When the Pen Fails

SAM O’REILLY '09

It is an almost universally accepted truth that the pen is mightier than the sword. Ideas are stronger catalysts for change than violent acts. Logic is generally more effective in persuading people than violence. These ideals are embodied in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, in which everybody is given the right to protest, petition, and speak freely. America is a place where the pen is mightier than the sword, because the right to use the pen is unfettered, and one piece of writing can change the opinion of the people. But what about when the pen fails? What if a person is convinced fully that what he has to say is true, but those with power refuse to listen? If that person has no doubt in his mind that he is correct, and if the pen genuinely does fail, is he justified in using the sword as a last resort?

Imagine being a devout Muslim leader in the Middle East. You have dedicated your entire life to a cause that you believe in to its very core. No matter how hard you try to demonstrate the righteous virtues and love that Islam teaches, the world continues to view your religion as that of an extremist. You want to change the world through love, but the American media does not pay attention to anything good happening in or coming from Muslim countries in the Middle East. The people of some nations may have a fair opinion of Islam, but the average American citizen does not fall under this category. The average American citizen knows little about the core reasons for modern religious conflict. The average American knows that Muslims blow stuff up as a way to create change, but rarely consider what was so drastically in need of change that a human being felt it necessary to resort to violent action. Then again, would Americans pay any attention to the struggle of Muslims if their own lives were not in danger? How many people could really point out Afghanistan on a map or knew who the heck Osama Bin Laden was before September 11, 2001? It is becoming more and more apparent that the only message that America will bother to pay attention to is that of a violent nature.

Islam in The American Media

Do the American people really have that terrible a view of the Muslim world? It is hard to understand the viewpoint of an entire populace unless one were to go to some non-partisan voice of the people…Bill O’Reilly! Yes, Bill O’Reilly has an hour-long show every day, has published numerous books, and has a daily talk show as well. The words of Bill O’Reilly must resonate with some large group of people for him to be able to express his opinions in such a vast arena. One could rely on the words of Bill O’Reilly to judge the nature of a populace. When Bill O’Reilly said on national television, “"I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is. The big lesson is that we cannot intervene using ground troops in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do, is bomb the living daylights out of them, just like we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them. But no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds; ain't going to work. They're just people who are primitive." One cannot make the sweeping generalization that Bill O’Reilly embodies the opinion of the everyday America. One can and should however be alarmed that such a violent and ignorant message is part of mainstream American culture.

What kind of message is America sending the Muslim population by having radicals such as Bill O’Reilly on the air? What kind of message is America sending to the Muslim population when the bad guy on 24 is always Arab? America is not sending the message that it legitimately is concerned about or is willing to listen to the problems concerning Muslims throughout the world. The American people sub-consciously promote the stereotype that all Muslims are terrorists through passive acceptance of such typecasting in the media. The American media does little to report on and consider the ideals of moderate republics, but has a heyday whenever some radical blows something up.

Religious Wars

Religious wars have changed over the years. The root of many historic conflicts lies in religion and religious ideals. Unlike modern religious conflict, many historical wars consisted of unified nations facing off on battlefields. Today, conflict over religion is as wide spread and intense as ever. Innovations in communication during the 20th century have changed the nature of religious conflict and given power to terrorists. The people who are victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks never intended to fight a war. They were just shopping or going to work and in the process became casualties of a war that knows no borders. Terrorists brought the war to the streets of New York City and to the doorstep of capitalism. Civilians were the targets and civilians were the casualties. September 11 destroyed two towers, killed 3,000 in a country of 300,000,000, but most importantly, instilled a sense of fear in the American people. Terrorists could never possibly stand up to the might of the American army, and therefore resort to fear as a tactic. Religious war is no longer fought on identifiable battlefields, but on the streets of every city in the world. It is a media battle over which side can make their people despise the enemy more than the other. It is an intimidation battle over who can make the other feel more threatened. Which side can make a man genuinely scared for his life and that of his family? That is the real battle. It is a guerilla war that neither side can genuinely win.

