False Confessions: How effective is torture?

False Confessions: How effective is torture?

Torture has been used for centuries as a means of coercing information from people. Even American detectives and investigators use certain interrogation tactics to make one uncomfortable enough to give up information. However, the information given may not be as accurate as it seems at first glance. The information retrieved from people during interrogations may be falsified due to the stress the person is put under.

Saul Kassin writes about the different kinds of falsified confessions. He writes that there are three main types: voluntary, compliant, and internalized (Kassin). Voluntary confessions are just that, those that are given freely by innocent people without prompting from authority figures. Compliant confessions are those given to remove oneself from an uncomfortable situation, or avoid some kind of punishment. Internalized false confessions, Kassin writes, are those given by highly vulnerable individuals under severe stress from interrogation techniques (Kassin). He also states that 20-25 percent of those exonerated from crimes actually confessed to committing the crime.

Investigations put so much faith into the information they gain from interrogations; however this information is in some cases far from the truth. The stress that one is put under during interrogations can cause them to make up stories or, as stated before, confess to crimes they did not commit. Interrogations can even to so far as to cause people to create false memories for the crimes in which they did not commit. Henkel and Coffman write that in experimental trials, confessions proved to be the greatest influence on conviction rates, and are more powerful than eyewitness testimonies and character witnesses (Henkel and Coffman).

Interrogation tactics and torture are clearly effective in putting the mind and the body into uncomfortable situations and gaining information. But the effectiveness of these techniques is completely put into question when the stress of the situation gives false information. False confessions leads to innocent people being punished or even executed for crimes they did not commit.

In the broader scheme of things, torture is an ineffective tactic on prisoners or war. Not only is the act of harming an individual to try and obtain information morally questionable, it lacks the support to prove it is a reliable source of information. They may gain information, but the information is likely to be inaccurate and even fabricated within the mind of the individual due to the stress they have been put through.

Coffman, Kimberly J., and Linda A. Henkel. "Memory Distortions in Coerced False Confessions: A Source Monitoring Framework Analysis." Applied Cognitive Psychology 18.5 (2004): pp.567-588.
Kassin, Saul M. "False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform." Current Directions in Psychological Science 17.4 (2008): 249-53.

Is Intervention a Responsibility?

In recent years, especially with the conflict and genocide that occured in Rwanda in the 90's, and the ongoing genocide in Darfur, there is the constant question of: should the U.S. get involved? Is intervention a responsibility or a right? Should it even be considered?

This issue has two polarized views with many people falling somewhere in the middle. The humanitarian and human rights activist feel that it is the responsibility of the U.S. to defend the rights of the individual, no matter where in the world atrocities are occurring. However, many conservatives view that the U.S. should only use military force in order to protect its own interests.

We have no interests in Rwanda. The international community left Rwanda to its civil war and to the genocide that was being committed. China does have interests in Darfur and that is some of what is blocking intervention there. But, for the most part, support for humanitarian intervention has decreased since the incident in Somalia when U.S. soldiers were killed and dragged through the streets. Also, the U.S. military is wrapped up in Iraq and the war on terror.

Despite the ongoing war in Iraq, there is still the question of whether it is our responsibility to become involved in Darfur. According to U.N. law we would have to get involved if a genocide is occurring. The international community, U.S. included, has said "never again" to genocide, after the Holocaust, after Rwanda, yet there is not much being done to put an end to the genocide in Darfur. In the past, intervention has often been too little, too late, or just purely ineffective. Not only do the cases of Rwanda and Darfur come to mind, but so does the failure of the U.N. to prevent the massacres that occured in Serbrinica.

If the U.S. does not have any interests in Rwanda, then why should it be involved? Countries have and are becoming much more globally intertwined and rely on each other to support their own. The duhumanization that occurs in genocide is something that none of us can afford any longer. The equality and right to be free of all human beings cannot be support by laws that have loopholes and declarations that it will no happen again.

Works Cited

Evans, Gareth. "Banishing the Rwanda Nightmare: The Responsibility to Protect." Ghosts of Rwanda. 31 Mar. 2004. Frontline. 28 Nov. 2008 .

"Ghosts of Rwanda." Frontline. PBS. 10 May 2005.

