secondary source (possibly primary if I use the memo itself) Justice Dept. memo to the CIA

 

Priest, Dana, and R. Jeffrey Smith. “Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture: Justice Department Gave Advice in 2002.” The Washington Post 7 June 2004. 24 Mar. 2008 <http://www.texscience.org/reform/torture/>.

 

***Try to get the actual memo here to use as a primary source rather than a secondary source.

 

If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, “he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network,” said the memo, from the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on “necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability” later.

 

            This gets at the real reason why the Justice Department feels the United States can legally torture an Al Qaeda suspect.  It shows how the CIA was hesitant to torture until they had clearance from the government, which they certainly got.  It is considered a case of self-defense even though we are going into their territory and their homeland.  Is the lack of attacks since 9/11 a testament to the effectiveness of these approved torture tactics or is it an indication that further attacks were not planned or intended, therefore the US is in the wrong with its torture conduct. 

 

In the Justice Department’s view — contained in a 50-page document signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and obtained by The Washington Post — inflicting moderate or fleeting pain does not necessarily constitute torture. Torture, the memo says, “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

 

            Redefinition of torture, making it more severe so the US could get away with doing everything except cause organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or death and it would not be considered torture. 

 

“While we cannot say with certainty that acts falling short of these seven would not constitute torture,” the memo advised, “. . . we believe that interrogation techniques would have to be similar to these in their extreme nature and in the type of harm caused to violate law.”

 

            Tip-toeing here around the issue of weather or not the US is violating international law.  They are simply saying this could be the case, they are not saying they will commit this kind of torture.

 

http://www.texscience.org/reform/torture/

Secondary source – Michael Isikoff’s article about the double standard for laws of war

Isikoff, Michael. “Double Standards? a Justice Department Memo Proposes That the United States Hold Others Accountable for International Laws on Detainees – But That Washington Did Not Have to Follow Them Itself.” Newsweek 21 May 2004. 24 Mar. 2008 <http://www.texscience.org/reform/torture/>.

 

In a crucial memo written four months after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, Justice Department lawyers advised that President George W. Bush and the U.S. military did not have to comply with any international laws in the handling of detainees in the war on terrorism. It was that conclusion, say some critics, that laid the groundwork for aggressive interrogation techniques that led to the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

 

The draft memo, which drew sharp protest from the State Department, argued that the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war did not apply to any Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters being flown to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, because Afghanistan was a “failed state” whose militia did not have any status under international treaties.

But the Jan. 9, 2002 memo, written by Justice lawyers John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty, went far beyond that conclusion, explicitly arguing that no international laws – including the normally observed laws of war – applied to the United States at all because they did not have any status under federal law.

 

            This gets into the specifics of maybe how “clearance” to implement aggressive interrogation techniques could have led to the abuse that took place at Abu Ghraib.  This gives an explicit fact that the United States found itself exempt from the Geneva Conventions when dealing with the Taliban and Al Qaeda because Afghanistan was a failed state, therefore it did not qualify to be dealt with under international treaties. 

    It mentions the memo drew protest from the State Department, I am wondering what the State Department did about it and why they objected to the interpretation of international law.  Was it because they knew the US would not be able to get away with it unscathed? 

            I will use these sources to exemplify the fact that the Bush Administration did all it could to find loopholes in the Geneva Conventions.  I will use excerpts from the actual Geneva documents and then have this source communicate with it (or another primary source like the memo itself) to address the issue of the United States deciding the international law does not apply to them in this case. 

 

 

After concluding that the laws of war did not apply to the conduct of the U.S. military, the memo argued that President Bush could still put Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters on trial as war criminals for violating those same laws. While acknowledging that this may seem “at first glance, counter-intuitive,” the memo states this is a product of the president’s constitutional authority “to prosecute the war effectively.”

  I will use this as a way to make a claim about the illegitimacy of what the United States is doing by rejecting the international laws of war when it applies to its own conduct but it insists Al Qaeda and the Taliban have to abide by those laws.  This article points this out as a double standard, which is true and it is something I intend to address in my paper.