It is not a war that can be won because it is impossible to fully wipe out either side. Even if terrorists miraculously destroyed America, some other similar power would arise. There will always be some kind of imperial power, weather it be Rome, Great Britain, or America. This empire, almost by definition, will have people that hate it so much that they will go to extremes to hurt it. Yet even if the new empire that arose after America was not as strong or oppressive, some group of radicals would find a way to blame everything on that country. Radical energy will be directed towards the most powerful nation, regardless of its nature. The nature of the war in itself makes it impossible for either side to win.

Americans view terrorists as people too indoctrinated with a backwards ideology that they cannot even be reasoned with. This, incidentally, is how many terrorist leaders would describe Americans. They would say that America is too set in its views and too content with ignoring the rights of Muslim people. These people may be from such countries as Iraq and Afghanistan, but they are identified with their religion. Many Americans clump the entire Middle East into a religious group, and furthermore identify that entire group with violence. The most alarming aspect of the stance of the everyday American is the lack of initiative to learn about Muslim culture and the expectation that Muslims should stop using violence and realize that the American way is the correct one. No wonder these alarming circumstances go both ways. Even if Americans may not view the war in Iraq as a holy crusade, many Muslims do.

Many believe that the religious world conflict is past the point of negotiation. It is an endless cycle because the American government has proved incapable of being realistic with Muslim leaders. This causes some Muslims to use violence, which in turn hardens the stance of American leaders. The cycle continues, resulting in more deaths each day. Both sides expect the other to one day smarten up or just give in, without even considering the possibility that they themselves could be wrong. America tries to represent itself as the side with morals, and hides its own terrorist tendencies.

The Nature of Terrorism

“Terrorists use fear and intimidation to usher in change.”

If one were to accept this statement as fact, then America would be categorized as the biggest terrorist in the world. America holds a nuclear arsenal that, if employed, will destroy military targets and civilians alike. The nuclear arms that America can launch at the drop of the dime are too powerful and not accurate enough to physically spare civilian lives. Over 180,000 lives were lost when America dropped the first two atomic bombs on Japan, but the general consensus in our society is that these losses were acceptable in a time of war. America scares much of the world. At any given point of time, America has the capability to level every square inch of any nation. It is as if a permanent gun is held to the head of every individual in the world. If America does not intend to use such weapons ever again, then why have they not been deactivated? Why has America led a movement to put down these weapons for the safety of humanity? The reason that America does no such thing is that its nuclear capabilities give it a higher standing in the world. America is logically more powerful with nuclear weapons. Other countries are less inclined to stand up to the United States because of fear. Doesn’t all of this sounds like terrorism and intimidation on a very large scale?

Americans fail to see that their country has taken a path that is viewed by many outside their country as similar to that of terrorist groups. For instance, the imprisonment of people that may or may not be terrorists in Guantanamo Bay violates the Constitution. According to the organization “Iraq Body Count,” the war in Iraq has taken over 75,000 civilian casualties.[1] Despite these indisputable violations of human rights, Americans act proud and frown down upon Muslims as if they are ignorant. Americans view their nation as a righteous one, and struggle to see why anybody could hate them.

The biggest problem is the inaction of the American people and politicians by making little attempt to understand the root of the conflict. It is as if this war between America and Islam started so long ago that nobody bothers to ask when and why it started. It is rare that an America leader proposes trying to understand why so many people hate America with such a passion. America must study its own actions in trying to understand the conflict.

The war in Iraq has taken far more innocent lives than terrorist attacks ever have. Do American politicians believe that killing more innocent people will stop all of the violence? Do they genuinely believe that turning a deaf ear to logical Muslim leaders and only focusing on killing the radicals will fix anything? Unfortunately, violence seems to be the only way that Muslim leaders can get the attention of American politicians and citizens alike. The cultural and political ramifications of terrorist attacks are much greater than the physical damage, for they can be seen across the country. America only seems to pay attention when something blows up or somebody dies. Nobody wants to hear about trying to understand Muslim culture as a means of pursuing peace. Terrorist organizations can only get their point across with violence. There are many different groups to blame when a terrorist attack happens. Although the American people are not entirely at fault, they should study their own nature as a means of understanding and in turn preventing attacks.