Torture and Responsibility

Torture and Responsibility

The use of torture abroad by the United States to gather information has reached extremes in recent years. As Molly explains lower in her blog, it is fueling the anti-American sentiment all over the world, and for good reason. What happened in 2004 in Iraq is unacceptable on many levels. According to CBS news, the abuse that took place at Abu Ghraib prison included physical abuse, threatening with dogs, forced masturbation and sexual humiliation in front of a camera (Abuse at Abu Ghraib). This was similar to, if not worse than the terrible things that were taking place at the prison when Saddam Hussein was in power. Former CIA Bureau Chief Bob Baer recalled, "If there's ever a reason to get rid of Saddam Hussein, it's because of Abu Ghraib...It was an awful place." Yet after the liberation, American forces kept up the horrific atmosphere in the Middle Eastern version of Hell.


So we can all agree that this is an unacceptable way for anyone to act, especially soldiers representing our country. But who gets the blame? Where does responsibility fall? There's little doubt that those directly responsible, those with the blood literally on their hands, should have consequences taken out on them. Even if they were just following orders, it is still unacceptable to commit crimes such as these regardless of circumstance. But there is doubt on how high up the blame can go. Can the warden, Captain Donald J. Reese be blamed, even if he took no part or maybe didn't even know what was going on? Can some guilt drop to First Lt. Lewis C. Raeder, accused of not training troops thoroughly on the Geneva Convention prohibiting mistreatment of POWs? Can the Brigade General Janis Karpinski be held responsible; who was in command of the Army Reserve unit was in charge of the prison at the time of the abuse? Can we trace it all the way back to Lt. General Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top Army General at the time, or even Donald H. Rumsfeld, the U.S. secretary of Defense? Staff Sergeant Frederick said about the investigation, "I hope the investigation is including not only the people who committed the crimes, but some of the people that might have encouraged the crimes as well. Because they certainly share some of the responsibility as well." (Abuse of Iraqi POWs)


There is evidence that suggests the guilt of those higher up in the system, such as the comments made by some of the soldiers on the scene. Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick said that upon questioning some of the procedures, he received the response, "This is how military Intelligence (MI) wants it done." (Abu Ghraib) Frederick also commented, "We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things...like rules and regulations. And it just wasn't happening." (Abu Ghraib) So clearly the guilt should be traced higher, and some argue all the way to the top. That argument is related to the term representation. These people are representing America by their actions, and the privates and specialists are representing their elder statesmen in the Army. So if they do something reprehensible, the leaders must accept responsibility for the actions of those representing. That's not to say Rumsfeld should be thrown in jail, but he should accept that bad things took place under his watch and actions need to be taken to prevent this from happening again.


All of this brings to mind a song by a peaceful surf-rocker Jack Johnson called Cookie Jar. The song goes through a progression of denial, starting with a young gun toting boy, and continues through his parents, the media man, the musical lyricist, and eventually down to us, the people. Johnson claims that everyone is partially responsible for the child's action, by allowing it to happen. The song is about the evils of television, but his points about responsibility are applicable here as well.

l'd turn on the TV, but it’s so embarrassing
to see all the other people, i don't know what they mean
it was magic at first, when they spoke without sound
but now this world is gonna hurt, you better turn that thing down
turn it around

it wasn't me, says the boy with the gun
sure i pulled the trigger, but it needed to be done
because life's been killing me ever since it begun
you cant blame me because i'm too young

you cant blame me, sure the killer was my son
but i didnt teach him to pull the trigger of the gun
its the killing on his tv screen
you cant blame me, its those images he seen

you cant blame me, says the media man
i wasnt the one who came up with the plan
i just point my camera at what the people want to see
its a two way mirror and you cant blame me

you cant blame me, says the singer of the song
or the maker of the movie which he based his life on
its only entertainment, as anyone can see
its smoke machines and makeup, you cant fool me

it was you, it was me, it was every man
we've all got the blood on our hands
we only receive what we demand
and if we want hell then hells what well have


So, does this mean we can be held responsible for what happened in Abu Ghraib? Not necessarily. But it stands to argue that maybe we should accept that as Americans we cannot allow our soldiers, those that represent us overseas, to commit such acts, and now that they have, accept that we, as Americans have made a regrettable mistake and make steps to ensure that it never happens again.


Bibliography


"Abuse Of Iraqi POWs By GIs Probed." 60 Minutes II 28 Apr 2008 1-3. 25 Nov 2008 .


"Abuse at Abu Ghraib-Interactive link." 60 Minutes II 28 Apr 2008 25 Nov 2008 .


