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.

Some primary and secondary sources for my paper

PRIMARY SOURCE

 

Jones, Lgt Anthony R., Mg George R. Fay, and Gen Paul J. Kern. Investigation of Intelligence Activities At Abu Ghraib. United States Department of Defense. 2004. 2 Mar. 2008 <http://www. .af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/abu_ghraib_fay.pdf>

 

Rhetorical Situation: This source is a report of the United State’s Army’s investigations into the intelligence activities at Abu Ghraib.  The purpose of this report was to examine what happened in Iraq as well as why it happened.  This report was released in 2004 after photographs of the abuse were shown to the entire world.  Three men who are members of the Armed Forces, were hired to research and put this report together.  Since the US Army facilitated this investigation, it is trying to figure out why the abuse occurred at Abu Ghraib, but try to make the Army not look bad in the process.  The audience is the American public, and even the world, as well as governing bodies and those judging the case of the soldiers charged with the alleged abuse.  This report is investigating the US Army, but it is being conducted by the Army so it is trying to portray the Army in a positive light.  As a result, it may also be leaving vital information out.

 

Conclusion from the report:  last page of the executive summary intro

Leaders and Soldiers throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom were confronted with a

complex and dangerous operational environment. Although a clear breakdown in

discipline and leadership, the events at Abu Ghraib should not blind us from the noble conduct of the vast majority of our Soldiers. We are a values based profession in which the clear majority of our Soldiers and leaders take great pride.

            A clear vote of confidence should be extended by the senior leadership to the leaders and Soldiers who continue to perform extraordinarily in supporting our Nation’s wartime mission. Many of our Soldiers have paid the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the freedoms and liberties that America and our Army represent throughout the world.

           

   Notes: This shows how the report is trying to shine a positive light on the US Army as a whole and is making sure to clarify that the actions of the soldiers of the 205^th MI Brigade do NOT reflect the values and beliefs of the Army as whole.  It is as if the authors of the report are trying to isolate the problem by blaming it on a “clear breakdown in discipline and leadership” (exec. Summary), and in doing so they are trying to assure the reader that it only happened at Abu Ghraib because people did it on their own accord and it was not due to flaws in the Army’s intelligence tactics.  This raises the issue that this whole report is supposed to be investigating the facts of what happened but it shine a light on the fact that there is a clear opinion at the root of this report.  Though it seems as though it would be objective, this report is making rhetorical appeals to the reader urging them to not think badly of the Army even though there was abuse going on at the hands of US soldiers.

Discipline and Leadership section of the executive summary:

Neither Department of Defense nor Army doctrine caused any abuses. Abuses

would not have occurred had doctrine been followed and mission training conducted. Nonetheless, certain facets of interrogation and detention operations doctrine need to be updated, refined or expanded.

 

   Notes: The authors are making sure, in the executive summary, to clarify that the abuse was NOT a result of soldiers following orders in conjunction with the DoD’s approved methods of interrogation for the Army.  They do not want any confusion that the government approved of this kind of torture.  This claim could be true but it is interesting how, now that the evidence is out there that this torture took place, the Department of Defense almost seems to be condoning the fact that it happened by not fully broadcasting the horror of what went on and actively trying to prevent it and punishing the system (the Army) rather than just the individual soldiers.  This quotation shows how the Department of Defense is not taking any responsibility for what happened, instead it is saying this never would have happened had the doctrine been followed.  Well, it wasn’t followed so what are we going to do now?

 

 

SECONDARY SOURCE

 

Stern, Seth. “Torture Debate: is the U.S. War on Terror Legitimizing Torture?” CQ Weekly Report 1 (2007). CQ Global Researcher. Syracuse University, Syracuse. 2 Mar. 2008. Keyword: torture.

 

Seth Stern, the author of this article, is a well-educated legal-affairs reporter for the CQ Weekly Report and he is writing for a scholarly audience on the issue of the use of terror in the War on Terror.  He wrote this article fairly recently in September 2007, almost 4 years after the photos of Abu Ghraib were released and the War on Terror is in its fifth year.  The purpose of this article is to attempt to answer the question: “Is the US war on terror legitimizing torture?”