Conclusion

So what about the original question? If the pen fails because those with power refuse to listen, must one make them listen? Must one sacrifice the lives of the innocent people to amplify the message that one knows is right and knows will ultimately make the world better? Both Americans and people from the Middle East “know” as a fact that the other side is simply ignorant. The other side simply won’t listen to logic. Perhaps the mightiest weapon isn’t the pen. Perhaps it is the ability to read what the pen has to say. Maybe it is the ability to listen to others and learn from them. But until people on both sides learn to stop talking and actually listen, the sword will be seen as the only way. Until humans learn to listen, neither side will put the sword down, because each side believes it is holding the sword of god.

[1] Iraq Body Count. 2007. Iraq Body Count. Nov 4, 2007. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Read more!

The Fall of the Mixed-Grade Advisory

MADDY KIEFER ‘08

Most seniors remember the mixed grade advisories that were disbanded in September 2005. Upon our promotion to the upper school in 2004, we were put in advisories with upperclassmen, which, although daunting at first, was eventually an experience that many of us appreciated. Older students provided us with all sorts of advice for surviving high school, from choosing class to prioritizing our responsibilities. Mixed grade advisories gave us the chance to hear first-hand about the stress of junior year, the complicated college process that followed, and the ultimate decision of choosing which college to attend before we had to experience it ourselves. They weren’t trying to scare us, but, rather, to prepare us. When questioned about what it was like when multiple grades were represented in his advisory, Peter Gow, the Director of College Counseling, who has been working at Beaver for over twenty years, recalls, “I remember some great examples of good advice and important lore being passed down in those meetings from older students to younger ones.” He does believe, however, that “same-grade groups can be great ways for advisors to work together on issues related to grade-level concerns.”

A year later, however, few were happy to hear that new advisories were separated by grade. Toph Tucker, a senior who was in a mixed-grade advisory until last year, says, "I know that the administration worries that older students will intimidate freshmen or some such thing, but having some representation from higher grades was one of the best things about my advisory." Toph and I, who were both in Mr. Whitten’s advisory for three years, had such an amazing time in our mixed-grade advisory that we were furious that the incoming freshman didn’t get this opportunity. Instead, they were essentially being cut off. We knew that keeping all of the freshmen apart from upperclassmen was a mistake. The freshmen, however, considered themselves lucky. The idea of having to spend half an hour with the “big kids” every week wasn’t appealing, so there were no objections from them. When asked his opinion on being in an all freshmen advisory, Willy Tucker, Toph’s younger brother, states that he was “pretty happy” about being separated from the older students. As a reply to this comment, Toph remarks, “He just doesn’t know what he’s missing.”

One of the benefits of having older students in our advisory was that we were able to make friends in other grades and connect weekly. Mr. Gow recalls that he “certainly saw inter-grade friendships develop.” These days, the only interactions that most freshmen have with other grades are in extracurriculars, where they tend to isolate themselves and simply stay with the other students in their grade. By contrast, we could more easily branch out from the seventy or so people that we had class with every day and enjoy time spent with these other students. Since the end of the mixed-advisory era, there has been an increased separation between the grades. Hopefully this separation won’t reach the extreme that it has with the middle school. For a school that preaches a community without divisions, such separation in advisories is counter productive.

Currently, the only normally scheduled time that upper and middle school students are together is at All School Meeting once a week. Aside from that, upper schoolers occasionally visit the middle school wing to use the computer labs, but high school students are not even supposed to be in the first-floor middle school hallway. We are almost at the point where they might as well be two separate schools.

Although the Middle School is not involved in the current Upper School advisory problem, and although it hasn’t yet reached the tipping point, these issues are becoming a pattern at Beaver. It is important for the school to recognize the negative effects that these changes are having on the student body, and for it to make strides to correct them. The first two lines of Beaver’s school song read, “Stand we now to hail thee/Beaver, loyal and united,” but the unity of our school is at risk of deteriorating. If the school administration continues to make these choices to separate the grades even further, however, the only occasions that the grades at Beaver will mix will be in the hallways. If it reaches that point, our small school will seem all the more lonely, and our close-knit community as we know it today will cease to exist.
Read more!

