Ebola Virus Symptoms and Diagnosis Methods

Ebola Virus Symptoms and Diagnosis Methods 1.1 Introduction to Ebola Virus Ebola virus is a combative pathogen that causes a fatal hemorrhagic fever syndrome in humans and animals, which was first identified near the Ebola River Valley in Zaire, Africa, in 1976 (Sullivan, Yang and Nabel, 2003). The Marburg virus and the Ebola virus formed the family Filoviridae (Peters, 2005). The outbreak of Ebola fever in 2014 is in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone which has affected the entire country; also in Kayes- Mali; Madrid-Spain; Dallas, Texas, New York City- United States without wide spread transmission and countries with no current transmission are Nigeria and Senegal (Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, 2014c). The general mortality rate of Ebola hemorrhagic fever is 57% 90% (McElory et al., 2014). Mortality rate in pregnant women is 95.5%, which is not outstanding the overall death toll (Mupapa et al., 1999). The number of cases reported in multiple countries are as follows 1976- 603, 1995-315 and in 2014(March)-5481 (Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, 2014c). The virus is transmitted through direct physical contact (WHO, 2014). Ebola fever remains an epidemic for the people of equatorial Africa, with an increase in the cases of outbreak since 2000 (Feldman and Geisbert, 2010). History of Ebola Virus The illness caused by a negative stranded RNA virus is known as Ebola hemorrhagic fever (Pourrut et al., 2005). It is an acute and serious illness and can be fatal if untreated (WHO, 2014). The Ebola virus is aboriginal to East Africa and belongs to the Filoviridae family (Chippaux, 2014) .Ebola virus disease first appeared in Nzara, Sudan and in Yumbuku, Democratic Republic of Congo, simultaneously (WHO, 2014). It was in the year 1976 and the disease got its name because it occurred in a village near the Ebola River (WHO, 2014). Since the time of outbreak of the disease, the mortality rates ranges from 50% to 90% in Africa (Sullivan, Yang, Nabel, 2003). The first outbreak in Sudan caused infection to over 284 people, with a mortality rate of 53% (Waterman, 1999). Figure 1: illustrates the historical view of the outbreak (Pourrut et al., 2005). Figure 1: Human EBOV outbreaks in Africa (Pourrut et al., 2005). Throughout 1994 to 1996, not less than five individualistic active sites of Ebola virus transmission were recognised: Cote d’lovire in 1994, Democratic Republic of Congo in 1995 and Gabbon in 1994, 1995, 1996 and furthermore the sites were found in or near tropical forests (Peters and Peters, 1999). The 2014 Ebola outbreak is the first outbreak in West Africa and the largest outbreak in the history of the disease, with a total case count rate of 6263 and a total death of 2917 ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014d). The first human case to be diagnosed in Africa was a female Swiss entomologist who became ill few days later, autopsying a chimpanzee dead in Tai National Park, situated in the ivory coast and this took place during the period of 1994 (Pourrut et al., 2005). Characteristics of Ebola Virus The Ebola virus is a thread like, single stranded RNA virus with an uncommon, inconstant length and a branched histology (Paustain, 2013). When Ebola virus nucleoprotein (NP) enters mammalian cells it congregates into helical structures (Noda et al., 2010). The nucleoprotein which is a recombinant is correlated with non-viral RNA (Noda et al., 2010). The complete set of genes or genetic material present in the Ebola is 19 kb long and has seven reading frames (Sullivan, Yang and Nabel, 2003).The frames conceal structural proteins including the virioa envelope glycoprotein (GP), nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix proteins VP24 and VP40 and also non structural proteins, including VP30 and VP35 and the viral polymerase (Sullivan, Yang and Nabel, 2003). A soluble 60 to 70-K Da protein (s GP) and a full- length 150 to 70 K Da protein (GP) are two genes produced by the open reading frame of the Ebola virus and these proteins insert into the viral membrane through transcriptional editing (Sulliva n, Yang and Nabel, 2003). Figure 2: demonstrates the crystal structure of the Ebola virus. Figure 2: The crystal structure of an Ebola virus GP which reveals a three lobed chalice like structure. The three GP1 subunits mediate attachment to new host cells and are tethered together by the three GP2 subunits (Lee et al., 2008). Immunohistochemistry and Electron microscopic analysis revealed that endothelial cells, mononuclear phagocytes and hepatocytes are major targets of infection (Zaki et al., 1999) .The virus is carried by animals and is transmitted to humans, this spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission (WHO, 2014). Handling of ill or dead chimpanzees can also be a cause for the transmission of the virus, among humans Ebola can be transmitted by contact with infected bodily fluids, blood secretions or tissues (Jaax et al., 1995). Symptoms of Ebola Virus Disease When the Ebola virus enters the mammalian cells and infects a person, symptoms start to show between 2 to 21 days, or usually appear after 5 to 7 days after infection (NHS Choices, 2014). It begins with a fever accompanied by severe headache, joint pains, muscle pain, sore throat, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, chills, low back pain and fatigue (National Library of Medicine, 2013). These symptoms are shown between the incubation period of the virus (National Library of Medicine, 2013). Unfortunately, primary symptoms of Ebola virus disease are nonspecific (Willey, 2014). Patients may develop other serious symptoms, as the disease progress and signs such as eye redness, rash, hiccups, cough, chest pain, internal and external body bleeding (for example: mucosal surfaces) and difficulty in