 

First two paragraphs of the Overview section of the article:

It is called, simply, waterboarding. A prisoner is strapped to a board with his feet above his head, his mouth and nose covered, usually with cloth or cellophane. Water is then poured over his face, inducing gagging and a terrifying sense of drowning.

The U.S. government — which has been accused of using waterboarding on detainees it suspects are terrorists — denies that it practices torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) says it must use what it calls “enhanced interrogation techniques” — to obtain critical information from “enemy combatants” in the war on terrorism.  But human rights advocates say waterboarding and other abusive interrogation tactics are prohibited by international law.

 

Notes: Stern really draws the reader in by describing in detail, the torture tactic known as waterboarding and then in the next paragraph explaining how the US government denies ever using waterboarding when it has been accused of doing so.  Stern is presenting the conflicting notions that the US government is fighting to combat worldwide terror, which is a good thing, but may be justifying the use of torture, which is a bad thing, in order to do so.  Quoting the CIA in its attempts to justify “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which is really a euphemism for inhumane torture, makes the CIA seem ridiculous in its claims that what it is doing is okay. 

 

 

By adopting such measures, the United States has lost its moral authority to condemn torture and human rights abuses in other countries, say critics. “It’s a very bad precedent for people to be able to say ‘the U.S. — the biggest democracy promoter in the world — has to use it, why can’t we?’ ” says physician Bhogendra Sharma, president of the Center for Victims of Torture in Nepal, which treats victims tortured by both the Nepalese government and Maoist guerrillas.

 

Notes: This is a very powerful claim and a very compelling question to support it.  Stern is pointing out a long-term effect of the abuse scandal, which is a very important point to make.  This is the basis for my argument that I want to make in my paper.  I of course have to come up with an original slant on the argument but I want to tackle the concept of how the use of inhumane torture in the name of freedom is in itself, undermining that freedom and only making it acceptable for that kind of torture to take place in other countries around the world.  It seems as though the US’s purpose inn Iraq is to act at the moral police of the world and combat terror, but by using torture is the US lowering the world’s moral standards.

 

Response to Kantz’s article

            According to Kantz, a strong reader and writer is one who can read sources rhetorically and use them to create an original argument.  The strong writer should have the ability to view sources as materials to be referred to but not resembled in their own work.  A strong writer would be able to pick and choose material from outside sources to be used as proof for her original argument.  A strong reader would be able to read a source that seems to be completely factual, but still be able to interpret it as an argument and identify its rhetorical context and inquire as to why that particular context is important for the source’s purpose.  Kantz interprets rhetorical reading as the ability for a student to read a text as a message sent by the author to someone in particular for a specific reason, not just as reporting facts.  The bottom line of Kantz’s article is that students should learn how to use various sources to construct an original argument. 

            Kantz believes a strong research argument is one that is original and references outside materials to merely serve as proof for the new argument.  The argument should not resemble and that are made in the sources for fear that the student’s argument will turn into a recreation of what he read and not contain original thoughts and opinions.  A strong argument does not come from a narrative perspective; it uses information gathered through in-depth research to support the opinion it is introducing.  A strong argument would not only incorporate sources, it would also evaluate them according to their respective rhetorical contexts and use an interpretation of those contexts to make an argument about what the sources are trying to say and why.  Through this analysis of the sources, the writer would be strengthening his own argument.  It is important that the sources be referenced and evaluated rather than recreated or summarized in the argument the student is making.  Since texts are written from different perspectives and can report differences, even on something that may seem strictly factual like Kantz’ example of the size of the English army, the writer can have the text interact with one another.  In many cases, if there are conflicting opinions in sources, it is best to include both of them rather than overlook one, presuming it is false. 