Johnson, Jack. "Cookie Jar." On and On. 2003.

Torture in War

We began discussing in class whether torture during a war was acceptable and, if commited, who should be punished for the acts. Judging by comments in class, I am sure most of you will disagree with me on the topic of torture. However, it is necessary to hear both sides of an argument to fully understand your own opinion. I believe that torture can be an effective strategy in a time of war.

We have all heard the saying, "All is fair in love and war," and I completely agree with those words. War is not a fun experience, it is not fair, or gentle; war is brutal. When someone is captured in a time of war, I would feel safer at home knowing that our soldiers are doing everything necessary to get any information that they can out of these prisoners. If they need to torture someone to get critical information that could help the war, then by all means torture should be used. Don't get me wrong, I would hate for our soldiers to be tortured, but our soldiers are not forced into joining the war forces. They know exactly what they are getting themselves into by joining the army or the marines, etc. Our soldiers are valiant and brave, not stupid; they know what can happen to them. As an example, John McCain knew that during war time there was the possibility of capture and torture. Both of which, he endured.

"A new study suggests that abuse of prisoners of war is widely condoned by many veterans, and possibly by many in the military today. Even rape of a prisoner was judged acceptable by more than half of the 351 participants in the study," (Holmes). This study may or may not surprise you. Eighty-four percent of the veterans in the study agree that many forms of torture are acceptable during war (Holmes). These are the men and women who have experienced war first hand and know what it is like. Citizens back home do not have the same experiences and therefore, can not judge the acceptability of any act during war. Only those who are in the midst of such can begin to understand the need for such drastic measures.

What is worse, mass murder or torture? "Torture and inhumane treatment may be wrong, but mass murder is worse, so the lesser evil must be tolerated to prevent the greater one" (Twisted Logic). Let us look at the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario (Uelmen); Military personnel have captured a terrorist that has placed a bomb in a huge metropolitan area. He says there is not enough time to evacuate the city before he activates the bomb. Military personnel know from past experience that through torture they can get information out of the terrorist. Would you rather they torture the terrorist to get the information to find the bomb and deactivate it, or would you prefer them to be humane and let the entire metropolitan city be blown to pieces?

Torture can be very effective during war. We can gain information we would not have been able to without it. Torture is not the same as killing; torture can heal. War is a terrible thing, and there is no way to keep wars humane. Yet, if being tortured is an alternative, it may prevent many soldiers from being murdered needlessly. During drastic times such as war times, we often need to take drastic measures. Torture may be one of those drastic measures.

Works Cited

Holmes, William C.. "Would You Condone Torture in War?." ABC News 14 Feb 2007 1-3. 25 Nov 2008 .

"The Twisted Logic of Torture." Darfur and Abu Ghraib Jan 2005 1. 25 Nov 2008 .

Uelmen, Amy. "Torture and the Ticking Time Bomb." Living City 31 July 2006 7-9. 25 Nov 2008.

Preemptive Strikes Justified?

Wars get started for a number of reasons, but perhaps the oddest one that people have come up with is preemptive war. The idea is that two countries foresee an armed conflict somewhere in the future but decide to act upon it now rather than waiting. While the idea of protecting the citizens of a country is perhaps the most important, it brings up the question of where the line is drawn between aggressor and victim. When one country views another as imminently threatening, does it have the right to strike first in defense?

The popular answer, in today’s age, seems to be yes. A specific definition which is generally agreed upon has two main conditions. One is that the preemptive strike has to be equal or proportionate to what the perceived threat is. Meaning that one countries strike can’t be overwhelming when compared to the perceived threat. The other condition is that the threat level has to have reached a level where a first-strike strategy is a requirement and that it has to be a quick and not prolonged affair (Welsh). His type of thinking seems a little backwards, that in order to prevent a war in the future, a war must be started in the present. It’s almost a lazy approach to politics in that the countries have decided there is a problem but that there is nothing which they can do to help it other than go to war.

