Water-Boarding: America's "Enhanced" Policy

I want to take a few minutes from studying for my history final to address the issue of water-boarding—the simulation of drowning. These days there has been much talk on the question of whether or not water-boarding qualifies as torture. The CIA calls it an “enhanced interrogation technique,” but many others call it a “terrible agony”—giving the feeling of complete disorientation, pain, and imminent death. My question: Is the United States government morally justified to use this method as a means to squeeze information out of suspected “terrorists”?

Before I continue, I would like my readers to watch this clip of a water-boarding demonstration. Keep in mind, this is not a real interrogation.



Recently, the CIA destroyed hundreds of hours of interrogation tapes, which depicted instances of water-boarding. We may never know the truth behind this cover-up, but I will say that I am very suspicious. Why wouldn’t the CIA simply classify the tapes like they do with everything else they want to be kept secret? Perhaps the suspects within the tapes were found to have no information after their “enhanced” questioning. It is more than likely that innocent individuals have been water-boarded by the CIA, which leads me to wonder if the ends justify the means? As my source below explains, the practice has supposedly worked in at least two high profile instances—but does this justify the mistakes? Does this justify the practice at all?

There is no doubt that water-boarding is indeed a form of torture. Just ask the man in the video. But there are many others who believe the same. Former U.S. deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage (who was water-boarded during his military training) says, “Of course water-boarding is torture. I can’t believe we’re even debating it. We shouldn’t be doing that kind of stuff.” It is a dated practice that has been used as a means of inflicting pain for hundreds of years; it was torture during the Spanish Inquisition, and it’s torture today.

To me, this is truly an atrocity. This is the kind of tyranny that the government claims we are fighting against. Our leaders say that the United States does not torture, but it is clear to me that they are nothing more than liars—as long as they can make up the definitions, they can do whatever they want. When will we wake up and realize that people hate this country for a reason? They hate us because of things we do to them—because of our lies and disingenuous policies. We overthrow governments, rip off third world countries, invade countries, falsely capture and imprison, suspend habeas corpus, and torture living, breathing human beings. I thought we were better than that—I thought America was the nation of justice— I thought this country had standards.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7139708.stm

SHOWDOWN: Iran

Well, it’s been about 2 months since my last post, and I must say that I have no good excuse for the extended hiatus. I suppose there was a lot of energy and motivation when I decided to found the blog—I had a lot of ideas in my head that I wanted to express. Over time that initial sense of purpose sort of wore off. I took a week off, then a month, and now my break has gotten out of hand. But now I’m back—hopefully this time for good. Today’s topic: SHOWDOWN IRAN.

Today, an official U.S. intelligence report came out that declares Iran’s nuclear weapons program an indefinitely halted operation. In fact, it states that the program was halted way back in 2003. Iran is continuing its process of uranium enrichment, but as of now there is no evident intent to develop a bomb (confirmation of what the mullahs have been saying all along). So when President Bush stated in October that we could be facing the third World War, was he wrong? Apparently not—according to the White House.

National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley states that this report is in fact a confirmation of everything the Administration has been saying. “It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons…” So they were right all along, but Hadley doesn't want the American public to jump off the fear-bandwagon quite yet: “the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.”

What I don’t understand is how this administration claims that it has been right all along. In October of this year, Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of “lying” about its nuclear program; the Vice President has voiced direct and pointed attacks and threats on the government; the President has assured everyone that the nuclear program is, without a doubt, active. Clearly these threats and accusations were either knowingly over-hyped or completely baseless—perhaps a reminder of many of the threats and accusations against Iraq, which were later found to be total fabrications. Perhaps Iran is actually developing nuclear power for the sake of developing the nation. Could it be that the mullahs aren’t lying? Maybe they aren’t the hostile terrorists that we make them out to be.

My fear is another war. The neo-conservative movement has already succeeded in waging one unjust war, and I have no doubt in my mind that they are fully capable to do it again. Our leaders do not seem to understand that the game they are playing involves millions of people. The current war has devastated Iraq—a terrible civil war has broken out, millions are now refugees, and God knows how many Iraqi civilians have been killed (some counts are up to a million). This is worse than reckless foreign policy—this is criminal. This cannot be accepted.

Sources: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/03/america/cia.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21516968/

We Must Listen to the Madman!

Today in my Modern East Asian history class, we analyzed a Chinese short story from 1918 written by Lu Hsun entitled “A Madman’s Diary.” It is a criticism of the traditional and feudal values of Chinese culture, and was a great influence among the citizenry—credited with being a main cause of the May Fourth Movement and the rise of the peasantry. The protagonist of the story looks at Chinese history and calls it a story of “people eating people”—a metaphor for the primitive and cannibalistic tradition of China that was destroying itself. People called him a “madman”—he was disregarded and ignored, even though he was right. Today a new “madman” has surfaced—in fact, he is a man running for the presidency of the United States of America.