“Outsourcing Torture”

This image was posted online with Jane Mayar’s article, “Outsourcing Torture,” which was published in The New Yorker in 2005.  By using a very recognizable photo of the torture at Abu Ghraib and superimposing it as the Statue of Liberty, this is making the argument that this (torture of Iraqi prisoners) is what the US has turned to now and the military sees it as a protection of freedom.  The Statue of Liberty has been, throughout history, a huge symbol around the globe for the United States of America.  Now, with everything the war has made us become, the peaceful woman raising the torch no longer represents America.  The artist is claiming the tortured Iraqi better represents the US.  I think this will be a strong image to use in my paper as I will use it to support my claim that the torture in Iraq is undermining our image as a democratic nation.

“Torture Etiquette”

 

This image was provided on a user’s blog along with a link to a an article about how US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended torture saying it is not necessarily illegal according to the constitution.  Though this 2006 cartoon by Mike Luckovich was not drawn as a reaction to that specific incident, it does mocks the US’s attempts to justify torture as long as it is within the guidelines laid out in some sort of book (the Constitution, the Third Geneva Convention, or the CIA’s guidelines for torture etiquette.  This anti-torture cartoon hopefully makes the viewer think about how the torture performed by the US and Al-Qaeda is the same (the two men are dressed the same as if about to conduct the same torture acts), but the US has to consult the rulebook first.  Consulting the rules does nothing because they are both intending to go through with torture anyway.  I think it is trying to say that it is irrelevant whether or not the US follows and rules of etiquette, torture is still torture and is barbaric.  This with fit in with my paper because I will use documents such as the Geneva Conventions that do have elements addresses in the cartoon (page 17, paragraph 9, line 4).

Response to “The Psychology of Rhetorical Images” by Charles Hill

What I found most fascinating about Hill’s essay was the part about vividness and the debate over whether or not it enhances persuasiveness.  The most fascinating part was when Hill states that “Vividness itself, like any single persuasive trait, will not make a bad argument convincing, but it will, if properly employed, enhance the persuasiveness of a reasonably strong position” (32).  This concept may seem very obvious and simple, but I think it is pretty fascinating how an image can be extremely vivid, but unless the position behind it is strong, the image lacks the ability to persuade.

 

What Hill most clarified for me about how rhetorical images affect a viewer is his explanation of the concept of presence on page 29.  Hill explains how, like with vividness, a rhetor cannot create presence where there is none, but he can “endow the elements in the situation that are favorable to the rhetor’s case with as much presence as possible” (29).  It makes sense when he talks about giving an image enough presence that when it is processed in the viewer’s mind it crowds out any other considerations.  Hill makes it very clear that an image carries presence because it can be directly perceived, therefore linking presence and visual perception of rhetorical images.

 

What I never realized before reading this essay is how statistics are considered the least vivid form of information.  It does kind of make sense but I always thought people and non-profit organizations who try to make an appeal to others’ emotions will use not only images of a starving child, for example, but they will also share statistics like “In the world, a child dies every 5 minutes from malnutrition” (I made up that statistic).  I guess it depends on how the statistics are used that makes them more or less vivid but I would have thought statistics would be more vivid than an abstract, impersonal analysis because statistics tend to hit the viewer harder.  Again I realize Hill talks about the fact that images hit harder means they also do not have as much of an ability to change peoples’ minds.  This shows how it all just really depends on the point being made and the way in which the vivid or non-vivid information is being used.

 

What I don’t quite understand still is Hill’s punch line when it comes to emotions and how/why they are evoked by rhetorical images.  Does he agree with the “conventional wisdom” he alludes to on page 26, which states that representational images mainly prompt emotional reactions that override rational faculties?  He argues that emotional response, along with vividness and persuasion all work together to make rhetorical images so powerful, but he seems to use so many different viewpoints on how much emotional response is a factor that I got confused and am not clear on what his viewpoint is.

Formulating my Research Hypothesis

 

1. Please describe the inquiry question you began this research project with and the inquiry question that is now guiding your research and your thinking.  Why has your inquiry questions changed or not changed?

