Torture

A few random thoughts....

1. With the new info out, it seems clear that people were tortured. People died in our custody, as a result of interrogation techniques. If death isn't torture, what is?

2. As per 1, its obvious now that no dignified lawyer could have actually believed these techniques were legal.

3. Which means that the only defense left for the defenders (like Cheney and Rep. King) is that laws can be overridden given enough reason. But that is an extremely dangerous precedent to set. We might as well have one and only one law on the books: "Do whatever is best, in each case."

4. Which makes me think...it is rare when news items effect my philosophical views (though conversations with friends tends to), but these events have definitely made me think that pure act consequentialism is false, at the very least at the political level, but probably at the individual level as well.

5. Now before someone responds to these thoughts along these lines: "Preston, you bleeding heart. These are terrorists. The worst people in the world. They would kill your family in front of you in a heartbeat. They deserve to be tortured. I could give a shit about their 'feelings.' Cut their balls off if that's what it takes." Let me remind you that none of these people have been tried as criminals. Now sure, a few of them are definitely guilty. Most of them are probably guilty. But a lot (don't misread this as most) of the people at Guantanamo are most likely innocent, victims of being in the wrong place t the wrong time. Torturing suspected criminals? That's an even worse precedent.

6. With all of this in mind, I think I'm justified in saying I am ashamed of many of the leaders of this country.

7. Oh, and by the way--if you appreciate this new transparency and you think the public deserves to know this kind of stuff, don't thank the big media. Thank the ACLU. They're the ones who sued to get this info out.

The 9/11 Conspiracy Entry

You know, I have really never spoken with anyone about the so-called '9/11 Truth Movement' as such. The only conversation I have ever had about it was with my Dad, not about the beliefs and arguments themselves, but as to the limits of academic freedom. (There was a professor at the University of Wisconsin who many thought should have been fired for featuring a few essays that debated the issue--last I knew, he wasn't. I guess Bill O'Reilly's campaign failed.)
My Dad thought he should have been fired for expressing such insane beliefs, in the classroom or out of it. To him, the 9/11 Conspiracy is not something he is cognitively able to believe (see William James, 'The Will to Believe'). I was on the other side, that although I remained skeptical about the validity of the 9/11 Conspiracy, that academics must be allowed to express unpopular beliefs without fear of losing their jobs. Academics are sort of a high-brow version of the Fourth Estate, or at least I always thought so.
So anyway, back to my original point. I have never really spoken with anyone about the 9/11 Conspiracy movement, so I'm not really sure how much on the 'fringe' it is. I know there are quite a few 9/11 myth books, and I've seen at least one nutjob on Fox News (not to say all people who believe in the movement are nutjobs, but this guy, yeah, he was.)
So, really, this entry may be preaching to the choir. Do people remain vehemently against the movement on principle? Or do people not care and be agnostic about it?
Well, either way, I was always agnostic about the whole thing. I guess I just figured that regardless of what the Bush Administration may have known before the attack, they used it as a reason to go after Iraq.
But finally, the curiosity got to me--it felt close-minded of me to not hear their arguments out just because they are on the fringe. So, I started by looking around the internet to see what the '9/11 Truthers' thought was the best documentary made so far. The answer seemed to be a documentary called Loose Change. I was lucky enough to find a version of Loose Change which included counter-arguments along with the movie itself. That way, I could decide for myself who was more convincing.
Well, the movie is almost 3 hours long, so unless you're pretty curious, I wouldn't waste your time. The 9/11 Truth Movement is bull shit. My dad was right about that. (I still think professors should be able to hold the view, however.) Yeah, I really overestimated their reasoning abilities. The extent of which they mislead is the only thing I underestimated. I mean there is malicious use of quotes! Let me give an example. Let's say someone was quoted as saying "It looked like a missile, but it wasn't, because it had wings and said American Airlines." Loose Change would only take the "It looked like a missile" part of the quote.
Not to mention how clearly ad-hoc their arguments are. They cite only sources which illustrate the point they are trying to make, and anyone who disagrees with them they consider part of the conspiracy. Its pretty ridiculous.
But, I'm glad. I am glad they are totally wrong. That would have really made me much more paranoid than health would advise.

On the other hand, I still am cynical. Check out This video. WOW.