Whether or not preemptive attacks are morally justified, there are examples of them being accepted worldwide. For instance, in 2007, Israel destroyed a nuclear facility in Syria with nearly no reaction. There was no immediate threat of Syria using some sort of nuclear based weapon. However, the jump from developing weapons to nuclear power isn’t an overnight one. The attack was deemed preemptive, as a threat could be seen down the road and off in the future (Cooper). There is also the example of the United States invading Iraq, which was justified as a preemptive strike. The Bush strategists were probably realist politicians when it came to war, in the sense that conflicts are inevitable and that they should only be conducted if necessary. Seeing as a conflict was inevitable with Iraq, there was a push to get the first strike in first to eliminate the perceived threat (Orend). This would be an example of a preemptive strike which possibly used much more force than called for, as well as lasted much longer than required to take away the perceived threat.

Cooper, Helene, Mark Mazzetti. “An Israeli Strike on Syria Kindles Debate in the U.S.”. New York Time, October 10, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/washington/10diplo.html

non-violence

From Martin Luther King Jr. to Gandhi, social activists and world renown leaders have been practicing non-violence as a means of protest or in order to make a public statement for years. Non-violence is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary on one hand as simply the lack of violence. Also, it goes on to define it more elaborately as "the doctrine, policy, or practice of rejecting violence in favor of peaceful tactics as a means of gaining political objectives." Some may say non-violence corresponds directly to the definition of negative peace, or simply the lack of war, but there is much more behind non-violence than just that lack of violence, as I will later explain. The point is, though, that non-violence can be an effective way of dealing and succeeding in getting a point across in possibly violent situations.

Dr. Martin Luther King, in "The Meaning of Non-violence", describes the philosophy behind his non-violent tactics and why it is more than just the absence of violence. He describes it as a third method of dealing with oppression, after acquiescence which is a cowardly way out, and violent hatred, which would just escalate, and is morally inadequate.(mkgandhi) He said that he "believe(s) that nonviolence is the method that can achieve the ideals and goals and principles of the new age." (mkgandhi) But what exactly is non-violence? King goes on to make several points about the "undergirding philosophy" of it. (mkgandhi) First, the emans used to reach an end must be as pure as the ends desire to be reached. (mkgandhi) Immoral means cannot bring about a moral end, but moral means will most definetely bring about a moral end. (mkgandhi) Means and ends are inseparable in this way.
Secondly, at the heart of non-violence is the belief that injury should never be inflicted upon the opponent, known in Indian philosophy as ahimsa. Ahimsa, along with many of these beliefs, but especially ahimsa, is in direct agreement with the ideas and beliefs of Mahatma Gandhi as well. Now there are two different forms of practicing ahimsa, on =e being the obvious physical external violence that is avoided. But it also entails always moving closer to not hating your enemy. Eventually, the hope is, you will love your enemy not in the affectionate friend type of way, but you love your enemy because God loves you. That same kind of unconditional love that requires nothing in return is the key to effective non-violence. This is why Gandhi claims that one must have a strong faith in God to have a faith in practicing non-violence. (mkgandhi)
There have been numerous examples of effective non-violence being practicced as a means to get a point across or introducing ideas. From the trials and travels of Gandhi to the work of Dr.Martin Luther King Jr.; from India to the U.S. to the Velvet Revolution in the Czech Republic and all over the world in less documented cases, non-violence has proved its worth as an effective means of stopping oppression and violence. The question is, can we translate that effectiveness to a means of stopping or at least slowing larger scale problems such as the wars that plague the world's countries today. It is yet to be seen, but it is certainly a possibility worth further exploration.

bibliography

"nonviolence." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 06 Nov. 2008. .


King, Martin Luther. "Peace, Non-violence, and Conflict Resolution." mkgandhi. 6 Nov 2008 .

Should it really be illegal?

I have always wondered why everyone makes such a big deal about marijuana, making sure to focus only on the negative points. Some people that I have met claim that they think that marijuana is a bad thing because alters a person’s state of mind and messes with their sense of judgment. In all reality, this is the same effect that alcohol produces (if not slightly milder), but alcohol is completely legal. In fact, the law judge of the Drug Enforcements Administration claimed in 1988 that “marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.”[1]I’m shocked that the American government still hasn’t decriminalized marijuana, knowing how much revenue the country misses out on by keeping it illegal.

There are around 700,000 arrests a year for marijuana charges in America.[2] When seen from a financial standpoint, it has been estimated that over 10 million dollars goes into just enforcing marijuana laws. With the country in such a financial crisis with the war in Iraq continuing, it seems odd that they wouldn’t take advantage of saving these costs by simply reforming laws against marijuana. Why waste millions of money spent by tax payers only to enforce a law that any disagree with? Instead of cracking down on people with petty amounts of marijuana, why not turn the efforts into making profit off of marijuana by legalizing and taxing it like cigarettes? The economy may be horrible, but if the government would rethink its decision on criminalizing marijuana, we could decrease the national deficit by a significant amount.

