1A Lesson Plan for “Watching Torture in Prime Time” by Anne-Marie Cusac (109)

 

 

 

Part One. Lexicon for Torture Debate

 

 

1. The Hawk Approach to torture: Be aggressive and use traditional methods of pain.
2. The Dove Approach to torture: Be cautious and emphasize psychology and persuasion while avoiding physical abuse.
3. Torture Lite, also called stress interrogation: relies on sleep deprivation, confusion, discomfort, solitary confinement, mind deception games, sensory deprivation, LSD and other drugs.
4.  “Severe” torture: any torture that results in organ failure
5.  Define your terms: are you arguing for or against all-out torture and torture lite?
6. Geneva Convention: terrorists are excluded from war prisoner rights
7. Unlawful combatant
8. Abu Ghraib: the abuses at this torture center are an exercise in stupidity, cruelty, sadism, sexual humiliation; techniques proved to harm US interests around the world; we looked like brutes.
9. Shaking: putting a dirty stinking bag over someone’s head; part of torture lite
10. Efficacy argument: different studies give different results; it all depends on the expertise of the torturer and the person being tortured; no one size fits all rule applies and this is the problem of the torture debate; sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. It appears torture worked against the Algerian Liberation Front but it also appears it was ineffective against the Viet Cong.
11. Duress argument; people under duress will say anything.
12. Reciprocity argument; if we torture captives, our enemy countries will do the same to us.
13. Rendition: outsourcing our prisoners to other countries to be tortured so we can officially say we don’t torture while paying other countries to do so under the radar. This is an argument against torture. Why?
14. Torture as social control in Naomi Klein’s article.
15. Anti-democracy argument; torture can be used to intimidate those who oppose the government policies
16. Lazy argument; there are more efficient ways of getting information than torture
17. Fear argument (from Mark Bowden) fear works more than pain; the torturer must use psychological cunning in addition to physical pain.
18. Language and Deception argument (fake an alliance with prisoner’s friends)
19. Good Cop/Bad Cop
20. Morons and Madmen argument; can we trust people in high power to be moral and competent?
21. Sadism argument; sadistic people are drawn to jobs that may require torture
22. Either/or fallacy to support torture

 

 

 

Part Two. Traditional Arguments Against Torture

 

1. Coercion often results in the suspect appeasing the torturer with made-up information to simply stop the torture.
2. Sadists are often drawn to the job of torturer.
3. An infinitesimal amount of people who go into the torture profession have the skill level and expertise to implement torture effectively and within the guidelines. Most in fact are incompetent butchers.
4. There is no way of knowing that the Intel was helpful or accurate until long after it was extracted, rendering it useless.
5. Governments use torture to intimidate the citizens from having contrary opinions and free speech. This is called the slippery slope argument.
6. Torture may start off with guidelines and controls but soon it becomes an uncontrollable juggernaut. Abuse is inevitable.
7. The government can widen the definition of a “terrorist suspect” to include anyone they want.
8. Torture is state-sponsored terrorism that lowers us to our enemies’ level.
9. Emphasis on torture distracts us from real solution to terrorism, which is prevention. I will use the cancer analogy.
10. Cover-ups are commonplace in torture abuses.
11. Torture is a violation of human rights.
12. There is the retaliation factor: “We torture them; now they torture us.”
13. Torture results in an anti-American sentiment which reduces international cooperation.
14. Non-torture methods are proven to be as or even more effective.
15. Terrorists will choose death over capture (knowing they’ll be tortured) and wreak more havoc—resulting in more death and bloodshed—as they fight to the death.

 

Part Three. Common Arguments That Support Torture

1. The Ticking Bomb Scenario
2. Abuse of X should not result in its elimination. Do we eliminate priests, marriage, and other things when abuses occur?
3. Proven terrorists waive their human rights.
4. “We have the right to save our lives and country by any means necessary.”
5. We accept collateral damage when we drop bombs; the same should be tolerated when we torture.
6. Unlawful combatants don’t have the same rights as do captured prisoners.
7. We have a body of evidence that shows we have gained life-saving Intel from the use of torture.

 

 

 

Part Four. Reading Questions

 

One. What do Jack Bauer and many Bush Administration officials have in common? 109

 

Two. In one word, what is the appeal of the TV show 24? See 110 top.

 

Three. In what 2 ways is 24 in conflict with reality? See 110 (impending disaster) and 111 (the efficacy of torture)

 

Four. Why does Cusac praise 24? See 110 bottom.

 

Five. What anti-humanistic and pro-humanistic messages hum through the show? 111

 

Six. Is 24 a powerful influence on Americans’ attitudes toward torture and the rules of war in general? Explain. See 112 top. 

 

 

Essay Options:

 

Write a defense or refutation of US policy of torturing terrorist suspects as a way of improving national security. Be sure to show the arguments for both sides, in a about a page or 2, before proceeding with your argument and mapping components. Also be sure to include a minimum of 3 research sources.

A pro-torture thesis with concession clause might look like this:

 

While torture entails many abuses, torture is justified in certain situations, including _________________________, _____________________, ________________________, and _________________________.

An anti-torture thesis might look like this:

While the pro-torture debaters are good at drumming up all sorts of scary scenarios, their arguments for torture collapse under the weight of several fallacies, myths, and misconceptions, which include _____________________, ________________________, ________________________________, ________________________, and _____________________________. 

 

 

A thesis that “rides the middle” might look like this:

 

To embrace a “pro-torture” or “anti-torture” is over simplistic nonsense. The potential for abuse in the realm of torture is huge, to be sure. But sometimes there are in fact extreme conditions that warrant torture. Therefore, torture should be allowed in the most narrow of circumstances and stringent conditions, which include ____________________, ____________________________, _________________________, _____________________________, and __________________________________.