Why Facebook will rule the world—and why it won’t

TOPH TUCKER ‘08

Facebook is one of those sites that changed the internet—and Beaver—forever. It’s not even four years old, and it has only been open to high schools for two years. Yet in that time, it has become ubiquitous. Once it may have looked like a fad, a lightweight site letting friends share messages and photos. Now it stands at the brink of total world domination. Sort of.

In mid-May, 2007, Facebook unveiled the Facebook Platform. In doing so, it took a giant leap forward in becoming a major force on the internet. Facebook was now a platform just like Windows or your cell phone. It wasn’t merely an online application; it was a stage upon which any developer could build something new and exciting. This may have gone unnoticed by many longtime members, but suddenly, Facebook was gaining incredible popularity with tech-savvy adults beyond the student sector. In that sense at least, it was no longer a Xanga or MySpace. It was a Google.

Facebook has long looked like a prime acquisition target for companies like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. It made headlines in March 2006 by supposedly turning down a $750 million offer. At the time, that seemed generous; after all, MySpace (which dwarfed Facebook in user count, and still does) had sold for just $580 million. Facebook was reportedly holding out for a ridiculous-sounding $2 billion.

Things have changed. YouTube sold in October 2006 for $1.65 billion; suddenly MySpace seemed like a steal. Acquisition rumors continued, but founder Mark Zuckerberg wanted to keep the company independent. Still, speculation that Microsoft or Google would buy at least part of Facebook reached a new high last month. Sure enough, on October 24, the AP reported that Microsoft had landed a deal to buy 1.6% percent… for $240 million. (The deal also lets Microsoft serve all Facebook advertising worldwide.) Don’t feel like doing the math? All right: that values Facebook at $15 billion.

(Where’s the benefit to Microsoft? Many analysts saw this as a desperate move meant to just keep Facebook away from Google at all costs; one headline read, “Facebook Takes the Microsoft Money And Runs.” More on that later.)

The Facebook Platform was just the beginning. Armed with more cash than you or I would know what to do with, Facebook now wants to know everything you do.

And now, we move it to highly speculative territory.

All About The Ads

Google, it is often said, is not a web services company. It is an advertising company. Search, Gmail, Maps—it’s all just a way to keep your eyes on their ads. Advertising is how they make money.

“Making money,” once a staple of the business world, has been a tricky thing for some new internet companies. One might call it downright unimportant. In today’s climate, you can build something cool and make millions, even with negligible revenue and no monetization plan. People start businesses in the hopes of just selling out to Google. For a while, Facebook looked like it could be one of those companies. No longer. The fact that Microsoft only scooped up 1.6% is just further proof of that.

So how will Facebook make money? No, those $1 gifts won’t do it. It all comes down to advertising. And while traditional banner ads (like what Facebook currently runs) are all well and good, Facebook isn’t satisfied. Like Google, they know they have the chance to be an advertising platform unlike any other.

The key to attracting advertisers is information. Tons and tons of information. Google brought to the table unprecedented amounts of information. They know what you search for, what emails you get, what maps you look at. They can target ads extremely well, and thus sell ad space for much more money. They also provide invaluable information about the ads themselves: if people click on them, who clicks on them, when people click on them.

Now think about Facebook. Suddenly Google’s data about you seem trivial. The amazing thing about Facebook is that it merges reality and the internet. On Facebook, you’re not ILoveYoda235. You’re Toph Tucker. On Facebook, you don’t interact with whatever random Canadian happens to stumble upon your latest lip-synching video on YouTube. You interact with your real friends, from the real world.

And you share enormous amounts of information. Location, age, events, thoughts, photos, videos, favorite movies, and so on. Amazon.com is another site with fantastic information about you. Their product recommendations are eerily relevant already. Now imagine if everything could be brought together. According to one article, that’s what Facebook wants to do: unite their own information about you with information from various partners. Best ad network ever? You bet… and chances are, Microsoft’s in on it. (Incidentally, these items could also show up on your News Feed, if you let them—e.g., “Toph Tucker bought Transformers DVD at Amazon.com.” There’s also a chance that the plan could involve some form of revenue sharing with users.)