[1] Nadelmann, E. “An End to Marijuana Prohibition: The Drive to Legalization Picks Up.” National Review July 12, 2004 pg. 1-7
[2] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Division of Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States: 2002. P.234.

What If Woman Ran the World?

What If Woman Ran the World?

Men and woman are obviously two different types of people. They handle states of stress differently. Men tend to become more physically aggressive in moments of conflict. Women in turn are more likely to gossip, start rumors, and be more inadvertently violent towards one another without causing physical harm. Men have always been viewed as the providers, primarily due to their stronger physical strength and the ongoing social tradition. Stereotypically men "bring home the bacon". Women have historically been viewed as the caregivers and the gentle nurturers.

While women are in the military, the larger percentage of those in the armed forces who actually see combat are men. Women are not only physically weaker than men, but they can also be seen more emotional than men. Women are therefore often viewed as the weaker sex because emotions can lead them to make emotional and irrational responses to situations. With the problems of co-ed bunking and other such reasons, women are kept away from the battlefield. However, it has been shown that men more inclined to react aggressively and violently in retaliation to a stimulus. Campbell writes that there is 1 violent offending male for every 9 compared to the 1 for every 56 women (Campbell).

Campbell also states within the article that provocation increases aggression, and rightfully so (Campbell). It is part of human nature for one to retaliate to an attack on their person as a means of self defense. The study showed that with lower levels and much higher levels of provocation men and women showed to be somewhat equal in regards to the likelihood of aggressive retaliation. However, major differences showed when it came to the intermediate levels of provocation. Men proved to be much more likely to use aggressive retaliation.

While the difference might be slight, women are still less likely to engage in aggressive behavior. If women were more prominent within the government and the military, it is possible that a decrease in violence would occur. Women might be able to think more clearly in times of provocation which could prove to counterbalance the male tendancy to act aggressively more quickly. Whether this be on the battle field or in meetings with Heads of State, it is possible that women can decrease quick aggressive responses.



One might argue the fact that women are also more emotional and may be more prone to act irrationally due to emotional responses to a situation. And with the stress of diplomatic decisions one also might argue that the gap between differences in aggressive responses to a situation will be closed by the amount of provocation. But, if men and women were more equally present within the diplomatic society it is possible there will be a decrease of aggressive retaliation to a situation.

Campbell, Anne. "Sex Differences in Direct Aggression: What are the Psychological Mediators?" Aggression and Violent Behavior 11.3 (2006): 237-64.

War and Warfare

War no matter how major or minor is devastating. But what seems like one of the most devastating disaster of humans is something that it seems every generation must witness. Today the world is facing the War on Terrorism and the Iraqi War, but less than a decade ago is was the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s, and before that the Vietnam War that started in the 1950s and continued well into the 70s, and even before that was the Korean Wars, World War II, and World War I.




Human beings have a history of destruction. At the end of the movie Fifth Element starring Bruce Willis, the “fifth element” asks Korbon (Bruce Willis) “What’s the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?” The “fifth element” asks this after she see pictures and the devastation in the wars that we have fought. She aked this question because it was up to her to save the world from a ball of death and it brings up a good point. But in retrospect, how much death is really the result of war? In the book Peace and Conflict Studies it says that even with 20th century’s modern warfare and its enormous destruction its directly responsible for fewer than 2% of all deaths occurring in the past century. (Barash 16)


War is still horrible even if you put that statistic into the equation.One cannot ignore the indriect killing as well as cost of war. But how does modern warfare compare to pre-modern warfare? According to Peace and Conflict Studies it’s the weapons that have changed warfare over the centuries:

We can identify three major eras of weaponry: (1) the earliest period (encompassing the entire pre-industrial period), based primarily on muscle power; (2) an intermediate period (from approximately the Renaissance until the first half of the 20th century in the West and still the case in most of the rest of the world), powered by chemicals, especially gunpowder, as well as steam and internal combustion engines; and (3) the most recent period, the second half of the 20th century, dominated by the threat of nuclear weapons and other weapons of potential mass destruction (especially biochemical weapons). (Brash 20)