            On page 43, Kantz makes a distinction between facts and opinions.  She states that both facts and opinions are claims, making them the same kind of statement, yet they are slightly different because they are to be received by the audience differently.  The audience will accept a fact as the truth without requiring any proof, however they may seek an explanation.  The audience does not accept an opinion without proof and even when the proof is given, they may still not accept it as entirely true and could debate about it.

            Kantz believes that rhetorical analysis is an integral part of the researching and writing process.  The reader must take a step back and identify the rhetorical parts of an argument being made by the texts (the author, intended audience, and the topic).  The reader can do so by asking himself questions such as Who is the author? Who is he/she writing for? and what argument is he/she trying to make about a given topic?  Rhetoric must also be used in the writing process too and Kantz asks student writers to try to identify the rhetorical context of their own work by asking themselves, “Who am I?”  “What is my question or problem with the topic I am writing about?” and “How have I used my research materials to answer this question or solve the problem?”

            Kantz wants college readers and writers to conceive ourselves as very skilled rhetoricians and we should have confidence in our writing skills.  We should see ourselves as skilled writers who need multiple drafts write a good paper and should evaluate and critique sources as a way to create ethos on the page. 

            An effective way of creating ethos is to use personal knowledge and expertise, per say, to make an argument.  Kantz uses the example of a student critiquing Marbaise’s strict drug policy using knowledge as a student about the age that Marbaise is trying to control to explore why his tactics might be counterproductive.  Edward Said also uses his personal perspective as an individual from the Middle East to strengthen his ethos and validate his opinions about orientalism and how it affects Middle Eastern people.  He introduces how his interest in orientalism came about because he was so fascinated by the American depictions of Middle Eastern people as he was a Middle Eastern person himself growing up in the Middle East. 

           

            After reading this article I feel like this is going to be a very difficult task that at this point I may still not fully grasp, but in my sustained research essay, I am going to try to examine the rhetorical context of every source I use.  I am going to examine who the author is, the intended audience, and the argument that is being made.  I will then use all of my research to come up with a new argument about the topic of the US’s use of military torture in a time of war.  I will try to create ethos through the use of sources as well as my own opinion on the matter as an American citizen.  I will have to have confidence in my opinions to be able to pull this off.  I will have to truly believe that what I have to say is important and that people will want to hear about it.  I do not know what exactly I am going to say yet, but I do know that I have to say it with conviction and use sources that both support and refute my claims in order to make my argument the strongest and most credible it can be.  I will try to use quotes from government officials or army officials that were initially intended to condone the use of torture to a supportive and understanding audience, but in the context of my paper, their statements will sound ridiculous and hypocritical.  Refuting officials’ statements will help build up my ethos as well as a survey that I will conduct to get a sense of the American public’s (namely college students’) impressions of the torture of Middle Eastern people that has been going on over the past decade.  I hope to leave an impression upon my readers and lead them to question the US’s conduct in the Middle East when the justification of torture tactics is concerned.  I hope to use sources to effectively structure a clear, original argument about the topic of the US torturing Middle Easterners in prison.  I do think it will not be easy though, I may find results from my survey that will not serve the purpose in my paper that I intend it to (I do not know what that purpose is yet).  I could have a difficult time sustaining the same original argument throughout my paper and avoiding getting sidetracked.  Hopefully this is not the case!  There are probably many more obstacles that will arise that I cannot even think of at this point but hopefully I can tackle them appropriately and prevail to create a strong sustained research essay with the help of Kantz’s standards.