Now, don’t get paranoid. Facebook does its best to be enormously respectful of privacy. Take a nice long look at the Privacy page some time. What other web site gives you that level of control? With great power comes great responsibility; Facebook seems to take that to heart. As long as you pay close attention to those settings, you can make as much or as little information public as you want. So don’t think about this from your perspective. Make that page your best friend and don’t worry. Just think about this from Facebook’s perspective.

Checkmate?

Google, for one, has certainly given this plenty of thought. They are rarely beaten, and the fact that Microsoft got the Facebook deal was quite a surprise. They’re no dummies; they don’t want to be outmaneuvered.

So, six days after Facebook’s big deal with Microsoft, Google fought back with “OpenSocial.” The gist of it, in the context of this article, was that a dozen or so players in the social-networking field were teaming up on Facebook by coming up with a standardized system for developing applications and sharing data. Then, on November 1, MySpace joined the party, along with two other guys you don’t care about. Popular technology news site TechCrunch declared ‘checkmate.’

Suddenly, in a matter of days, Facebook seems to have gone from tech darling to social networking pariah. Association with Microsoft tends not to help your reputation in the blogosphere, and having Google so obviously target you is often the nail in the coffin.

But Facebook is resilient. Whatever deals Google makes with MySpace, the fact of the matter is that Facebook is now very firmly entrenched. It’s much harder to switch away from it than it would be to switch away from, say, Google, because there’s no easy way to transfer all your friends, photos, applications, message history, and so on. (With Gmail, at least you could archive your mail and export your contact list.) Facebook has the momentum.

(It’s also worth noting that the first OpenSocial application was hacked within 45 minutes.)

—and why it won’t.

So will Facebook rule the world? Will it know everything you do, and use that to target advertising like never before? Does it have the opportunity to unseat Google and control the entire internet?

Well, no. Not really. It’s a significant player to be sure, and it is certainly a threat Google (and anyone else that gets in its way). But these sorts of companies come and go. The only way to see how it’ll pan out is to wait.

Amazon.com, Google, MySpace, YouTube, Facebook—they’re all huge (especially Google + YouTube). But none of them rules the world. Indeed, Facebook has a long way to go before it even reaches the Amazon.com/Google level. It’s easy to forget that MySpace is still significantly larger, with 107 million unique visitors in September, compared to Facebook’s 73.5 million. Facebook has been gaining quickly, but OpenSocial very well might reverse that trend.

The next few weeks will probably say a lot about where all this is going. Facebook is poised to announce their advertising plans as early as Tuesday. The OpenSocial initiative is only just getting started, and it’s possible that Facebook itself could join at some point. If one thing seems clear, it’s that no one is even close to checkmate.

Update: 2 Dec. 2007

Sure enough, on November 7, Facebook launched a number of new features that more or less amounted to what was expected. It launched new advertising tools (though the ads only run on facebook.com, and Microsoft is uninvolved) and "Facebook Beacon," which brings information from outside web sites into your News Feed. The features are taking a lot of heat--the ads for being cluttersome, and (even more so) Beacon for invading privacy.

Further reading:

TechCrunch
Facebook Takes the Microsoft Money And Runs.
Details Revealed: Google OpenSocial To Launch Thursday
Checkmate? MySpace, Bebo and SixApart To Join Google OpenSocial (confirmed)
First OpenSocial Application Hacked Within 45 Minutes
Facebook, Your Move
Facebook’s Social Ad Network: What We (Think We) Know So Far
Ok Here’s At Least Part Of What Facebook Is Announcing On Tuesday: Project Beacon

Other
Wikipedia: Facebook
AP: Microsoft Deal Values Facebook at $15B
allfacebook.com: Facebook Launching the Google Adsense Killer
Scobleizer: Back into the walled garden

Read more!