 

 

 

 

Part One. Lexicon for Torture Debate

 

 

1. The Hawk Approach to torture: Be aggressive and use traditional methods of pain.
2. The Dove Approach to torture: Be cautious and emphasize psychology and persuasion while avoiding physical abuse.
3. Torture Lite, also called stress interrogation: relies on sleep deprivation, confusion, discomfort, solitary confinement, mind deception games, sensory deprivation, LSD and other drugs.
4.  “Severe” torture: any torture that results in organ failure
5.  Define your terms: are you arguing for or against all-out torture and torture lite?
6. Geneva Convention: terrorists are excluded from war prisoner rights
7. Unlawful combatant
8. Abu Ghraib: the abuses at this torture center are an exercise in stupidity, cruelty, sadism, sexual humiliation; techniques proved to harm US interests around the world; we looked like brutes.
9. Shaking: putting a dirty stinking bag over someone’s head; part of torture lite
10. Efficacy argument: different studies give different results; it all depends on the expertise of the torturer and the person being tortured; no one size fits all rule applies and this is the problem of the torture debate; sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. It appears torture worked against the Algerian Liberation Front but it also appears it was ineffective against the Viet Cong.
11. Duress argument; people under duress will say anything.
12. Reciprocity argument; if we torture captives, our enemy countries will do the same to us.
13. Rendition: outsourcing our prisoners to other countries to be tortured so we can officially say we don’t torture while paying other countries to do so under the radar. This is an argument against torture. Why?
14. Torture as social control in Naomi Klein’s article.
15. Anti-democracy argument; torture can be used to intimidate those who oppose the government policies
16. Lazy argument; there are more efficient ways of getting information than torture
17. Fear argument (from Mark Bowden) fear works more than pain; the torturer must use psychological cunning in addition to physical pain.
18. Language and Deception argument (fake an alliance with prisoner’s friends)
19. Good Cop/Bad Cop
20. Morons and Madmen argument; can we trust people in high power to be moral and competent?
21. Sadism argument; sadistic people are drawn to jobs that may require torture
22. Either/or fallacy to support torture

 

 

 

Part Two. Traditional Arguments Against Torture

 

1. Coercion often results in the suspect appeasing the torturer with made-up information to simply stop the torture.
2. Sadists are often drawn to the job of torturer.
3. An infinitesimal amount of people who go into the torture profession have the skill level and expertise to implement torture effectively and within the guidelines. Most in fact are incompetent butchers.
4. There is no way of knowing that the Intel was helpful or accurate until long after it was extracted, rendering it useless.
5. Governments use torture to intimidate the citizens from having contrary opinions and free speech. This is called the slippery slope argument.
6. Torture may start off with guidelines and controls but soon it becomes an uncontrollable juggernaut. Abuse is inevitable.
7. The government can widen the definition of a “terrorist suspect” to include anyone they want.
8. Torture is state-sponsored terrorism that lowers us to our enemies’ level.
9. Emphasis on torture distracts us from real solution to terrorism, which is prevention. I will use the cancer analogy.
10. Cover-ups are commonplace in torture abuses.
11. Torture is a violation of human rights.
12. There is the retaliation factor: “We torture them; now they torture us.”
13. Torture results in an anti-American sentiment which reduces international cooperation.
14. Non-torture methods are proven to be as or even more effective.
15. Terrorists will choose death over capture (knowing they’ll be tortured) and wreak more havoc—resulting in more death and bloodshed—as they fight to the death.

 

Part Three. Common Arguments That Support Torture

1. The Ticking Bomb Scenario
2. Abuse of X should not result in its elimination. Do we eliminate priests, marriage, and other things when abuses occur?
3. Proven terrorists waive their human rights.
4. “We have the right to save our lives and country by any means necessary.”
5. We accept collateral damage when we drop bombs; the same should be tolerated when we torture.
6. Unlawful combatants don’t have the same rights as do captured prisoners.
7. We have a body of evidence that shows we have gained life-saving Intel from the use of torture.

 

 

 

Part Four. Reading Questions

 

One. What do Jack Bauer and many Bush Administration officials have in common? 109

 

Two. In one word, what is the appeal of the TV show 24? See 110 top.

 

Three. In what 2 ways is 24 in conflict with reality? See 110 (impending disaster) and 111 (the efficacy of torture)

 

Four. Why does Cusac praise 24? See 110 bottom.

 

Five. What anti-humanistic and pro-humanistic messages hum through the show? 111

 

Six. Is 24 a powerful influence on Americans’ attitudes toward torture and the rules of war in general? Explain. See 112 top. 

 

 

Essay Options:

 

Write a defense or refutation of US policy of torturing terrorist suspects as a way of improving national security. Be sure to show the arguments for both sides, in a about a page or 2, before proceeding with your argument and mapping components. Also be sure to include a minimum of 3 research sources.

A pro-torture thesis with concession clause might look like this:

 

While torture entails many abuses, torture is justified in certain situations, including _________________________, _____________________, ________________________, and _________________________.

An anti-torture thesis might look like this:

While the pro-torture debaters are good at drumming up all sorts of scary scenarios, their arguments for torture collapse under the weight of several fallacies, myths, and misconceptions, which include _____________________, ________________________, ________________________________, ________________________, and _____________________________. 

 

 

A thesis that “rides the middle” might look like this:

 

To embrace a “pro-torture” or “anti-torture” is over simplistic nonsense. The potential for abuse in the realm of torture is huge, to be sure. But sometimes there are in fact extreme conditions that warrant torture. Therefore, torture should be allowed in the most narrow of circumstances and stringent conditions, which include ____________________, ____________________________, _________________________, _____________________________, and __________________________________.