Torture Playlist
As America finally wakes up to the fact that our country tortures people (and seems to have no issue with it), we are finding out more about what that torture involves. According to a recent Mother Jones piece, "music has been used in American military prisons and on bases to induce sleep deprivation, "prolong capture shock," disorient detainees during interrogations—and also drown out screams. Based on a leaked interrogation log, news reports, and the accounts of soldiers and detainees." Many of the songs make sense for that sort of thing, some surprised me since I listen to them for fun. But what really got to me was the inclusion of the Barney Theme song, the Meow Mix and the Sesame Street theme. Add the stupid Dora "I'm a Map" song to that list and you have my life. Is this official government acknowledgement that parenting toddlers is torture?
I know I'm being glib about this, but the whole thing is just so weird. It made me recall a summer camp I attended in high school themed on the end times (yes I grew up in that sort of church). The whole week was one long ongoing skit and at the end of the week those of us who had been "good Christians" were raptured. We were taken on an all night fun party in San Antonio. Those "left behind" had to endure the Tribulation. Basically they were forced to stay up all night and do things like watch Thief in the Night repeatedly and play phonetic hangman. And yes, hearing "Wish we'd all been ready" is torture.
I don't condone torture. And it just seems so strange to me to use music as a means of inflicting pain. How do you respond to this?
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Hi – I found your blog through Rebecca from the Josiah Community, and your posts are really thoughtful – the same topics I write about on my blog. I have to say your description of the end times summer camp absolutely floored me. Wow. I didn't know things like that existed. Anyway, thanks for writing about such important topics (not the summer camp…but more like torture and debt). It's good to get that information out there.
Julie, I'm not comfortable with the idea of torture either. But I'm curious what you think should be allowed when a known terrorist is captured and believed to have information that could lead to the arrest of other terrorists who are actively working to commit acts of violence.
On the one extreme you have physical torture – beatings, pulling out of fingernails and the like. On the other extreme you could put them up in comfortable accomodations with plenty of good food and rest and leave them alone if they say "no thanks" when you politely ask if they'd like to tell you where their buddies are and what they are up to. In between it seems to get kind of gray. What would you allow?
To answer the question posed, the use of music that you describe doesn't sound like torture to me, unless it's used to mask someone's screams because they are being physically tortured. I wouldn't want all detainees to be subject to the described treatment. But in some cases, with some individuals, depending on what they've done and what information they are believed to have, the use of music to induce sleep deprivation and confusion, and to undermine their resistance to telling you what their terrorist friends are up to, sounds ok to me.
The fact that some of the music so used is music written for American preschoolers is a little funny and I'm sure most American parents do feel driven to distraction at times by those songs. The simplistic, catchy and repetitive melodies make your mind feel caught in an endless circle. But I also think it's a cultural thing, that these detainees are so bothered by western music. I'm sure there are some in the US who would find it torturous to listen to Indian sitar music, or western classical music for that matter, for hours on end. If you made me listen to Barry Manilow for 48 hours straight I'd probably tell you anything you wanted to know.
Kristen – thanks for stopping by!
Karl – I honestly don't know what should be allowed. the questions I ask though are the typical ones. Do the ends justify the means? Is it ever okay to demean another person, to treat that person as an object instead of an image-bearer? What does that say about us if we do so – that we could personally see a person like that or that we could adopt such a mindset as a nation? Does potentially saving some lives justify hardening our hearts to deny the image of God in a person?
I know that there are those who will answer yes of course to such questions. I just have a really hard to reconciling torture with Christ's commands. Is my safety worth telling Jesus – "screw you, I'll do my own thing."?
Those are the same kind of questions most people wrestle with I think, Julie. But your post and answer both seem to beg the question of "what do we mean by torture?" Your definition of the word seems to me to be broader than most.
"Does potentially saving some lives justify hardening our hearts to deny the image of God in a person?"
Are those really the only two options? I don't happen to think depriving sleep to someone who is bent on terrorism by playing loud music that they find highly annoying, and questioning them intensely about the violence they and their cohorts have planned, necessarily means that I am denying the image of God in them.
Karl, I just can't see Jesus approving of Peter blasting the Barney theme song to piss the hell out of Judas to admit that he was about to help with essentially the state endorsed assassination of Jesus.
Perhaps the answer is not to "fight back" to find out information, but stop the problem at the source. I really don't see anyone attacking Switzerland, and at the same time I don't see Switzerland attacking other countries without provocation.
Just a thought.
Matt, if the US had remained neutral the Nazis would have attacked (and owned) Switzerland, no matter how nice the Swiss were to them.
From Wikipedia: "During World War II, detailed invasion plans were drawn up by the German military command, such as Operation Tannenbaum, but Switzerland was never attacked. Switzerland was able to remain independent through a combination of economic concessions to Germany, military deterrence and good fortune as larger events during the war delayed an invasion."
But the topic of the post wasn't about Switzerland or "attacking other countries without provocation." It was about how to deal with terrorists who have information about what their cohorts are planning to do. You seem to suggest that seeking to obtain that information is incompatible with also working to stop the problem at the source – as if you can't do both. I don't think that's the case.
I really don't know where to go with the Jesus-Peter-Judas-Barney thing.
Not to make light of serious conversation, but I just had to point out Goodwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) having been proved rather quickly in this comment strain.