 

I began this research process with the research question: Why/How is it that the US military uses the protection of democracy as justification for the torture of Iraqi prisoners of war?  That may not be the exact question but it is very similar in that the topic of inquiry is the torture of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of Americans in Iraq.  I wanted to investigate the fact that those doing the torturing are justifying their behavior by saying they are stamping out terrorism and making the world a more democratic, and consequently a safer, place.  I wanted to have an original insight or argument having to do with why that is and hopefully exposing something to make a point that this is wrong, but I am having a tough time with that because the idea that the torture is wrong is such a broad topic and not a very original idea.  Through some of the research I have conducted I found really interesting information about the Geneva Conventions and how they apply to the War in Iraq.  The Geneva Conventions basically lay out the international rules of conduct in times of war and it is essential the rules be followed to preserve human dignity and humanity in general.  I want to investigate the loopholes in the Geneva Conventions documents that perhaps allowed for the conduct of soldiers at Abu Ghraib to get out of control and violent.  I think my topic of inquiry has changed because my stance before was really vague and rather obvious so it was too hard to come up with an original idea.  I think if I examine this international agreement (the Geneva Conventions) and how it correlates with what has been happening in the war on terror I will be able to generate some original ideas.  The two inquiries are connected because the US justifying its stance as an enemy of terrorism is a main reason why it violated the Geneva Conventions.

 

2. What you now know about your topic that you did not know before?  How has this new knowledge shaped your understanding of your topic of inquiry?  What research has provided you with this new knowledge?

 

I know more about the topic of the treatment of prisoners of war in a broader sense now.  After reading the Geneva Conventions, I have a better sense, more of a historical context, of the standards soldiers are expected to uphold when dealing with prisoners of war.  I can put the War in Iraq into better perspective now and in doing so, I have started to generate ideas about why the US is justifying the fact that it heinously violated the rules laid out in the Third Geneva Convention.  I think I can really generate some interesting insights if I use the Geneva Conventions as a lens through which I will pick apart such topics as prison torture, the War in Iraq, and international relations.

 

3. What do I want to know more about?  Be specific here.  Why is this information that you want to find out important?  What kind of research do you plan to conduct to locate this new information?  What sources will you consult?

 

I want to know more about the context of the Geneva Conventions.  More specifically I want to find out how seriously the countries of the world take these documents when they are engaging in a war.  I want to know more about how serious the punishments have been in the past for violating the rules in the Geneva Conventions.  I need to know this information because if these documents are just a formality and no one really follows them or cares enough to follow them, then I do not want to base a lot of my research on it as an international code of ethics.  My research will be more relevant and more powerful if the Geneva Conventions are something that is taken very seriously and abided by as much as possible by nations involved in wars.  I will try to find reactions to the Conventions by political figures, journalists, authors, and anyone else I can find out from.  I will search online databases more for scholarly articles.

 

4. What specific gaps are you noticing in your research, which could potentially create space for an original idea to emerge?   For instance, are there incongruities in what secondary sources are saying about your topic?  Are there connections missing in other sources analyses of your topic?  Is there a disconnect between what you believe to be true or what your primary research subjects believe to be true and what the media or other sources are saying about your topic?  Is there a gap in certainty about the answers to your question of inquiry that you could fill in with a plausible explanation?  Etc.

 

As stated above, a possible gap in my research could be that the Geneva Conventions are not really followed by the nations who recognize it.  They could just be a formality and could not really matter if they are violated and this would mean my research is pretty unnecessary.  Another gap in my research is that I am basing my argument at the moment on the assumption that the soldiers and commanders at Abu Ghraib were aware of the Geneva Conventions when they decided to torture the prisoners, meaning they knew what they were getting themselves into.  I did read one article that said many of those accused of torturing Iraqi prisoners were reservists who were not ever made aware of the Geneva Conventions.  If they did not know about the Conventions it is hard to sound valid when making connections between the documents and the soldiers’ actions.

 

5. What original ideas are brewing in your head at this point?  If you had to make an argument about your topic of inquiry today, what would it be????  What are your justifications for this working hypothesis?  Please, explain……

 

I really liked the idea of using an official international document as a moral compass for what is right and what is wrong in wartime.  So far, the best document I have is the Third Geneva Convention.  When I selected quotations and paragraphs from the document I found what I think are some loopholes in the document or maybe ambiguity that could allow the US to justify not following it in certain circumstances.  I would argue that A, B, and C are loopholes (or rules that can be justifiably broken in certain cases…so the US military thinks) in the Geneva Conventions that are why Iraqi prisoners have been tortured in the recent past.  I would also examine the justifications the US makes and argue that they are absurd.  I have a basis of knowledge through research but more is definitely required to formulate a completely original thesis. 

 

Annotated secondary source – a 2003 linking GCIII to the war on terror (before we knew about Abu Ghraib)

“The Geneva Conventions and Prisoners of War.” Global Policy Forum (2003). 10 Mar. 2008 <http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2003/0324tv.htm>.