If you look at those three periods and just see how much technology has advanced in the last century you can understand how the idea of war is terrifying. But if we know the chance of mass destruction, will that stop us from unleashing possible obliteration ? The United States felt the fear of a nuclear assault during the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960’s. As a result of that it’s hard to rely on the hope that “each side will presume that the other will be deterred by the prospect of annihilation and, therefore, expect the other to back down, while remaining determined to stand firm.” (Barash 22)

Perhaps the most disturbing of all, the fact remains that human beings, including decision makers, are influenced by many things beyond a cool, rational calculation of their perceived best interests. Wars have been initiated for many reasons, often including mistaken judgment or faulty information. And when war takes place, the combatants make use of whatever weapons they have. Never is the history of human warfare has an effective weapon been invented and then allowed to rust without at some time being used. (Barash 23)

Even with that hope people can’t overlook the irrational minds of other people. This world has already faced two world wars, each remarkably more destructive to the last. As Albert Einstein once said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” From the trends that we see in our advances in warfare, when the world has to face World War III be prepared for massive destruction on a global scale. Its unfortunately not a question of “ff” it’s a questions of “when” that will happen.


Works Cited:




Barash, David P., Charles P. Webel, Peace and Conflict Studies. SAGE, 2008.

The Fifth Element. Dir. Luc Besson. Perf. Bruce Willis, Milia Jovovich, and Gary Oldman. Columbia Pictures, 1997.

Do You Support a Terrorist?

In the recent political election, both candidates used ads that suggested the election of the other candidate would lead to disastrous situations. Ads such as this and this attempt to portray the danger in certain candidates. These ads focus on threats of terrorism and the inability of specific candidates to protect against it. Though the direct argument these ads make is apparent, recent psychological studies reveal how the subject of these ads, specifically the emphasis on danger and death, can affect an individual’s political leaning.
Thus study focused on terror management theory and interpersonal attachment. Terror management theory describes how people react when confronted with a threat or made aware of their mortality. (Jamie Arndt et al, 448) Interpersonal attachment, IA, explicates how people connect with and depend on others. People with a low IA have a low dependence on others, whereas those with hich IA depend and socialize more with others. The degree of this attachment varies depending on upbringing. (Jamie Arndt et al, 449) This study combined terror management theory, TMT, and IA to predict and test how IA would affect the political leanings of those made salient of their mortality. The researchers base their predictions on the principle that low IA is associated with conservative family values, “strict-father model, characterized by the view that life is difficult and dangerous, and by moral absolutes of tradition, hierarchy, opposing ‘evil’” (Jamie Arndt et al, 449), and high IA is connected with liberal family values, “the nurturantparent model, characterized by moral imperatives of empathy, nurturance, and growth.” (Jamie Arndt et al, 449). The researchers also note that social ideas are often designed to protect against mortality salience and that people confronted with their mortality tend towards the most easily adopted social structure. (Jamie Arndt et al, 448) The researchers use these ideas to predict that individuals with high IA will lean towards liberal political views when presented with mortality salience, and individuals with low IA will tend towards conservative views when presented with mortality salience. (Jamie Arndt et al, 449-450)

The researchers tested volunteers in advance to determine their level of interpersonal attachment. ((Jamie Arndt et al, 450) They then gave the volunteers one of two questionnaires to read. One contained questions that presented mortality salience, while the other essay replaced references to death with “dental pain”. (Jamie Arndt et al, 450) The volunteers then answered questionnaires detailing their support for either George W. Bush or John Kerry and their political stance from very conservative to very liberal. (Jamie Arndt et al, 450)

The results showed that individuals with low IA had a much higher rating for Bush when presented with mortality salience than those who did not. Likewise those with high IA had a much higher rating for Kerry when presented with mortality salience. The reverse for each candidate was true, high IA individuals rated bush lower when presented with mortality salience and low IA individuals rated Kerry lower when presented with mortality salience. As predicted, those with high IA rated themselves more liberal when presented with mortality salience, and those with low IA rated them selves more conservative when presented with it. (Jamie Arndt et al, 451-452) This means that more intorverted people tend to lean to more conservative political views when presented with ads that focus on danger and mortality, whereas more extroverted people will tend to adopt more liberal political views in the same situation.


This study demonstrates how we can be affected by fear-mongering. Ads that focus on danger and death may have a greater affect on our political leanings than we realize. Our desire to protect ourselves from the knowledge of our mortality can be greater than our desire to determine the truth. This research illuminates areas of our psyche that we must closely examine if we are to remain objective in political discussions.

