful people who started with nothing.  With hard work and perseverance, anyone can achieve his or her dreams.  Every American hero became who he did because he was determined and pulled himself up by his bootstraps.  I hate to put it so bluntly, but its a hoax.  People work hard their whole lives and never get anywhere, and, more often than not, those who achieve the American Dream don’t work harder than the poorest people in the country.

If you are interested, Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers goes into depth on the subject and on what actually leads to success (it takes much more than hard work).  One example he discusses in the beginning of the book is pro hockey players.  The vast majority of them are born in the first three months of the year.  Is it just coincidence that those born in January have more talent than those born in May?  Or do they work harder?  The answer is that when these boys started playing hockey, they were very young.  They were put into groups based on their ages, and their coaches noticed the older ones because they were bigger and often more experienced than the boys with 6 fewer months under their belt.  Six months makes a big difference when you are 6 years old.  As a result of their size and experience, the coaches payed more attention to them because they saw more potential.  They moved to higher levels and the higher they got, the more practice they got, the more coaching they got, and the gap between their skill and the skill of the younger boys grew bigger at a faster rate.  The same thing happens in schools.  Interesting right?  Read the book and learn a lot more!

Okay, so why is America so obsessed with this idea that hard work can get you anywhere regardless of where you came from (only in America, of course)?  Why is it drilled into our heads from the moment we step into the classroom, or sooner?  They want the faith in America to be maintained by the people.  They need people to believe this is the land of opportunity so that they won’t give up.  I have to admit, they have done a damn good job.  Who doesn’t want to believe in the American dream?  Mostly, those who achieve it did not start with nothing.  They most often were born into privileged families and were handed opportunities.  What I have always been amused by, however, are the working class families who build their beliefs based on this concept.  Conservative politicians need to get these working class communities to be their pawns because there is no way they could win elections with only the support of the small population of Americans whom their policies will actually benefit.  I believe that one way they achieve that is by giving the working class the hope that their hard work will all pay off one day.

Repeatedly, I have caught myself in an argument with someone who belongs to the working class and yet maintains quite conservative positions on many social and political issues.  I never understood.  I FEEL LIKE I’M LOOKING OUT FOR YOU!  Why would you support Bush’s tax cuts for people making over $250,000? Is it because you believe one day that you will be making that much and you want to protect your not-yet, probably-never-existent-money you will be entitled to?  Don’t you want YOUR taxes to be cut and for people who can afford to pay more do so?  It will help you go farther in life if you don’t have to pay for rich people to keep their money. I don’t get it.  Do you really think its cruel to charge millionaires higher taxes for YOUR benefit?  You are the ones that need this.  Universal health care with HELP YOU BE HEALTHY!  Is that not something you care about?  Should only the wealthiest 2% of the population enjoy good health?  Oh, of course.  You’re afraid of America becoming socialist.  You do not want the government interfering with and having control over all of your personal affairs.  But would you rather it be big businesses determining, solely based on your wealth, whether you can receive the medical treatment that will decide whether you live or die?

Excuse me.

Unfortunately, there are too many Americans who would read this blog and think I’m crazy.  The United States has one of the most, if not the most conservative left wing of any Western country.  Whereas in other countries I might belong to the most popular liberal party, here, democrats often view me as part of the “radical left.”  It seems natural to me that I would have the political opinions I do, as I feel they directly reflect my beliefs in human rights and social justice.

Surely this was not my most informative, professional, or organized post, but I hope to open some discussion about something I know I’m not alone in being confused and frustrated about…

Prison System in the U.S.

In my last posts, I talked about how war detainees are treated worse than and given fewer rights than those in U.S. prisons.  I did not mean to imply that prisoners in the U.S. have it easy, or that the domestic prison system is necessarily less faulty than American detainee camps abroad.

A Pew Center on the States 2008 study showed that approximately 1 in every 100 Americans is in jail or prison.  Men are ten times as likely to be held in prison than women, and 1 in every 9 black men aged 20-34 is incarcerated.

The number of Americans in the prison system has been growing dramatically.  This is largely due to new policies and laws putting more offenders behind bars, and giving harsher sentences.

In 1987, the government spent about 12 billion dollars on corrections.  In 2007, we spent more than 49 billion.  It is expected that in 2011, we will be spending an additional $25 billion. The money we spend on higher education increased less than 1/6th as much in the same time period.  The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the whole world, with 2.3 million people incarcerated.  China, whose population far outnumbers ours, places second with 1.5 million.