His name is Mike Gravel (GRAH-vel), and has been labeled by the media as the “skunk of the pack” and the “crazy uncle” of the candidates. He is running for the Democratic nomination, yet he blasts Hillary and Obama for taking lobbyist money and not doing enough to stop the War in Iraq. He is fresh and energetic in the debates and has brought to light the hypocrisy and lies that come from his fellow running mates—he speaks truth and tells the American people how it is. But why has former Senator Mike Gravel remained one of the darkest of the dark-horse candidates?

The issues Gravel brings up today are nearly identical to the ones he brought up in the 70s as a Senator of Alaska. For those who are wondering who to thank for not being drafted into military service, you can thank Mike Gravel. In 1971, he led a one-man filibuster against the reinstatement of the Draft (a filibuster is a way to delay or completely prevent a vote on a piece of legislation). No one else stood up. Gravel kept the filibuster going day after day for 5 months, and the Draft was expired. Also in ’71, the rogue Senator put the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record. These were Top Secret government documents detailing the lies and deceit of U.S. foreign policy in South-East Asia—essentially confirming the immoral and unjust nature of the Vietnam War. Gravel could have gone to prison, but he exposed the documents nonetheless. Here is Gravel and his emotional response to the report:



Gravel exposed a corrupt foreign policy and ended the Draft—all against the will of most of his colleagues and his Party. He refused to let up, and he beat the system. They called him crazy. He was the “skunk” and the “nutty Senator from Alaska.” His own Party took away his nomination for re-election in 1981—they were concerned over his unwillingness to conform to Party ideology. Mike Gravel left politics that year—heartbroken and disgusted over a truly corrupt system. He left and didn’t look back. But now he has returned—this time to fix America for good.

The former Senator now finds himself in a strikingly familiar situation. There is a terrible war going on—a war that never had an honest purpose and has dragged on for far too long. Our leaders manipulate fear as an instrument to drive policy. Corruption and K-Street politics are rampant. Congress is crippled. Gravel wants to fix these things. He wants to use diplomacy. He wants to get us off the oil. He wants to empower the citizenry to pass laws and override Congress—a way to keep the system in check “by the People.”

Just like traditional China, the system of the United States has become a system of “people eating people.” Let us not accept politics as usual. Let us not forget that the people have the power in this country. Gravel was considered an outcast in the 70s just as he is now. But people look back at what Gravel did and applaud his accomplishments—they say, “Wow, that Gravel really had guts.” Today he is doing the same thing. Don’t let Mike Gravel get scurried under the rug by the media. Remember what he has done and listen to what he has to say. We must not ignore Mike Gravel—this time we must listen to the “madman.”

Unity '08: The Answer to the Problems?

In the Presidential election of 1860, a relatively new political party offered something new to the United States of America. The country was dominated by two parties that had lost the faith of the American people—the newcomer that changed everything and united the nation was the Republican Party—its candidate was Abraham Lincoln.

A movement known as "Unity '08" uses this example as a comparison to America's current politics. They argue that today is much like 1860. The system is broken. The top-tier candidates take extreme positions. Lobbyists dominate—corruption plagues our government. Two parties have controlled for too long, and it’s time for change. Perhaps Unity ’08 is the answer.

Unity ’08 is a political party formed specifically for the 2008 election—it has no long-term aspirations, and has absolutely no corporate ties. Founded by bi-partisan moderates, it seeks to break through and disrupt the power-hold the Republicans and Democrats have on our government. How they plan to do this is truly revolutionary. By utilizing the vast influence of the Internet, Unity ’08 will hold the first ever online presidential convention. Members (YOU) will vote for the issues they believe are most important; they will hear out the candidates and decide for themselves who will be most suitable to lead the country—choosing a President, Vice President, and even cabinet members. It gives the vote back to the voters.

Unity is currently trying to recruit as many people as possible—it will be quite a task to get on the presidential ballot in all 50 states. Many distinguished politicians have endorsed Unity ’08, and it has been rumored that Mayor Michael Bloomberg will go for the Unity ticket. Even Sam Waterston, the actor from Law & Order, has become a spokesman (not a candidate) for the movement. Check out his brief video:


The Internet Revolution has brought us to this point—the point at which the Web can trigger true change in a democracy. Perhaps this is our opportunity to become an effective part of how this government is run. Maybe, through Unity '08, the people can enact true change and to reform a terribly corrupt system.

I encourage you to check out what Unity ’08 has to offer at: www.unity08.com …read up on it and research what it seeks to accomplish in further detail. Check out its videos on YouTube. Maybe this is what our country needs--maybe not, but it's definitely worth a consideration.

