Naomi Klein’s shock doctrine is a chilling newsflash that
unveils many of the covert secrets kept from us by those who feel they know
better. From the questioning of Milton Friedman’s ideals, to the discussion of
disasters as market opportunities, to the revealing of Ewen Cameron’s insanity
disguised as academic curiosity, I found her writing to be meaningful and
provocative. I couldn’t help but think of Burroughs’ predictions of humans
enacting the four horsemen of the apocalypse while reading about Cameron’s
torturous experiments onto completely innocent college students. I was
absolutely appalled to find out the CIA was funding these cruel and senseless
tests that had very serious—and long lasting—effects on the test subjects. I
have heard of the CIA taking part in some pretty questionable things, but this
was by far the most unsettling to read about.
The latter section of the reading provides an excellent
foundation upon which to ask the question: “where is the line crossed?” To
some, torture is an integral way of obtaining information from those who don’t
want to give it, but to these people I would simply ask again, “where is the
line crossed?” How can one rationalize electrocution as a “humane” way of
getting information? To me, there is no humanity involved in shocking someone with
electricity until they spew out whatever information can come to their mind
quickly enough to stop the pain and suffering. I think torture is a medieval
way of getting things done that sets us back to the days of Hammurabi’s Code
that focus more on revenge and the idea of “getting even” than it does the
promotion of justice and security. This reading really made me think about a
lot of things, but if anything, it made me realize how much I disagree with the
torturing of other human beings.
I think one of the most important points in this article, especially in relation to your opinions on torture, is this:
ReplyDelete"Rather, the significant shift was that what had previously been performed by proxy, with enough distance to deny knowledge, would now be performed directly and openly defended."
Prior to 9/11, torture had been something that the U.S. had been for the most part indirectly involved with. After the fear-mongering used by the Bush administration during 9/11, torture has become a widely debated moral issue. It seems to me, however, that is should be a no-brainer: Violence towards another human being does not solve anything. It is always better to try and reconcile differences than to use horrific techniques to gain information that can be used against adversaries.
As a pacifist, I wholly agree with you. I cannot stress strongly enough how much I disagree with the use of torture tactics in any situation.
I, along with both of you, was absolutely appalled when reading about the torture that an innocent woman was put through and what the CIA practices on a regular basis. In both situations, one with an innocent person and a war criminal, the ends do not justify the means. I think this is important to remember when examining cases of torture, and cases of disaster capitalism can fit this mold as well. Humans should never exploit other humans
ReplyDeleteOne thing that stood out to me in your blog was the notion of our rights as humans. To what extent are we willing to go to violate somebody else? Who is or is not allowed this privilege and why? I do believe that no matter what the situation, torture on an innocent person is never justified. It is a difficult, fine line between protection and violation. Sometimes, the people in power who we trust have difficulty straddling this line, and that reality is one that frightens me.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else who has commented on this noted, I was super disturbed by the account of the torture and what the CIA considers regular practice in the 21st century. I also agree with Amanda about that the end never justifies the means. The issue of human rights must always be a priority no matter who is being dealt with. Very good analysis.
ReplyDelete