 

Rhetorical Situation: This article was published on March 24, 2003 in a global policy forum online.  There is no author listed on the website, so I looked into the general Global Policy Forum as the author.  On the website for the about GPF page it states: “Global Policy Forum monitors policy making at the United Nations, promotes accountability of global decisions, educates and mobilizes for global citizen participation, and advocates on vital issues of international peace and justice.”  Keeping this in mind as the purpose of the website, it can be seen that the purpose of this article is to evaluate the use of media in the treatment of prisoners of war in the conflict in the Middle East.  In the context of when it was written, the implications were not as grand as they are now that Abu Ghraib has happened.  Now it is huge that this was happening in 2003.  It shows how the incident at Abu Ghraib could possibly have been a huge part of demolishing the US’s credibility in the war on terror, though it may not be apparent yet.

 

Looking dazed and fearful, five U.S. soldiers captured by Iraqi forces were shown on videotape broadcast by al-Jazeera on March 23. President Bush warned that if POW’s were not treated humanely, “the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals.” For its part, Iraq said it would respect the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the prisoners.

  This is so unbelievable to read because this article was written for a Global Policy forum in March 2003, before the Abu Ghraib scandal broke out.  This tackles the issue of the treatment of prisoners of war from the complete opposite angle.  This time the US soldiers are the prisoners and the Iraqis are those in power.  It is crazy to read about Bush using the Geneva Convention as a defense and the Iraqis agreeing to abide by it.  This is the complete opposite situation of the one I have been researching.  I am used to hearing about US soldiers violating the Geneva Convention by torturing and abusing Iraqi prisoners, NOT Iraqi forces abiding by the Geneva Convention when they have US soldiers held captive.

 

Iraqi POW’s are not the only ones who have been filmed or photographed in captivity. U.S. networks have also shown footage of Iraqi soldiers surrendering or being detained during military operations, and several still photographs of POW’s have appeared in U.S. and other news media.

  Here, it is even mentioned that there have been images released of Iraqis under US control, just like how Iraqis often released video footage of frightened American POWs.  It does not mention anything about Abu Ghraib though because that has not happened yet, or at least there is no public knowledge of it yet.

 

According to A.P.V. Rogers, a former Major General in the British army and an expert in the laws of war, the key to deciding whether treatment of POW’s infringes the Convention is to look at the intention of the action. Action that was intended to be “humiliating and degrading,” he said, would qualify as a breach of the Convention. But television footage that was “merely factual” would not necessarily be a violation.

  This makes it clear that the essay is an investigation into whether or not the Iraqis release of video footage of prisoners is violating the Geneva Convention.  This man concludes it is not intending to humiliate or degrade the soldiers, it is merely displaying the fact that these men are under Iraqi control.  Back in March 2003 there was speculation as to whether or not the videos violate the Geneva Convention and there was not even torture being depicted in them.  Two years later the tables have completely turned and the US is under scrutiny because there were videos and pictures explicitly showing intent to humiliate and degrade Iraqis.  This gray line that is being investigated in this essay is what is crossed with the Abu Ghraib images.

 

A spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross, Florian Westphal, told the Crimes of War Project that the ICRC would consider the use of any image “that makes a prisoner of war individually recognisable” to be a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

  So the US violated Article 13 by having those photographs and videos alone, regardless of whether or not the POWs in the images were being tortured?  May examine this claim more.  Is it valid?  Did anyone take this into consideration or was it ignored because of the nature what was in the images? (anyone being the US government, the army, anyone whose opinion about the scandal or decision about punishment matters)

 

Although the United States says that the Geneva Conventions are not technically applicable to detainees from the war in Afghanistan or the wider campaign against terrorism, the U.S. government has pledged to abide by the main humanitarian provisions of the Convention.

  This is huge!!! After being caught with images of shackle prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, this was the response from the US.  Too bad they did it again in Iraq!  Why are they not technically applicable to detainees from the war in Afghanistan and the war on terror?? Why are they making excuses for this war?  What makes the United States the authority on whether or not the Geneva Convention applies? It always applies because there are always human lives at stake!

 

Technically, not all violations of the Geneva Conventions are “war crimes” – that determination is reserved for serious breaches of the treaty. General Rogers said that in his opinion, subjecting prisoners of war to humiliating or degrading treatment was a serious violation, and hence a war crime.