Editor’s note: Defining a Generation

DANIEL KATZ '08

We are a species that needs and wants to understand who we are. Sheep lice do not seem to share this longing, which is one reason why they write so little.
- Anne Lamott

In an op-ed piece from the May 26th issue of the Boston Globe, author and journalist Thomas Friedman attempted to define our generation of youth. He eventually referred to us as the “Quiet Americans.” I suppose the label itself seems a bit harsh, so he went on to clarify his thoughts: “They are young people who are quietly determined not to let this age…take away their hopes or steal the America they are about to inherit.” Yet, even after his explanation, I was left oddly bewildered. I suppose that I would never characterize our generation as passive.

The whole idea of defining a generation is often overdone. It is human nature to feel the need to put a label on every aspect of life, and organize it chronologically. When we locate something that may seem indefinable, meaning it does not fit into any of our predetermined manila folders, human nature forces us to identify it as either supernatural, misunderstood, or religious. The fact is that it is comforting to state an identity: despite how superficial and unauthentic labeling generations may be.

I have heard our generation branded in a handful of ways: from generation 9-11, to generation-X. Recently, I even heard it referred to as generation ADD, which makes more sense than I would have initially expected. However, the idea that our generation is “quiet” seems a bit out of line. Perhaps we are not parading in the streets, burning effigies and bras, but I believe that our voice as a collective youth is stronger than any generation before us. A simple search on the internet (arguably the most significant identification of the generation) proves how lively we truly are. Showing discontentment and civil disobedience has never been so simple, neither has sharing and promoting ideas. We are a generation of Americans defined by our redefinition of the norms. We are undoubtedly, and notably, open to new and innovative choices. We push the limit, and we disregard timidity. We crave additional knowledge. Considering the record size of America’s graduating high school class, I believe we have come to view education as the gateway to progression. It is becoming more and more the norm to move on to a higher education after high school, which logically results in a brighter and more knowledgeable generation. But quiet? No, we are not quiet.

When walking through the halls of this school, it is clear just how loud we truly are. We all have opinions on how this school, and every aspect of this world, is run and we are not afraid to allow our voices to peak through the cracks. While all of the opinions may not be productive, it is important to open our minds to every angle of a subject. Perhaps there is a point to the entire ADD generation philosophy. We get tired and bored by systems and robotic protocols almost instantly, and we struggle to pursue positive progression because of our restless nature. Our hands shake at the sight of a policy we choose not to comply with, and we act – often in a collective force of some sort. A teacher of mine recently stated that her only complaint here at Beaver was that the students do not take assignments and grades passively and quietly; instead, Beaver students question the authority of the teachers, and choose to argue in order to attain academic satisfaction. She seemed discouraged by the characteristic. I was proud, and I still am proud of the ideas our student body promotes, and the actions that result.

It is because of that very pride and recognition of the potential of our student body that I take great pleasure in introducing you to the new Beaver newspaper. Together with Co-Editor in Chief Jessica Penzias, I am proud to dispatch to the Beaver community a safe and effective medium for expressing discontentment and debating issues. If something bothers you, write an editorial about it. If something interests you, convince us why we should care at all. This is your chance to have a voice, and acknowledge the voices of your fellow peers. Take the initiative to show just how loud and insightful you can be. Inspire, and allow yourself be inspired. Respond to other student’s opinions, and learn from other student’s experiences. Complain if you feel the need, but explain to us why the matter is worth whining about. Embrace this new addition to the Beaver community. Define your own generation.

Welcome to The Beaver Reader: Student run, student written, and student fueled.

Quiet generation? We’ll just have to see about that.

Daniel Katz
Co-Editor in Chief
Read more!

On Torture

JESSICA PENZIAS '08

In America, all people are entitled to human rights and basic protection under the law no matter what their beliefs. Torture is inhumane and unethical. Torture compromises not only the human rights of the person being tortured but also the foundation of our legal system. An American who is empowered to pursue justice should abide by the high standards he is working to protect. By torturing another human being, he is lowering himself to inhumane standards. He is degrading himself, and as an American, he is degrading American integrity as well.