A Follow-up: Ahmadinejad & the '08 Hopefuls

I’ve been reading up on what the various 2008 Presidential candidates have had to say regarding the Ahmadinejad ordeal, and I think a follow-up to my original post is necessary.

Here are some of the statements made by the frontrunners giving their opinions of Ahmadinejad’s visit:

-Rudy Giuliani: "I know he seems somewhat silly to us but he's not silly to himself…He leaves that appearance at Columbia saying I got half the audience to applaud for me. It was a terrible mistake to allow him to speak."

-Mitt Romney: "We should be tightening our sanctions against Iran, not welcoming him to the world stage, and I've called on the Secretary-General of the United Nations to withdraw that invitation…What we should be doing is indicting Ahmadinejad under the Genocide Convention."

-John McCain: "A man who is directing the maiming and killing of Americans troops should not be given an invitation to speak at an American university…"

-Hillary Clinton: "If I were the president of a university, I would not have invited him, but I did not express an opinion about the decision made by Columbia... I was very much against his desire to go to ground zero. I thought that was absolutely out of bounds and unacceptable and thankfully it was not permitted."

-Barack Obama: Would not have invited Ahmadinejad to speak, but says that "One of the values we believe in is the value of academic freedom. He has a right to speak." He also has declared that he will speak with Ahmadinejad if elected—opening diplomatic relations with Iran.

-Also, Current President George Bush said: “[if Columbia] thinks it’s a good idea to have the leader from Iran come and talk to the students as an educational experience, I guess it’s OK with me."

Most of the ’08 candidates have voiced their opposition to Ahmadinejad’s proposed visit to Ground Zero (his permission was denied by the U.S. government), except for one—former Senator Mike Gravel. Gravel establishes that he is very against the Iranian regime, but that the U.S. should not be “snubbing” the Iranian government—calling it “dangerous” for the future. He also points out that while the United States was giving economic aid to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (before 9/11 of course), Iran was funding the Taliban’s “bitterest enemies”—Iran had nothing to do with the orchestration of 9/11, and was in fact against those who carried out the attack.

Gravel brings up several issues dealing with the disingenuous behavior of the U.S. in Iran over the past 50 years (overthrowing its democratically elected government, supporting a corrupt dictator, etc.), but his main point is that our leaders must stop separating the world into parties of “good” and “evil.” This mode of thinking has never helped us, and will lead to the unthinkable—a war against a united Middle East. In Gravel’s words: “It's time to step away from the brink and begin finding common ground. Let Ahmadinejad go to Ground Zero and honor our dead. And together, let's all acknowledge that neither war nor terrorism will solve our problems.”

Please read Senator Gravel’s article in full for more insight.

Ahmadinejad and America's Test

Today President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran spoke to students and faculty at Columbia University in New York. His arrival was marked by heavy criticism and fierce protests, but he was nonetheless permitted to speak. Today this country passed a small but important test.

Let me first establish that I believe President Ahmadinejad is a terribly misled man who does not represent a positive force in the global community. He is the leader of a radical theocracy, which maintains brutal rule over its country—though this rule is in fact crumbling due to a very pro-western youth majority (60% of the population is younger than 30). The Islamic Republic is a known supporter of the radical organization known as Hezbollah and has been accused by Washington of supplying heavy weapons to the insurgency in Iraq. Ahmadinejad has been quoted calling for the “destruction of Israel” and has been accused of denying the Holocaust. In his recent talk at Columbia, he went as far as to denying the existence of homosexuals in Iran.

The debate occurring in the past few days has been one that I feel we have truly needed. Ever since the days of Woodrow Wilson, it has been this country’s supposed “duty” to spread freedom and democracy—criticizing and even invading nations in the name of this “freedom.” But now we have been faced with the question: “To what extent do we offer freedom?” Would it be justified for us to tell President Ahmadinejad, who is considered a “terrorist” by many, that he has no right to engage in conversation with America’s youth? I watched the event online, so let me be clear: serious questions were asked—questions that strove to get to the bottom of this terribly complex man. Instead of relying on the media, real students were given the opportunity to directly engage with a world leader who has been the focus of so much uproar. His answers, though ambiguous at many times, brought to light many issues that must be discussed. What caused this radical Islamic regime to come to power in the first place? What was the role of the United States? Why is Israel so hated? Why are we so hated?

Though I am greatly pleased that the President was able to speak, I remain disconcerted over the overwhelming opposition that I have seen in the nation’s leaders, in the citizenry, and in my peers. The “we don’t agree with you, so we won’t hear from you” mentality is what led to 9/11, and not much has changed. Our government interferes with the affairs of others, manipulates nations for our country’s economic interests, it bombs cities, stages coup d’états and assassinations, all to keep our oil prices down. We have made everlasting enemies who attack mercilessly and with brutal strength. Unfortunately, 9/11 didn’t wake us up like it should have. Shame on Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and all of our potential leaders who have denied the significance of learning from this experience—we need a leader willing to engage, not to ignore as we have for so long. To stop the bloodshed we must understand why people hate—and to do this, we must hear the voices of the haters. We don’t have to agree, but we must listen.