It has been reported that footage of dead U.S. soldiers, also aired by al-Jazeera, appears to indicate that some may have been shot in the forehead at close range. If the soldiers were executed in captivity, that would be a grave breach of the Geneva Convention, and a war crime.

  This shows how the US is no different from al-Jazeera because it has chosen to make excuses for violating the Geneva Convention.  The US has humiliated, degraded, and killed Iraqi POWs, therefore it has committed a war crime and has become no better than leading Iraqi officials.

Annotated primary source – The Third Geneva Convention

Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, 12 Aug. 1949. 10 Mar. 2008 <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm>.

Rhetorical Situation: This document is a treaty agreement that was drafted and agreed upon by many of the civilization nations in the world.  There are three main documents of which this is the third, written in August, 1949.  It basically lays out international rules of conduct in a time of war.  The purpose of the document is ideally to maintain the rights of human beings involved in the war and to keep those not voluntarily directly involved in combat, out of harm’s way.  This document probably came about after the world witnesses the atrocities that occurred during World War II and everyone agreed this kind of combat could not continue or the world would be an unbelievably dangerous place to live.  The audience here is ideally every single human being who would ever participate in combat for any nation, whether it is “civilized” or not.  The purpose is for the audience to know the rules inside and out, but more importantly to adhere to them and in turn, preserve humanity across the world in a time of war.

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention…Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation.

        In this article of the Geneva Conventions, humanitarian law states clearly that prisoners of war MUST be treated humanely.  This is not the case in Iraq, so why???  I think the soldiers who are abusing the prisoners are not doing so to intentionally violate international laws and regulations protecting human dignity in war just because they are evil.  I think they are doing so because they see a loophole in this case (see below), or they do not view these prisoners at human beings because it has been engrained in their minds that this is not the case.  It seems so easy to say that all prisoners of war should be humanely treated in all cases, but clearly the US views the circumstances of this war as an exception to the rules laid out in the Geneva Conventions.  Why is this?  Is it because we feel we are owed something because of the suffering we endured on 9/11?  We see it as payback for what happened to us on 9/11.  It is okay to abuse these 900 men who we do not view as humans because thousands of innocent Americans dies as a result of their alleged friends’ actions.  **In another article one of the accused soldiers who was really just a reservist, claims he did not even know about the Geneva Conventions and was not well-versed enough in it to know that what he was doing was violating those rules.

 

Article 17

 

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.

       This is interesting because it shows how the context of the Geneva Convention is a bit outdated in this case.  The Iraqi soldiers do not all have a rank, an army, a regimental, and a personal or serial number.  In the last part when it says, “failing this, equivalent information,” it does take into account the possibility of not having all of the above information, but that is only if the prisoner “fails” to have that information (a negative connotation).  This is troubling because it could lead to the US soldiers being confused about what information they need from the prisoners.  Without full access to the above information, the soldiers may not view the Iraqis as their equals, as legitimate soldiers, as humans.  With no rank, personal serial number, or army and regiment to their name, the Iraqis may seem like a lesser being to the US soldiers who work long and hard for their titles etc.  (Although not all abusers were soldiers, some were reservists and some were civilians…look more into this). 

 

 

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner’s surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

  It is probable that if some Iraqi prisoners do not have official rankings and regiments, they will not have these identification cards either, so it is possible this was seen as a loophole for the soldiers who abused them.  They could have thought that since the prisoners had no ID card, they (the prisoners) were technically violating the Geneva Conventions and therefore, could use any means necessary to get such information along with more valuable information about other suspected terrorists if they just push them hard enough.

 

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

  Reinstates how the incidents at Abu Ghraib undoubtedly violate Part II, Section I, Article 17 of the Geneva Conventions.

 

 

 

Article 21

The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

  Possibly a part of the Convention they did follow.  They are allowed to intern prisoners but it is a close call because they may NOT be held unless it is necessary to keep them safe.  The army could argue they were keeping them safe because there was combat in Iraq, but they did NOT keep them safe and healthy while inside the prison.  They striped them naked and forced them to humiliate themselves.

 

SECTION VI

RELATIONS BETWEEN PRISONERS OF WAR AND THE AUTHORITIES

Chapter I

COMPLAINTS OF PRISONERS OF WAR RESPECTING THE CONDITIONS OF CAPTIVITY

Article 78

Prisoners of war shall have the right to make known to the military authorities in whose power they are, their requests regarding the conditions of captivity to which they are subjected.

