US Media vs. Others

During the late 1700s and into the early years of the United States the media took a very active role to ensure the elimination of tyranny. Media outlets performed this task by calling out certain groups and raising support for US based interest through the opinions of all. The media also published facts, either direct quotes from important politicians or excerpts from articles and books. The culmination of all of these sources and facts allowed Americans to be well informed and have an understanding of the policies of the United States, policies of other nations and policies of political figures. Over the past few decades the media has adapted itself as a tool of government, more specifically a tool of the Executive Branch, and a tool of industry by shifting towards the raising support for US based interests and detached itself from objectivity and fact-reporting. The media has done this through selection of the stories they cover and spins they decide to put on these stories due to the responsibility put on journalists by higher level officials and industrial leaders who own the media outlets. Evidence of this is clear as with the coverage of presidential candidates; the media focuses on the laugh of Hilary Clinton to attack her character and say that she will therefore be a bad president and also with the attack on Howard Dean's yell and attacking his character stating that he has mental problems. Although the active media of the US has been a good thing in the past, its new roles and coverage it provides has severely impacted the perception of Americans. And I was wondering if other nations have similar problems with their media or does US media shy away from this issue so as to eliminate the possibility of being uncovered themselves?

Democracy or Dictatorship: The Current American System of Government

With the reading for class about the "Media Control" and past investigation into the media and it's bias, it appears evident that our nation is headed toward a dictatorial form of government.

The Chomsky and Parenti articles on Third World Traveler present information that the government uses the media as an outlet to portray what the government wants the American people to know. The government's influence over the media causes a bias and, consequently, the media has resorted to covering topics that portray certain heads of state of other nations in ways that directly correlate with administration views and the media distracts the public from central questions, such as what is our exit plan from Iraq and why does the Bush Administration want blanket protection for communication giants who were involved in illegal unwarranted wire tapping, and turns focus towards different things. This control over the media has created a biased opinion to a body that prides itself on objectivity and presenting the truth.

To begin on another point about the media, I have completed previous research about the media as a possible Fourth Branch of government and now after years of not thinking about the subject, I do not think this to be a plausible; instead, the media has become part of the Executive Branch of government. This is evident through media coverage of the Bay of Pigs invasion, Saddam Hussein's global perception and the invasion of Panama. In each of these cases selected facts were taken in addition to administration policy and made into a story that would convince Americans that the administration's view was correct or that it was only a minor setback in the overall goal that government X should be overthrown. This disinformation that the media presents to the public creates a misrepresentation of what certain political parties of other nations or revolutionary groups of other nations and creates a view of these people that the government wants the people to have. With these facts, it seems that the US is headed towards a dictatorial form of government because the Executive Branch has disregarded its role and become a shaper of public opinion as well as a war monger because of its total disregard for Constitutional principles such as the power to go to war falls under the control of the Congress. I fear that without the publication of more articles detailing the media bias and without a general concern and awakening by the public the nation will revert back to pre-Revolutionary times, under the control of a tyrannical force.

Relation Between Naivety and Propaganda

In the documentary film, The Faces of the Enemy, Keen studies the propaganda from different nations around the world and finds that before a physical war happens, "we think each other to death." This means that political propaganda and other sorts of art that stir controversy are created and used to make the enemy into some sort of beast that will become permissible to exterminate. In almost all of the propaganda seen in the documentary several key images arise, that of exaggerated political figure, animals and demons, which are meant to symbolize the overpowering terror created by the enemy over the world. From this type of art comes hatred and enmity that force countries into war because they see other nations as beast or oppressors of the world that must be exterminated.

Although this is still present in today's society, such as the cartoon a couple years ago of Muhammad with a nuclear bomb from a Swiss paper I believe, I think that over the years Americans and the global community has become less naive. As seen in the documentary people of the World War II era and Cold War era disliked the Japanese and USSR respectively because of the pictures propagandists created. As cited in The Faces of the Enemy, when asked to describe communism most people could not tell you what it meant or stood for, they simply despise it because they were told it was a bad thing. However, over the past decade or so the world has become smaller due to great advances in technology, especially the computer as with e-mail and AIM, and this has created a tighter knit global community and a global community that accepts differences more than previous generations. From this communication and learned understanding of others, society has become less naive and realized that not everything governments say or portray is correct. Before people would simply condemn an entire race because the government said they presented a threat to a nation, but now society looks at this advice with a skeptical eye and considers the options and their consequences. So, although there are vast problems with foreign relations today, especially in America, the global society has become less naive and thus created a community that can function to its potential as far as decision making and has learned to keep a skeptical eye towards government, which is a definite change for the better.