And the Oscar goes to…

I could not believe my eyes and ears when I was watching the Academy Awards and a film called, “Taxi to the Dark Side” won the Oscar for best documentary tonight.  The film is about my unit 2 topic EXACTLY.  The title eludes to an incident in which an Afghani taxi driver who was never proven guilty of any crime was killed in prison at the hands of US soldiers.  He was tortured until he died and he did nothing wrong.  The film uses this incident as a springboard to challenge the Bush administration’s abuse of power and how it condones torture in prisons such as Guantanamo, Bagram, and Abu Ghraib.  The film looks absolutely amazing and the topic of the film, as well as the opinion of it, are scarily similar, aka exactly the same, as my topic and my opinion on the issue.  Here’s the website: http://www.taxitothedarkside.com/ it really is incredible, watch the trailer and peruse the site for a minute or two.  I can’t believe this is the film that won best documentary and that I was watching the award show at the time.  It must have been fate. The website has a lot of really good links to other articles, some of which inspired the documentary, and other websites that will be extremely helpful for my research.  The only problem is the film is still in theaters, and only very select ones, I think it might be done for now anyway so I CANT SEE IT which is really frustrating!! I will get a ton of information from this discovery though, which is awesome!

Freewrite Assignment #1 – Research Proposal

What specific topic and questions do I intend to research?

My intentions at the moment are to research and write about the how democratic countries conduct themselves in a time of war when it comes to torture. I am pretty sure I want to limit the time period to the War in Iraq specifically, however I may want to use research from other wars to strengthen my ethos on the page and show how democratic nations have perhaps been using torture tactics in the name of freedom in war before 2003. I want to focus on the torture that has been happening in Iraq, also more specifically in prisons in Iraq. I will, however, use information and reactions to incidents of the military torturing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to help strengthen my argument. This topic is limited to torture that is exercised by the United States military in a time of war only. I have narrowed the topic to these circumstances because I think I would be hard to find information on military torture in a time of peace. If there is torture going on no one talks about it. Some questions I am asking that will drive my research and I hope to answer over the next few months are: What does it say about our country (the United States) that we are condoning the use of torture by not severely punishing those who brutally tortured Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib? Is torturing the Iraqi people and forcing them to do humiliating things going to make them respect us and want to accept our democratic ways? Why is it dangerous for the US to pride itself on spreading/protecting freedom or the American Dream in words yet commit acts of torture in the process? How does the rest of the world view the US’s actions in the War in Iraq, particularly the torture scandal? Do they take us seriously or do they find us to be hypocrites? How do the Iraqi people feel about Americans coming into their country and telling them that this foreign system of government is best, while at the same time they are bringing death and destruction? What are the unintended long-term effects of using torture in the name of protecting democracy and attempting to spread it worldwide?

 

Why do I intend to research this topic and questions?

I came to this topic through the artwork I analyzed for the Unit 1 assignment. I have not had a particular interest in the topic of military torture in a time of war before I rhetorically analyzed Gerald Laing’s painting, “Caryatid,” which involved the topic of war torture, specifically at Abu Ghraib. After analyzing the image I am really interesting in investigating the US military’s actions during the War in Iraq and seeing how often torture is used. I am really interested in seeing if there is more torture going on in this war than others in the past because the US sees itself as the obvious “good guy” trying to save the world from terrorists. I really hope to find some crazy stuff and I hope I can effectively write rhetorically to open my reader’s eyes to what is really going on under the surface in Iraq.

 

How am I intending to research this topic and these questions?

So far, for my paper, I have mostly just done research online on websites. I read newspaper articles that were posted on the internet. I did do some research using the library databases and there were articles on the topic of torture, which I remember reading and finding very intriguing they just didn’t fit with the specific topic of my Unit 1 paper so I didn’t include them. I intend to go back to the databases and use those articles more. I want to maybe interview people about what they think of the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib and see how I can incorporate in into my paper. I am not really sure who I can interview though so if you have any ideas please don’t hesitate to tell me! I will read other people’s blogs about torture as well and see what others’ views are as a form of more non-scholarly research. I want to research the psychological roots of torture so I can better understand why it is used and what the torturer and the person being tortured think.

 

What is the purpose of my work?

I find this topic extremely interesting and I think other may be drawn to it, maybe even through morbid curiosity and then later a real need to know more. Torture, as a topic, is pretty morbid so it may catch someone’s attention and then I hope my inquiries and my writing will be intriguing enough for the reader to continue reading my work and take something from it, I’m not sure what that will be yet!