They shall also have the unrestricted right to apply to the representatives of the Protecting Powers either through their prisoners’ representative or, if they consider it necessary, direct, in order to draw their attention to any points on which they may have complaints to make regarding their conditions of captivity.

Prisoners’ representatives may send periodic reports on the situation in the camps and the needs of the prisoners of war to the representatives of the Protecting Powers.

            There were no sufficient periodic reports on the situation in the prison and the needs of the prisoners, so this shows how there was a breakdown on the authorities’ parts as well as the individual soldiers.  This shows it was not just a few soldiers acting out and violating rules they did not know about.  The authorities did not follow all the regulations either in this case.

Starters for my primary research – surveys/questionnaires

a.  What do I want to discover?

I want to discover the American public’s views of torture, especially in the context of war.  I want to see if peoples’ perceptions of torture change depending on the situation and why.  I also want to find out how much people know about what happened at Abu Ghraib and see what peoples’ associations are when they hear the name Abu Ghraib.  I also want to see how someone’s opinion of the War in Iraq shapes his or her views about the US’s use of torture in Iraq, if there is even a correlation at all.

 

b.  How do I plan on discovering it? (This is called your research methods    or methodology)

I plan on trying to use a survey that is in the form of a questionnaire.  I am going to be asking open-ended questions that will take some time and some thought in order to answer them.   The survey includes seven questions as of now.  Some are more intense than others but they all are asking about a very sensitive topic, war torture.  I want to make the survey anonymous so people will feel more comfortable sharing their honest thoughts and opinions, but I don’t know the best way to go about doing that.  I might need to implement it in person by giving the questionnaire to individuals.  I think the best way to do it would be to pass out a handful to a class and have them fill them out without their names on them and hand them back in, but I don’t know when I would have the opportunity to pass them out to a whole class.  I want people to be able to ask my questions, but if I have them email them to me or mail them then they will not be anonymous.  I could give them a postmarked envelope with my address on them already but I am nervous that I wouldn’t get the surveys back if I did that.  Any suggestions here???

     

c.  Who am I going to talk to/observe/survey? (These people are called your subjects or participants)

I am going to survey college students, my peers.  I might expand my participants to adults and teachers or maybe include them in a separate group.  I may do the mailing one with those because adults are probably more likely to actually fill it out and mail it back.  For now I am going to survey college students, and I am trying to keep it to a homogenous demographic because I want to ask them as little information as possible about themselves to try to keep the survey totally anonymous.

     

d.  How am I going to be able gain access to these groups or individuals?

This is the part I mentioned earlier that I haven’t figured out yet and I am a bit concerned about.  I want to implement the survey face-to-face, but I want to keep it anonymous so the participants will not hesitate to write their true feelings, knowing I wont know, and no one else will know it was he or she who wrote it.  I want to gain access by going into a classroom and passing out the survey but I have to figure out what class I can do it in.  I want to do it in a class besides our writing class because I want to ask people who don’t already have an idea of what my paper and this paper in general is about. 

     

e.  What are my biases about this topic?

The specific questions I am asking are mostly to get a feel of how military torture is perceived by American college students, but also their opinion about it and the implications of it.  My bias is that I think the government and the military are not going a good job of really telling the American public about what is happening is Iraqi prisons right now and they are creating a bias themselves that it is the right thing to do because it is saving American lives in the long run.  Through my recent research I am starting to see right through this and I might end up trying to get others to see through it too without realizing it.

     

f.  How can I make sure my biases are not reflected in my research methods?

I will try to formulate my questions tactfully so my bias does not come through when I am asking the participants about what they think.  I am going to ask them on paper and have them write their responses rather than have a face-to-face interview and risk me saying something to the participant that will show my bias, or have something as little as my tone even have an effect.

 

     

g.  What do I expect to discover?

I expect to discover that most, but not all of the students I survey will have heard of Abu Ghraib.  I do not think anyone, maybe a few, will know someone who is in the Armed Forces who is currently fighting in Iraq, but there could possibly be a few.  I believe this because many college students would know other college students and not many of their friends from high school would have joined the Army and be fighting in Iraq, it is possible though of course.  I do not know what I will discover as far as peoples’ opinions about war torture.  I do expect that people will say there is a huge difference between a psycho torturing a woman and a soldier torturing a prisoner because they will say the situation is completely different.  It will be interesting to see if my results reflect my expectations at all.