The United States is fighting a war on terror. Therefore, our country needs to clearly define its position against the terror and fear instigated by torture. As a prosperous nation, the United States serves as a role model to other nations. Outside nations follow our example. If we want to continue to be a role model, we must avoid torture at all costs and in doing so, not only set a moral precedent for the rest of the world but also protect our own troops. We should not subject anyone from any country to torture if we, in turn, do not want our troops to be treated brutally and to be stripped of their human rights. Currently, our troops are overseas. Our country would be devastated if our own soldiers were subjected to electric shocks or other popular forms of torture. We must safeguard our moral values in order to safeguard our country.

We can try to gain information ethically using informants. However, in Trevor Paglan’s Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA’s Rendition Flights, Paglan discusses the fact that because of our efforts to gain information through torture, we have a harder time gaining voluntary information through informants. Informants do not want to fight for a hypocritical country that condones torture and fights terror at the same time. By defining and keeping an unwavering stance against the degradation of human rights we will clarify our position in the world and set a precise example for other nations.

Despite my personal beliefs, I do understand and respect the rational argument to torture a person when innocent lives are at stake. However, one must ask, where do you draw the line? Indeed, it is clear that torture might prove beneficial in a limited number of situations. However, torture is not always a rational solution. For instance, torture is not humane when it is used to acquire information from a person after a crime is committed. In this situation, we are neglecting the process of a fair trial and also using torture as a means to punish a criminal. If America allowed the use of torture for limited ethical cases, how can we place necessary restrictions on the law? What situation truly warrants torture? In Michael Levin’s essay promoting torture entitled, “The Case for Torture,” he writes about many hypothetical situations that would cause torture to be acceptable. While I agree that these imaginary situations would warrant torture if they came to pass, who would authorize this torture?

When reading an editorial from The Economist, I was intrigued by the idea of “torture warrants.” Many people who condone torture believe that it would be effective for warrants to be given to certain people in restricted situations in which torture is deemed necessary. But what constitutes a moral case in which torture is acceptable? Where could the authority figures who are handing out these “torture warrants” draw the line? If these warrants are only requested in situations where human lives are in jeopardy, who has the right to decided when one life is more important than another? Furthermore, after the time it takes for a warrant to be issued, would the innocent victims still be alive? While Levin’s cases are valid, I question whether or not he truly examined the situations he proposed to their full extent. Later in his essay, Michael Levin draws his own line by writing, “torture only the obviously guilty, and only for the sake of saving innocents, and the line between Us and Them will remain clear.” One must question how one would determine who the “obviously guilty” are. In the hypothetically dire situations he describes, there is no time to pursue a fair trial in the American court system that we, as a nation, pride ourselves on. In America, we say, “Innocent until proven guilty.” When protecting our country from dangerous terrorists it is important to also protect these core values. For these reasons, it is clear that condoning torture in America, outright or with limitations, is an irrational and poorly developed idea.

Another important idea that I would like to present is this: torture does not always provide correct information. Putting human beings through excruciating pain, we are liable to obtain false information. There have been situations when the United States has had guilty people in custody who, under torture, provided incorrect information. A situation such as this, arouse before the current war on terror. In Torture Taxi, Paglen mentions a circumstance when a person being tortured corroborated the fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This assertion helped instigate a war, even though the information was false. Similarly, when torturing a member of Al Qaeda, the United States gained false information that Saddam Hussein was helping Al Qaeda. Colin Powell then addressed the United Nations with this incorrect information. In cases like these, torture once again proved ineffective and it even created new problems for our country.

America is a country founded upon strong moral values. It is important for us to abide by our morals by refusing to torture other human beings Doing so only degrades both them and ourselves. We must continue to set a high standard for the rest of the world and live by our unwavering values. Torture cannot be condoned without jeopardizing our nation’s values and national well-being. By outlawing torture, we are simultaneously protecting the innocent and asserting our values.

------------
Image from: http://www.whitehouse.org/
Read more!

Submit an Editorial

This section of the newspaper is all about opinions. We on the staff have many of our own, but we'd also like to hear from you! Teachers and students alike are welcome to submit--just contact one of the editors, Jessica Penzias '08 or Dan Katz '08. Write about a school issue, a world issue, or whatever strikes your fancy. It could end up right here!
Read more!