Weasel Words and Political Agendas

The use of "weasel words," or words that are open to some fluctuation in definition, have become a staple of politicians and have become more prevalent over the past few years. This post arises because of the definition of torture that has come under intense study by the Bush Administration. The definition of torture on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Torture contains the weasel words, "extreme physical suffering," and "substantial curtailment." The specific words extreme and substantial are relative and are given no solidified form in the discussion of torture. From this point, the Bush Administration has chosen to redefine torture to include anything short of any action that will cause organ failure or death. As discussed in class, this opens the door to just about any type of torture because there are many other physical pains or mental pains that a person can be subject to without organ failure or death. While the Bush Administration is working around the Geneva Convention principles that no one will torture, I think that US politicians and especially the Bush Administration must be held accountable for their actions. The only solution to this ethical dilemma the Bush Administration has put the American people is to make an appeal to the United Nations and Geneva Convention participants as well as taking direct action to demand change from the government. If these changes do not occur I fear that the moral standards the United States has worked towards will be all for not because of the dire results of torturing.

Torture: A Few Thoughts

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Torture" states that torture is:

"(a) the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some
non-consenting, defenceless person; (b) the intentional, substantial
curtailment of the exercise of the person's autonomy; and (c) in
general, undertaken for the purpose of breaking the victim's will."

(This definition of torture encompasses many aspects of what we now know as torture, but its sometimes limiting aspects will be ignored for this discussion.)

As stated in the article on torture on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and as most logical people will agree, torture is morally wrong and should not be permitted as a legitimate form of reconnaissance. The basis of the immorality of torture is based on the infliction of pain on another human being, the loss of autonomy, one of the most essential ethical rights of each human being, and the breaking of a person's will, which can leave permanent physical of psychological ailments that will influence the person's standard of living or quality of life in their post torture world. Despite the strong moral grounds that state that torture is immoral the practice still continues, but for what reasons can it be legitimate?

Despite the strong immoral territory that encompasses torture, it can be a legitimate option in some instances. In such cases as the "ticking bomb" scenario where a bomb has been planted and the police, who captured an accomplice in the crime, believe it to be their only option to use torture and believe torture will result in valuable information being gained to avoid detonation of the bomb. In such a case information must be known and criteria must be met in order for some moral justification to occur; the police must know (1) that the person going to be tortured has the information needed, that no other person has any information, and that the person going to be tortured is actually that person, (2) the information that the person knows puts them into guilt, (3) factual details of the situation such as there actually is a bomb, the number of people going to be effected as a result, etc. and (4) what torture consists of and if it will be a viable method in this situation. This information stated that must be known is not all encompassing by any means, but is a general criteria that I feel must be met in order for some moral justification to be made about torture in this instance. From this example we must recognize that these instances are few and far between and, by no means, should be used as support for legalizing torture. And while this information can be critical to saving thousands of lives, does it provide legitimate end to a very gray area of a heated ethical debate?

A few people will use this information about the "ticking bomb" scenario and try to make torture a legal action in times of war and in our country because we are affected by terrorism everyday. However, if this were going to become true, I think there would be a magnificent snowball effect that would ultimately undermine an sense of civility that we have tried to establish in the world today. Firstly, the legalization of torture in our country would send a message to the world that it is all right to torture because the leader of the world, the United States, says it is morally justified through the law. This would then create problems with the balance of power of our executive branch and the United States police forces because people would be able to be picked up and tortured just because they might have information in a case, which would seriously undermine the liberties prescribed by the Founding Fathers. Additionally, if we torture our prisoners of war this will provide for the door to open for our own soldiers to be tortured and that is certainly a result not desired by United States citizens or global citizens. Finally, if we were to legalize torture we would simply be reverting back to medieval times of violence and all progress made towards civility and the attainment of unalienable rights for all would be for not.

Despite the aforementioned reasons against torture I am by no means implying the absolutist view of torture, that it is wrong in all instances no matter what. I believe an absolutists view would be just as terrible as the legalization of torture because like laws and regulations, there is a gray area to morality. For instance, most people would agree that killing another human being would be wrong, however, the gray area arises in cases of self defense. Like this instance of murder, torture can be an effective means of preventing a catastrophe in such cases as the "ticking bomb scenario" if it is a last resort. So, while some cases of torture can be permitted, the actions of the United States to change the definition of torture so that the military officials can essentially "torture" people at Guantanamo and other containment areas will be taking a step in the negative direction of civil liberties and has severe consequences, as mentioned above.

Discrimination: A Hypothetical Situation

The theory of jus in bello and it's principle of discrimination are meant to limit the violence to a specific group, combatants, but what would happen if noncombatants were impeding combatants on their war path?