What I find most appalling is that more than half the prisoners released return to jail or prison within three years.  We could save billions of dollars if our prison system was transformed so that it was not based around punishing offenders, but rather rehabilitating and educating them.  How the system currently works makes it nearly impossible for released prisoners to return back to society without resorting to crime.  How could you expect someone to suddenly become a law abiding citizen after spending years locked behind bars like animals, and undergoing minimal to no treatment.  The harsh atmosphere of a prison forces prisoners to become “harder” than they were to begin with, and a good job with that on your record is almost out of the question.  Furthermore, many are put back behind bars for technical violations such as violating parole.  According to the Bureau of Justice, approximately 75% of state prisoners are NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS!!

Poor communities and ethnic minorities are particularly targeted.  Two thirds of the nonviolent offenders (who were largely convicted of drug related offenses) are Black or Hispanic.  One example of how these groups are targeted is that those who are caught with crack cocaine are given much harsher sentences than those possessing the more expensive cocaine powder.  More than 40% of the nonviolent offenders never completed high school and an extra 25% have a GED.  If we put nonviolent offenders not behind bars but in other rehab programs and used the billions of dollars we would save on education, there would be much less crime, and better prison and education systems.

The average cost per prisoner in the U.S. is $23,876.  Most of them do not pose serious threats to society, and if they were not locked up, they could be helping themselves, their families, and paying taxes.  In more recent years, there has also been a particularly large increase in the number of arrests for immigration violations.  This confuses me, why are we spending millions locking up people who pose virtually no threat to society, and make up one of the largest forces driving our economy?  Moreover, we are hurting ourselves by allowing Arizona cops to racially profile and question people for not looking white, and fire any teacher who has an accent, regardless of qualifications.

Norway’s prison system should be a model to us.   Norway has one of the lowest incarceration rates in the world, and the prison system is focused on treating prisoners humanely and rehabilitating them.  There are no bars to be locked behind, and facilities are solar powered.  Inmates learn about protecting the environment, respecting each other, and they are responsible for participating in farm work.  They are given comfortable living conditions, and the maximum sentence is 21 years.  A mere 20% of inmates return to prison after being released, a sharp contrast to the percentage of U.S. prisoners who return.  Norway’s population and overall quality of education and other social services give them quite an advantage because it results in much less crime to begin with.  Still, even if we can’t completely adopt their prison system without transforming our government almost entirely, the concept behind their strategy is what is important: there is a genuine desire to help these offenders, rather than punish them and take away their humanity.

War on terror: how the concept of prisoners’ rights was justifiably invalidated

Our country prides itself on its sophisticated justice system.  A person suspected of a crime is innocent until proven guilty.  It is a person’s right to a trial in which he or she has an opportunity to defend himself.  No one should be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment (see Amendment VIII.) Simply stated: regardless of your status as a prisoner, you are still entitled to fair treatment and other human rights.

It is ironic, then, that the government does not think twice going against these ideals in the places holding the highest percentages of innocent people.  After Janis Karpinski, the Abu Ghraib commander, was demoted, she estimated that 90% of detainees being held at Abu Ghraib were innocent.  People treated the most inhumanely at the hands of our government, have been the most innocent.  Again, officials have twisted words and meanings always to excuse their acts.  All people taken into custody in the “War on Terror” (I shudder every time I hear the ridiculous euphemism) are not prisoners, because they don’t have rights.  Instead they must be referred to as “detainees.”  The reasoning is unbelievable.  You cannot simply change words around in order to justify torturing people and denying them their own humanity.

Why do we treat these people taken in Iraq or Afganistan and brought to Abu Ghraib, Kandahar, and Guantanamo Bay so much worse than criminals in our own country?  Often times groups were arrested and imprisoned in large groups by the Northern Alliance, for example and sold to the U.S.  Immediately, their humanity is taken away from them.  In almost every case, the military had absolutely no reason to suspect these men of any sort of crime, let alone terrorist acts against the U.S.  How do we justify this?

Terrorism.

If 9/11 brought something good to the American government, it was the ability to get away with anything in the name of fighting terrorism.  Destroying the lives and well-being of innocent people is perfectly okay, because we are protecting our country from imminent terrorist attacks.  9/11 showed the American people that terrorism is a real threat, and it induced fear.  Fear is a powerful thing.  Every time there have been oppressive governments, they have been enabled by both the ignorance and fear of the people.  Since 9/11, terrorist threats in the media have been surrounding the public.  From anthrax scares to bombs in the subway to the smuggling of weapons in shoes in airports, there was a constant threat, and the Bush administration had to do whatever it deemed necessary to protect us.  The government could get our country into billions of dollars of debt supposedly tracking down the terrorists we financed and trained for so long.  It did not matter that Iraq is not where those responsible for the 9/11 attacks are hiding.  We can continue fighting there with money we don’t have so long as you assure the American people that their tax dollars are protecting them from terrorism.  Those taken as U.S. property during the War on Terror can’t have rights!  THEY’RE TERRORISTS!  The most common justification for torture and deprivation of rights is just that.  As John Yoo explains, “You don’t want to say to the number three guy in Al Qaeda, ‘You get a lawyer and you have your Miranda rights, and you have the right to remain silent’”  Of COURSE not!!! How could you suggest such a thing??!!  These are TERRORISTS, not people!