(The article in pdf. You may need to log in to your UNF account to view it. Graphs of results are on page 4-5.)

Works Cited

Jamie Arndt, Cathy R. Cox, Jeff Greenberg, Spee Kosloff, Tom Pyszczynski, Sheldon Solomon, and David R. Weise. “Interpersonal Politics: The Role of Terror Management and Attachment Processes
in Shaping Political Preferences”. Psychological Science. Ed. Robert Kail. 2007. 448-459.

Women and War

In Western societies, women have been taught what is expected of them from a very young age. Girls in one kindergarten class in New York were given awards for "All-Around Sweetheart, Best Manners, Biggest Heart," and others, while boys in the same class were awarded for being "Very Best Thinker, Most Scientific, Hardest Worker," etc. (Deveny, 1994). Girls are rewarded for their cute personalities, and boys are reinforced to be intellectual. This pattern continues into adulthood, where women have been expected to be maternal, doing housework and emotionally taking care of the family, while men go to work and earn money so that they can provide financial support. Times are changing now, and women go to work and earn livings alongside men in various fields. Despite still present stereotypes, these gender roles are being broken down in several areas. Women's role during wartime, however, is still not clear.

For many women, their role in war is still domestic and maternal. They take care of their families while the men are away fighting, but they also pick up another role: to take care of their country. For the women that remain behind, they support the troops with letters and care packages, like any traditional person would expect. Women are often called upon to be emotionally strong for their families in light of war, and they tend to work more. They work extra jobs or hours in order to make up for the money that was being earned by the men (since the military does not give immediate payment), and they also need to work more in order to keep up the economy. If noone covered the jobs that are left behind by soldiers that go to war, the nation's supply would plummet, and the economy would crumble.

Recently, many American women have started seeing their role in war shift. Instead of staying home and offering support, these women are shipping out. Since the 1970's, "the number of women in the Armed Forces has increased dramatically, from 7,000 in Vietnam (mostly medical personnel) to over 40,000 in the Persian Gulf War to one in seven of our troops in Iraq today" (Vlahos, 2008). When the first women were allowed to enlist in the military, their positions were limited to the stereotypical nurse and other caretaker responsibilities. It was a great achievement for feminists that women were allowed in warzones at all, even if it was only the green zone. That was not enough for long, and women continued to fight for a more integral role in the military.

In the 1990's, there was another change in women's wartime role. "Formerly all-male military academies and basic training programs turned co-ed. Today, tens of thousands of women are flying combat aircraft and serving as military police, gunners operating MK19 grenade launchers, interrogators, and prison guards" (Vlahos, 2008). Women are no longer only kept in the green zone, but they are actively engaged in fighting the enemy. These women, like "the female Chinook pilot, for example, who flew night missions under fire to rescue teams in the mountains of Afghanistan" (Vlahos, 2008), are performing acts of bravery and sacrifice that rival some of the greatest heroism stories of men.

Women are still not officially on the front lines of combat, however. Critics of full military integration believe that women physically and emotionally can not keep up with men. They say that putting women "into armored cavalry squadrons or rifle platoons will threaten unit cohesion, weaken standards, and increase injuries, hurting overall force strength" (Vlahos, 2008). I do not know if these accusations are true, but women have come a long way in establishing their wartime role. It is no longer expected that women have to be "sweethearts" that stay home and keep everything nice for when the men get home. In today's America, women can guard war prisoners, rescue comrades, and bomb enemy camps. They may not be able to stand on the front lines with rifles during attacks, but they can, and are expected to, do a whole lot more than they could 100, or even 20, years ago.

References:

Deveny, K. (1994). Chart of kindergarten awards. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.

Vlahos, K.B. (2008). Women at War. The American Conservative, Retrieved November 06, 2008, from http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/apr/07/00014/.

WAR SPENDING

The amount of money spent on wars is insanely impractical. On the National Priorities Project website there is a counter, increasing every second, showing how much money is being spent on the war in Iraq. I encourage you to click the link and look at how much money is being spent in the U.S. War Spending. Next, change the counter from U.S. spending to Jacksonville, Florida. You will see that the War in Iraq is costing us, in Jacksonville alone, over a billion dollars. What is our country, or our city, sacrificing to remain in Iraq? Is it worth it? Why do we continue to spend so much on this war?