For one example of this I can cite the fear that the United States' strategists faced that Saddam Hussein could stockpile civilians in military bases to eliminate the possibility of a bombing. The question then arises, should we kill the civilians who are forced to hide inside a base that holds a large majority of an enemies stock hold? From here an examination needs to be made by military and civilian leaders of the attacking nation about the threat that the aforementioned stock hold possesses. If the destruction of this stock hold would severely impair the opposition and create a quicker end to war would it be ethical to kill those civilians quarantined inside with the weapons and/or supplies? I think that a great source of information on the target with civilians inside should be studied, but there could be an ethical way to kill those civilians. The only possible way for the death of the civilians to occur is if it is found that the destruction of the stock hold, and consequently the civilians, would provide an almost immediate end to the fighting. This is the only case I can think of that would permit the killing of innocents other than the innocents voluntarily become combatants.

The United States' Diplomatic Dilemma

In class today we briefly touched upon the sixth principle of jus ad bellem, war is the last resort after all diplomatic solutions are exhausted, and we also mentioned how the United States did not exhaust this avenue during World War II because the leadership "did not talk to or associate with evil." This was very true for the first portion of the war, when the world powers had the ability to place economic and other types of sanctions on Germany. Thus, the German superpower would have to rely on itself for its materials and therefore would not be able to flourish as it had. One such sanction could have been on a restriction to sell oil and gasoline to Germany because their armed forces heavily relied on these things to be mobile. However, this is a little off topic because I think that there was a point very soon after the war had begun when the diplomatic solutions no longer mattered and that point was when the world discovered the killing of millions of Jews, Polish, etc. by Nazi Germany. Once Germany decided to kill people by the millions in the concentration camps is when Hitler gave up his rights to diplomacy because the United States and other global powers had the right to protect those millions of people being slaughtered. From an ethical standpoint, this act of self defense for all humanity greatly outweighs the need for diplomacy because people's life and liberty, two extremely important ethical claims, were being stampeded. Therefore, I think that too much diplomacy occurred during World War II on the side of the United States and the neutrality principles practiced by the United States were unethical based on the ongoing suffering of millions in Hitler's concentration camps.

Child Warriors

The subsection of Just War theory, Jus in Bello, describes a need for discrimination and proportionality. I will focus on discrimination, which is the need to discriminate from combatants and innocent civilians as far as who is justifiable to be killed. This poses an interesting question especially valid to combatants in Africa, is it morally justified to kill child warriors who were raised and taught to fight by manipulative adults? On one hand there is the literal interpretation of the ethical claim and, thus, these armed combatants with intent to harm other combatants are fair game. However, these children have been raised in a military environment and have known no other way of life, so ethics would not subject these children to be killed because they are simply a tool of the monstrosities occurring in warring nations. I personally believe in the second of the aforementioned interpretations, but cannot condemn a soldier if he kills a child with a gun pointed to his/her head or if a child is shooting at a soldier because that would become a matter of self-defense, which is of course morally justified.

I'm curious to what others think. Please post comments as to your beliefs on the matter.

Mistreatment of Proper Authority

The concept of proper authority is becoming an increasingly vague line. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry suggests that proper authority "resides in the sovereign power of the state." To me, this is a very broad category ranging from government officials to the President to the Congress to the people as a whole and there is no definite notion on who this statement entails. With a foreseeable struggle of power the founding fathers created a clause in the Constitution that states, in order for the United States to engage in military conflict the Congress must first pass a declaration of war. As we all know the presidents of the past half century have taken it upon themselves to do as they see fit with the United States military, ranging from conflicts in Vietnam to today's present occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This hijacking of authority by the president should be condemned by Congress and the people of the United States, but instead we continue to fight conflicts with falsified targets and objectives. This action is not only unethical in practice, but jeopardizes the balance of power in the United States. Thus, I believe the people of the United States should demand a return to the principles of Jus ad Bellem, more specifically the declaration of war by a proper authority, by holding presidents accountable for their serious, unethical mockery of just war principles.

Jus in Bello: Means Must be Proportional to Ends

In the article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Just War Theory, it states, "In fighting a just war in which only military targets are attacked, it is still possible to breach morality by employing disproportionate force against an enemy." This claim states that no military force disproportionate to another should be used to it's capacity. That doesn't make sense to me because the point of war is to defeat the enemy and without using all available man power the stronger nation inhibits it's ability to win. The ancient Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu claims in The Art of War, a compilation of his principles of war, that a nation should not enter a battle unless victory can be possible. With this in mind, why should a nation not use all of its forces? Is it the violence the force could inflict upon the enemy? If that is the case, then could a strong ethical foundation within a military organization justify the use of unlimited soldiers?