Let it be known

Kourosh Abascal

Professor Brown

English 1B

8 May 2013

Let it be known

            “Nearly a decade after the last Al Qaeda detainee was waterboarded, Americans still know little about what the CIA did to its prisoners, or whether it worked” (Dilanian). The Obama administration outlawed the use of waterboarding in 2009 but had since decided that any use of it before will not be punished. As fair as that sounds, it’s not how the government should be run. The Bush administration blatantly disregarded basic human rights and civil liberties and there had to be someone responsible. “Waterboarding is torture. When we use their techniques, the terrorists win. Our reputation is besmirched; our civil liberties endangered” (Kelly). In situations like waterboarding, which has definitely been dubbed as torture, actions must be taken to ensure those responsible are to take responsibility and for the public to be informed on what took place because doing taking these actions is just and an act of hope for the U.S to be able to move on.

            When Obama took office, people expected an independent torture investigation since his platform was ran based on civil liberties. Waterboarding “has long been defined as torture by both U.S. and international law, and by Obama himself. Torture, in turn, has long been defined as a war crime, and the United States is under treaty obligation to investigate and prosecute such crime” (Turley). An outright disregard for these simple rules does not help the United States’ image. Instead of running an investigation, Obama had made a promise that no CIA officer will be prosecuted for waterboarding that had been taken place.

“Though the White House denied the stories, Obama later gave his controversial speech at the CIA headquarters and did precisely that. In the speech, he effectively embraced the defense of befehl ist befehl ("an order is an order") and, in so doing, eviscerated one of the most important of the Nuremburg principles. Obama assured the CIA that employees would not be prosecuted for carrying out orders by superiors. This was later affirmed by Holder's Justice Department, which decided that employees carrying out torture were protected because they followed orders. The administration then decided that those who gave the orders were protected because they secured facially flawed legal opinions from the Justice Department. Finally, the Justice Department decided not to charge its own lawyers who gave those opinions because they were their ... well ...opinions” (Turley)

This all seems like a blame game that end with no one taking responsibility based on a technicality. Someone needs to take the blame and it should be the person highest in command that made the decisions to do such dastardly deeds.

            The public also has a right to know what does go on in our government. Especially when it is things like waterboarding that affects us all as a country. The world views the U.S as a role model and anything we do that can tarnish the United States reputation should be made clear and investigated. There’s a report that was approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee that reviews the treatment of the Al-Qaeda prisoners. “After the committee voted 9 to 6 in a closed meeting, mostly along party lines, the Democratic chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, issued a statement saying the long-awaited 6,000-page report “uncovers startling details about the C.I.A. detention and interrogation program and raises critical questions about intelligence operations and oversight”” (Shane). Even Senator John McCain agrees that information regarding these events should be made public. “Mr. McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam and has been an outspoken critic of the C.I.A.’s former methods, wrote Intelligence Committee members urging them to “finalize and declassify this report, so that all Americans can see the record for themselves, which I believe will finally close this painful chapter for our country”” (Shane).

The wrongs that we’ve encountered as a country can always be learned from. The public must be informed for the country to move forward. The report that is to be released is a must and will help people really know what is going on in their country. The more we know about our history, the less mistakes we can make in the future. “The report compares the torture of detainees to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. “What was once generally taken to be understandable and justifiable behavior,” the report says, “can later become a case of historical regret”” (Shane).

Critque on "Not a Reasonable Excuse"

The essay starts off pretty strong. Milena touches on background information on waterboarding that people should understand before reading the essay. The first 2 paragraphs she wrote come across on topic and it does get her point out. After that, the rest of her essay seems to go astray from her thesis and becomes a bit repetitive. After reading the whole essay it makes you realize that what the essay is trying to prove is not the original thesis of "... there is no doubt that the majority of the population would agree that tying up someone to a board and pouring water on their face sounds a lot like torture." The essay is to me was trying to prove that waterboarding should not be used. A little more evidence for certain claims would greatly help you improve your ethical argument.

Vivisection

1. Is there ever going to be a right side on the subject?

2. Should we even test on animals?

3. Are there even other ways to test certain products without the use of animals?

2) I will be answering questions 1 and 2. In his essay, C.S Lewis mentions the different views on the rights and wrongs of vivisection. But is ever going to be a correct side. Like he mentioned in the beginning. Advocates for vivisection will show you pictures of those sick and weak so get you to believe that what they are doing is for the better good. It gets you to feel bad and makes you want them to find ways to help those people. But then the other side counters with pictures of abused and injured animals that have gone through testing and then it makes you feel bad for them. They both play on a pathos aspect of rhetoric that just ends up canceling each other out.
I guess the real question remains that if we should even do testing on animals. Even I am torn on the subject. On one side, the help we get from testing certain products on animals makes it many times safer for human use and in turn helps people in a lot of ways. On the other side, I feel as though the torture of those animals that can't really defend themselves of such treatment is completely wrong. I feel as though there should be certain testing that should be allowed for the betterment of mankind. Obvious pain inflicted on the subject should not be allowed. But these are all from my own point of view. I feel as though I am looking at it as a biased point of view because all I can think of is my own dog being a test subject.

Reflection #2

I felt as though it was a lot harder for me to do the final draft since I didn't have student or teacher notes. Not only was the first draft not done to get me a starting point, the guidance and advice of others wasn't available. I felt like that was a bit of a disadvantage that I unfortunately gave myself. I never realized how much help you could get from having others review and read your work. My final draft was a decent start for my rhetorical critique but it had a rough draft feel to it. I know that if i were to receive the advice from both Professor Brown and another student, I would have been able to clearly see past my simple grammatical and rhetorical mistakes.

Shooting an Elephant

1. Was he even liked after shooting the elephant?

2. Why do people do things they know is wrong just to fit in?

3. Did he feel as though he did the right thing or felt guilty about it?

2) I'm going to be touching on the question two. I've always wondered why people make certain decisions in life based on how others would perceive them. In certain cases it usually a good thing because if you act as a good person, the way you would be seen is as a good person. But why do people do things that they know are wrong just because they are expected to. In the essay "Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell, he does that exact thing. The only reason he had asked for the gun was just in case the elephant got rowdy and he had to do something. But as soon as the gun was in the picture, the natives around him thought that he was going to kill the elephant just because he had a gun. When he got there he knew that the elephant meant no harm at that point but he felt the "want" from the crowd. He knew they wanted him to shoot the elephant and the pressure is what got to him. Why? Why couldn't he just wait and just watch the elephant until the owner came? Why did he even give in to the pressure of those "lower than him"? We all have had times that we wanted to be accepted by those around us but is going against what we believe really worth it? I can't imagine what his conscious went through from that day forward. Would he doubt his decision everyday or would he stand beside it.