What are Americans sacrificing to remain in this war with Iraq? In 2007 the amount of money spent on the war could have been used for 21,510,598 full four-year scholarships to public universities,7,689,734 new public school teachers, health insurance policies for 265,701,285 uninsured people, or housing for 3,995,293 homeless families (Iraq War Spending). The numbers are astounding. Keep in mind that these numbers were estimated over a year ago. The numbers have been increasing daily for over a year now. Americans are sacrificing their education greatly. Many families could have been helped with new homes or health insurance, but because of the war, we cannot provide the money to help these people.

Is it worth it? This is not a question I can answer for anybody else, but for me, personally, it is not worth it. I believe that we should be helping our own nation get out of this economical slump and providing help for those less fortunate. In a poll done by CBS News, sixty-four percent of Americans say the war was not worth it. Twenty-nine percent said it was worth it (Poll). However, President Bush will tell you a different story."Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed, every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country" (Baker).

Whether or not you think it is vital to our country or not, we must ask ourselves, why do we continue to spend so much money on this war? We are putting ourselves farther into debt every day. Why do we do this? The way I see it, it seems like a contest we don't want to lose. Everybody told us it was a bad idea and a waste of money but we did it anyway and we want to prove them wrong. It is like Bobby saying to Billy, "You wont be able to eat all of those peppers." Then Billy goes and eats all of the peppers even though he knows he will probably throw up because of it. Others may not agree with me, but I fear that continuing the war is a bad idea and we should abandon it.

We need to reduce the amount of money being spent on this war that the majority of Americans do not even agree with. We need to begin spending money on the things that are important in our country like education, health care, poverty, and jobs. Imagine how great America could be with billions of dollars going towards the people.

Works Cited

Baker , Peter, Dana Milbank. "Bush says war is worth sacrifice."Washington Post 29 June 2005 A01. 6 Nov 2008 .

"Cost of War." National Priorities Project. National Priorities. 6 Nov 2008 .

"Iraq War Spending vs. Education Spending." Education Portal 16 July 2007 6 Nov 2008 .

"Poll: Most Americans say War not Worth it." CBS News 18 March 2008 6 Nov 2008 .>.

America: Home of the Free Because of... Torture?

The Bush Administration's Use of Torture is Increasing Anti-Americanism Abroad

We remember the photographs. While the politicians tried to blame six soldiers for the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, it is clear that, far from being an isolated event, the use of torture is a widespread occurrence that is not the work of rank-and-file soldiers but is a policy held by the administration. The United States use of torture is doing nothing but fostering animosity towards the United States.
According to Major General Antonio M. Taguba, "Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority" (Hersh). However, the prisoners held at Abu Ghraib are mostly innocent civilians. Most are picked up during random sweeps by the military or at checkpoints (Hersh).
After these innocent civilians are tortured they are then released, with a grudge against the United States for the undeserved punishment that they endured. According to one U.S. army sergeant, "If he's a good guy, you know, now he's a bad guy because of how we treated him" (Human Rights Watch 5). The soldiers stationed at Forward Operating Base Mercury are referred to as "the Murderous Maniacs" by Fallujah residents because of how they treat Iraqi prisoners. The soldiers were proud of this title and considered it a "badge of honor" (Human Rights Watch 1).
The mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is not degrading the image of the United States in just Iraq: it is affecting peoples' opinion all over the globe. A poll done by the Arab American Institute (AAI) concluded that "the main reason for rising anti-Americanism was opposition to its foreign policy" (Dawoud). Six Arab nations were polled by the AAI, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Jordon, and Lebanon, and the overall approval ratings varied between two percent and twenty percent. One of the topmost concerns of those surveyed was "Ameria's treatment of Arabs and Muslims" (Dawoud).
The United States sanctioning the use of torture on Iraqis is fueling the very movement that we are trying to fight. This policy need to be changed before it will be too late to redeem our reputation abroad, before we have more enemies than we do friends.

Sources
Dawoud, Khaled. "Arab Opinions." YaleGlobal Online. 30 July 2004. Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. 4 Nov. 2008 .

Hersh, Seymour M. "Torture at Abu Ghraib." The New Yorker 10 May 2004. The New Yorker. 10 May 2004. 15 Oct. 2008 .

"Leadership Failure." Human Rights Watch 17 (2005): 1-28.