I was watching this HBO Original last night and was intrigued by the ethical considerations.
In the prelude to the show, a highschool teacher asked his students what they'd be willing to sacrifice in order for protection from terrorism. Would they be willing to give up all their rights for one day if that meant they'd be safe from a gun-wielding/suicide bombing terrorist? A week? A month? A year? Forever? Even though it was scripted, you could easily see students saying, "A day? Sure, that's not that bad. A week even." Hesitation started forming when the hypothetical scenario ventured beyond seven days.
The premise of the show was about two people who were forced to give up all their rights for at least one day. Naturally, it was trying to hammer the point that though we may say we're okay with giving up our rights for one day, we don't necessarily believe that it would be our individual rights that would be forfeit.
The show, as mentioned at the site, detailed the process that two people, from different continents, endured while in custody. The script was well-written and exhibited a natural progression in an interrogation situation. The interrogators started as empathetic while, in turns, gradually becoming dissociatively impassive to their stewards. It didn't exactly feel like it was trying to pass the buck of responsibility up the chain of command (this was released before the Abu Ghraib torture photos), so much as it was saying that whatever choice we make is ultimately ours to own. (I say this last sentence towards the interrogators). However, it did show that higher-ups not only condoned the matter but feigned ignorance of the proceedings (i.e., plausible deniability).
Just before the film (in which the two are abducted in plain sight) it fades in with "Sometime soon ..."
This really hit me. Not because it's new or because it's obviously a New World Order type of film, but because I just recently finished the Gulag Archipelago, whch detailed the increments of the police state. A system without its own checks and balances is inherently corruption-prone. But a system that condones as well as exhorts capital interrogation techniques is infinitely worse. It's Darwinism exploited to its most negative degree. It's the double-bind that religions are so fond of--how do you resist without giving the impression that you're resisting? How do you confess to something you did not do while all the while the pain you endure at the hands of your tormenters cries out for you to confess? If you don't admit, then the torture continues, because you're obviously hiding something, otherwise you would admit.
The film made the excellent point (on two occasions, no less) that dissent is very different from disloyalty. And the repartee? "I'm sure those two are very different in your mind." When you blur the lines between what is acceptable and what is not, more often than not the tie goes to the unacceptable. Thus, disloyalty and dissent become the same thing, with both definitions opting for the former. Voicing support for the troops and protesting the war in the Middle East blurs the lines into contempt for the troops. How can you support our troops when you're out protesting the war every chance you get? Obviously, you must be against our troops, since it can be demoralizing for them over there.
The show ended with the titular strip search, where the female eventually confessed to knowing a known criminal terrorist and the male shook his head in a negative. "That's it. Someone else will talk to you now." The female's interrogator left the room and was highly commended by his officer. The male's interrogator left the room and looked a little (subjective interpretation on my part) concerned about the screams coming out of the room from the other interviewer.
When Patriot Act II passes, what freedoms will you be going without in order to be safe from terrorism?
In the prelude to the show, a highschool teacher asked his students what they'd be willing to sacrifice in order for protection from terrorism. Would they be willing to give up all their rights for one day if that meant they'd be safe from a gun-wielding/suicide bombing terrorist? A week? A month? A year? Forever? Even though it was scripted, you could easily see students saying, "A day? Sure, that's not that bad. A week even." Hesitation started forming when the hypothetical scenario ventured beyond seven days.
The premise of the show was about two people who were forced to give up all their rights for at least one day. Naturally, it was trying to hammer the point that though we may say we're okay with giving up our rights for one day, we don't necessarily believe that it would be our individual rights that would be forfeit.
The show, as mentioned at the site, detailed the process that two people, from different continents, endured while in custody. The script was well-written and exhibited a natural progression in an interrogation situation. The interrogators started as empathetic while, in turns, gradually becoming dissociatively impassive to their stewards. It didn't exactly feel like it was trying to pass the buck of responsibility up the chain of command (this was released before the Abu Ghraib torture photos), so much as it was saying that whatever choice we make is ultimately ours to own. (I say this last sentence towards the interrogators). However, it did show that higher-ups not only condoned the matter but feigned ignorance of the proceedings (i.e., plausible deniability).
Just before the film (in which the two are abducted in plain sight) it fades in with "Sometime soon ..."
This really hit me. Not because it's new or because it's obviously a New World Order type of film, but because I just recently finished the Gulag Archipelago, whch detailed the increments of the police state. A system without its own checks and balances is inherently corruption-prone. But a system that condones as well as exhorts capital interrogation techniques is infinitely worse. It's Darwinism exploited to its most negative degree. It's the double-bind that religions are so fond of--how do you resist without giving the impression that you're resisting? How do you confess to something you did not do while all the while the pain you endure at the hands of your tormenters cries out for you to confess? If you don't admit, then the torture continues, because you're obviously hiding something, otherwise you would admit.
The film made the excellent point (on two occasions, no less) that dissent is very different from disloyalty. And the repartee? "I'm sure those two are very different in your mind." When you blur the lines between what is acceptable and what is not, more often than not the tie goes to the unacceptable. Thus, disloyalty and dissent become the same thing, with both definitions opting for the former. Voicing support for the troops and protesting the war in the Middle East blurs the lines into contempt for the troops. How can you support our troops when you're out protesting the war every chance you get? Obviously, you must be against our troops, since it can be demoralizing for them over there.
The show ended with the titular strip search, where the female eventually confessed to knowing a known criminal terrorist and the male shook his head in a negative. "That's it. Someone else will talk to you now." The female's interrogator left the room and was highly commended by his officer. The male's interrogator left the room and looked a little (subjective interpretation on my part) concerned about the screams coming out of the room from the other interviewer.
When Patriot Act II passes, what freedoms will you be going without in order to be safe from terrorism?