I encourage everyone to watch Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia--it is long but worth it.

America and the Crisis of Religion: #1 in the Series

Today I’ve decided to begin a series called “America and the Crisis of Religion” which will be an ongoing discussion of the threat many religious groups pose to the United States and the world. This first entry, however, is dedicated to providing a background on my own religious experiences. This will give a better view on my personal stances and will provide a solid foundation for future entries.

I was raised a Methodist, but my family was never very devout; when I was growing up, we were the ones who went to church twice a year…it was a chore to us. Eventually we just stopped going altogether. I’m not even sure if my parents believe in God, but I suppose it’s just what families are expected to do. Beyond our infrequent pilgrimages to the local megachurch, I never really thought too deeply about God, his purpose, the meaning of life, etc. In fact, until I was around 14, I didn’t even know that other religions even existed—much less even questioned the validity of my own. When I entered high school, however, my spiritual life changed drastically.

I became increasingly involved with an organization known as “Student Venture”—an Evangelical youth group devoted to sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ. Essentially, the organization seeks to introduce young people to the word of God, and send them out to convert the world. Their official mission is:

… to give every teenager the opportunity to hear the truth and love of Jesus Christ, to grow in their faith relationship with Him, and to reach others with the message of Christ. We call it Win – Build – Send.

Weekly Bible Study meetings became a regular part of my schedule; I went on the enticing Christian ski trip—aptly titled “Fast Break!”—and even to the Myrtle Beach conference in the summer. I considered myself a messenger for Christ, though I never felt comfortable propagating on the beach and in local communities (door-to-door), and I never relented in my faith in science and reason (i.e., I constantly debated in favor of the theory of Evolution). I made great friends and I felt really good about myself—I was high on the Holy Spirit!

But something happened during my senior year, and I don’t really know what it was. I think that in that last year, I really challenged myself intellectually—my faith, my political views, and my general outlook on life made a complete u-turn. I suppose it wasn’t one specific event, but it was the influence of my teachers and my closest friends. I went from being one of the most adamant supporters of the War in Iraq, to an outspoken critic of it. I went from Conservative to Liberal, and from Evangelical to Agnostic. I realized that faith is just another way of saying “belief in that which has absolutely no evidence.”

More later.

The Next Generation

So this is my Blog. I just deleted my first version; it was about 9/11 and it sounded sappy and repetitive. That’s not the impression I want to make. I guess I just want to start posting my views and leaving my mark in cyberspace. It’s my Freshman Year in college, it’s 9/11, and I think it’s a good time to try new things.

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about my role in the next generation. People call us “Generation Y”—the tech-savvy, independent, and self-important youths who are out to “challenge the status quo” and who thrive off of creative innovation. Our parents (Generation X) were similar to us, but USA Today says that we are “Generation X on steroids.” To us, social equality is a norm, not a privilege. In our world, the Internet has always existed, and if we need something we can pull it up with high speed. As we assume leadership roles, we will demand change with that same high speed. The Y’s are the ones who will determine what happens next. The storm is here, and our parents are almost done ruling. We are next in line. This is not a rebellious rant, but rather a declaration: We are charged with the fate of the world. This is serious.

My two greatest fears are fanaticism and apathy. I’m afraid of the fanatics because of their blind devotion to extreme views that are, more often than not, dangerous. I’m afraid of the apathetics because they don’t worry about the fanatics. My experiences with many of my peers, and fellow members of the Y Generation, have ranged from inspiring to despairing. Growing up, I was lucky to make friends with some of the most intellectually active people—these were people who challenged my thinking and made me who I am today. I’m also lucky to have had family members and teachers who forced serious reflection and questioning—tools that are now a part of my very being. However, I have encountered countless who refuse to question…refuse to think…refuse to learn…refuse to care. These are the Paris Hiltons. These are the Entertainment Channel addicts. These are the ones who have never watched the news or read the paper. These are the ones who don’t know the capital of Iraq. These are the self-indulgent mallrats. These are the ones who continue living without regard to the world. These are the overly-patriotic citizens who vote Republican or Democrat without any knowledge on the issues at hand. These are the blind, propaganda-devouring, ethnocentric masses. These are Americans.

Well, I like T.V. and I have an iPod—the difference is that I’m also writing a Blog. I have BBC.com open on my computer and a NY Times on my desk. My point is that you can care and act on your beliefs while still enjoying the perks of life. I do. The problem arises when people push out all of the stuff that matters just to fit in another show or another visit to the mall. Don’t sacrifice democracy just so you can fill your life entirely with meaningless extras. We can maintain a balance.