I thought about Goodwin's law Melissa, but when someone says that everyone else should just be like the Swiss, it's pretty much inevitable. There's a lot to learn from the Swiss, but they've also greatly benefitted at times from the non-neutrality of others.
Melissa, I was about to say the same thing
Karl, you're using a false dichotomy as well. There are many other interrogation techniques that come in between politely asking for information and using torture. Our domestic police force uses them all the time.
It would behoove us to have people on staff who understand the culture and can adequately interrogate the prisoners. It would also help to understand that they are assuredly not terrorists. That is a demeaning and dehumanizing term to use. They are soldiers in a war against us. Perhaps it would help if you did some research and began to understand the culture in which they live. They are very, very different from us and think differently and communicate differently. But that does not make them less human.
I'd also like to add, that it's easy to be brutal and terrorize. It takes brains and thinking to get the information we need by other means than brutality. Torture dehumanizes both victim and abuser. We do not have the luxury of continuing in this vein.
Sonja, I'm actually not creating a false dichotomy. What you just posted is exactly what I was trying to point out – that there's an enormous gray area in between those two extremes and that some seem to want to call that entire gray area "torture" and treat it the same morally as true physical or psychological torture. I'm trying to explore what Julie or others in the thread believes are acceptable interrogation techniques, beyond the extreme of politely asking for information from a well rested, comfortable and well fed subject. What do you think?
If we don't even understand what someone believes is the dividing line between an acceptable interrogation technique and torture, then we aren't really communicating clearly on this topic.
There should be a law similar to Goodwin's, relating to how quickly the term "false dichotomy" will get used in any given internet discussion thread. As with using the Nazis to make a point, sometimes it's applicable and sometimes not, but it's pretty much a given somebody is going to use it.
Sonja: "It would also help to understand that they are assuredly not terrorists." How do you define the term terrorist? Are there any, by your definition? Would you say the 9-11 hijackers were "assuredly not terrorists?"
I'd be surprised if you have researched "their culture" more than I have Sonja. You may have, if you majored or minored in middle eastern studies. Which, of the several cultures involved, were you referring to? I definitely think the Bush administration grossly failed to understand the cultures (micro) and the overall culture (macro) within Iraq and the middle east, and I've believed that ever since hearing the plans for the Iraq invasion and the overly-optimistic expectations regarding its expected results and reception. My disagreement with you, if we disagree, isn't based on ignorance it's based on having reached different conclusions.
One possible issue to contemplate, which I cannot remember where I saw it or if I have it exactly correct, was the action of some of the "professionals" who have been doing this work for years (getting information from others, who don't want to give it) before our current "torture" issue came up.
As I understand it, many professionals knew the current torture tactic were not affective and knew there would be a political nightmare and knew they would be left hanging out to dry if they participated. The best found ways not to participate or avoid the meeting where it was discuss, etc.
I bring this up as the outcome is to get "true information" which you can use to…, yes, I agree there is a gray area.
One might look at the issue of torture as another example of an ineffective policy in Iraq or the pursuit of terrorism.
Karl … why yes, actually I did minor in Middle Eastern studies and majored in political science/International studies. So … there you go. I'm sure I still have a great deal more to learn, but I do know more than the average bear.
As for a definition of terrorists … I am leary of randomly calling people terrorists because it has the unfortunate side effect of dehumanizing them. So I don't like to classify someone like that without substantial evidence. For instance, I would venture to guess that the majority of prisoners that we rounded up with no evidence and have kept at Gitmo for 7 years now without habeas corpus and without adhering to most standards of international justice are not terrorists, but are guerilla warriors caught up in events that are beyond their understanding or control.
The International Court and our government has established standards of interrogation technique which remain clearly within humanly tolerated behavior. No one would consider it inhumane, or brutal or torture. The problem is that during this last war our government with knowledge and forethought stepped outside those boundaries and decided to engage in torture and brutality. They made false claims about the necessity for doing so. Everything about this war has been proven to be established on lies and falsehoods.
The Bush administration failed to understand Iraqi and Afghani culture … they have failed to understand the entire region on every level. The level of incompetence about the Middle East in this administration has continued to amaze me … every time I think it's the worst it can get, I find out how wrong I am.
Then Sonja, how would you interrogate a guerilla warrior who you strongly believe has knowledge of how, when and where his fellow guerilla warriors are planning to kill civilian non-combatants? No Barney songs if they ask you to stop?
I too majored in poli sci, but only took 1 course specifically in middle eastern studies (a second in IR dealt with the middle east quite a bit also), though I've read a lot on the topic in the last decade or so. I'll grant that you probably know more than I do, but I'm not just pulling stuff out of the air or the headlines. I agree with your last paragraph for the most part. I'm not sure the previous administration understood the region much better though. Maybe Obama or McCain can improve on their record.
Sorry to ignore the conversation here today. I've had a horrible day healthwise, I'll try to jump in tomorrow…
Whoa … I guess if I were a trained interrogator, I'd know how to answer your question. But I'm not. I only know that those who are have knowingly and with malice aforethought crossed a line and our government has sanctioned it in many different ways. That is what is wrong. Saying that the ends justify those wrong means does not somehow make them right … but calling them right in that instance is very Machiavellian.