But what is a terrorist?  What is terrorism?  According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, terrorism is: “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.”  Hmm.  Is that not what interrogation is?  Is that not what war is?  Innocent people are killed all the time in pursuit of political aims.  What differentiates a soldier fighting for a good cause from a terrorist if they both are guilty of the same crime?  We use terrorism to “fight terrorism.”  Hundreds of thousands have been killed since 9/11, both Americans and others, civilians and combatants.  What has been accomplished?  Have we, can we, succeed in destroying terrorism by becoming the same monsters the American people are so afraid of?  No, by trying we only perpetuate it.

What is Torture?

“On August 1, 2002, Jay S. Bybee, head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Council, signed a memo that provied a narrow definition of torture: interrogators could do what they wanted as long as the intensity of pain inflicted on suspects was less than ‘that which accompany serious physical injury such as death or organ failure.’ Yoo is widely acknowledged as the author of the document, which later became known as the ‘Torture Memo.’  ’Our intent in the Justice Department’s original research was to give clear legal guidance on what constituted ‘torture’ under the law, so that our agents would know exactly what was prohibited, and what was not,’ Yoo wrote.” (McKelvey 31)

DOES THAT SOUND LIKE CLEAR GUIDANCE ON WHAT IS PROHIBITED?!?!

The answer is no.  That is a pathetic attempt at setting guidelines.  Sometimes I wonder what sort of ridiculous reasoning is used by the people running our poor country.   Still, it seems it is hard for the military even to abide by those standards.  If fact their whole strategy is based upon replicating that exact severe pain which comes with, and leads to death.   In effect, what that memo meant was that interrogators and soldiers should aim to get as close as possible to killing prisoners without actually doing so (or not doing so directly).

According to Yoo, interrogators are allowed to hurt ‘detainees’ as much as they please so long as the pain they inflict is less than that which accompanies death.  Funny.  I thought the whole point of water-boarding was to simulate the feeling of drowning to death.  Is not depriving a human being of food, oxygen, sleep, proper medical treatment and other basic needs for survival supposed to make them FEEL LIKE THEY’RE DYING??  Death in itself is not what is painful.  It is the conditions leading up to is that cause physical and emotional pain.  For example, being shot but not killed is not less painful than being shot and killed, if anything it is more painful.  Likewise, being hung upside down and having your pulse checked every six hours to see if you are still alive is not okay simply because the actual death may not occur, not even according to Yoo’s vague memo.  The mere fact that their are doctors whose job it is to do such a thing is proof that the military is openly breaking its own rules which were obviously put into place to allow soldiers and interrogators to do anything, while still claiming that regulations exist.

The torture memo’s purpose is to be unclear enough to allow anything.  Soldiers in Abu Ghraib and many other camps are intentionally left with no rules or supervision when it comes to how to treat detainees.  Under these standards, the guards cannot get in trouble (unless photos are accidentally released to the public) because if the victim of their abuse is still alive, they can always say the pain was less than that which accompanies death.  The bottom line, however, is that if something can potentially kill a person, the pain is too much, regardless of whether or not a heart stops beating.

I am measuring the actual treatment of detainees against the pitiful definition Yoo came up with.  What wrongdoings have and are actually occurring under any reasonable standards are even more appalling.  Shouldn’t the limit of how much pain is allowed be much less than DEATH?! After a certain point, it is obvious that inflicting more and more pain is NOT going to bring more and more results.  Our government and armed forces have learned that fact long ago.  The question that everyone seems to have been struggling with so much, “what is torture?” is completely irrelevant because we know it is ineffective and inhumane.  Again, I come back to the same problem that leads people astray: in situations like these, words like torture, prisoner, genocide do not matter.  It is the actions surrounding them that need to be addressed.  Fussing to try to define torture does not prevent any suffering, it merely distracts from the real problems.  The real question is why torture, and how to systematically stop it?

Article on Torture memo: Justice Dept. Memo Says Torture ‘May Be Justified’