breathing and swallowing (Willey, 2014). There can also be signs and symptoms of coma, disseminated intravascular coagulation and shock (National Library of Medicine, 2013). Diagnosis Methods for Ebola Virus Disease The infection, caused by Ebola in the out breaks are confirmed by diverse laboratory diagnostic methods (Saijo, et al., 2006). The Ebola fever is difficult to be diagnosed, as the early symptoms and signs are similar to other diseases such as typhoid and malaria, but if the doctor suspects they use blood samples to identify the virus, including Enzyme- linked immune sorbent assay (ELISA) and Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Mayo clinic, 2014). Currently only the geographic origin of the specimen may give some identification as to recognize the virus involved (Pattyn, 2014). Laboratory tests used in diagnosis include virus isolation which is done within few days after the symptoms begin, later in the disease course or after recovery the test of antibodies IgM and IgG is done and retrospectively in decreased patient’s immunohistochemistry, PCR and virus isolation are performed (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014a). Ebola virus is classified as Risk Group 4 which needs safety methods of diagnosis (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2014). Blood specimens are generally used to distinguish specific antigens or genes of the virus (Pozos, 2014). One of the methods used to detect Ebola is through Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and in this method some doubted Ebola virus undergoes replication and the results are analyzed using electrophoresis (Pozos, 2014).Test done to diagnose the fever also include liver function test, test of how well the blood clots and C.B.C (The New York Times, 2014). Treatment Methods for Ebola Virus Disease Ebola virus fever has no known cure and antiviral medicines do not work well against the disease (The New York Times, 2014). Brincidofovir, the modified version of the drug Cidofovir inhabits replication of DNA viruses and this drug is used to treat Ebola patients (Rancaniello, 2014). In most cases the patient is hospitalized and will ostensibly need intensive care (The New York Times, 2014). The treatment given for a patient deteriorating from shock includes medication and fluids given intravenously (Pozo, 2014). The chance of survival can be significantly improved if the following basic involvements are used at the start: providing intravenous fluids and balancing body salts, maintaining the oxygen levels and treating other infections if they occur (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014b). An experimental treatment, known as ZMapp which is a combination of three antibodies can be tried, even though it has not yet been experimented on humans for effectiveness (NHS Choices, 2014). If they have bleeding problems he or she might require transfusion of platelets or blood (National Library of Medicine, 2013). Oxygen therapies and pain medications can be given to ease the pain (Kivi, 2012). Supportive treatment methods for Ebola Virus Disease also include medications to control fever, help the blood clot, to control blood pressure and antibiotics to prevent secondary infections from bacteria (Clinaero, 2014). Conclusion The deadly Ebola virus is killing thousands of naive people worldwide. No known successful treatment is found for cure. Filoviruses, Arenaviruses, Flaviruses and Bunyaviruses are the viruses responsible for causing viral hemorrhagic fever including Ebola which starts from mild symptoms to death. The Ebola virus spreads through the blood and replicates in organs including the liver, lymphatic organs kidneys ovaries and testes .Prevention is only option for the moment. First step of prevention is the spread of knowledge worldwide about the Ebola virus and its efficiency. In order to eradicate the disease the chain of infection can be identified and comprehended as well as further research can be conducted and a particular medicine can be found to cure the disease. Isolating the patient, practice of cautious hygiene and avoiding coming in contact with body fluids can reduce the spread of the disease. In conclusion, one has seen the facts of Ebola hemorrhagic fever as dreadful and grueso me as they are, but instead a more comprehensive approach is required which must include a global perspective and improved healthcare acquired from socioeconomic betterment is vital, which would protect the individual as well as those around the world. Reference List Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014a). Diagnosis of Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever CDC. [Online] Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/diagnosis/index.html (Accessed: 10 October 2014). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014b). Treatment of Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever CDC. [Online] Cdc.gov. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/treatment/index.html (Accessed: 10 October 2014). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014c). Outbreaks Chronology: Ebola Virus Disease CDC. [Online] Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/history/chronology.html (Accessed: 1 November 2014). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014d). Ebola Outbreak in West Africa,CDC [Online] Cdc.gov. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/index.htmL (Accessed: 1 November 2014). Clinaero, I. (2014). Ebola Treatment. [Online] ‘Health Information Brought To Life’. Available at: http://ebola.emedtv.com/ebola/ebola-treatment.html (Accessed: 10 October 2014). Chippaux, J. (2014). ‘Outbreaks of Ebola virus disease in Africa: the beginnings of a tragic saga’. Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Disease, 20(1), p.44. [Online] DOI: 10.1186/1678-9199-20-44 (Accessed: 11 October 2014). Feldmann, H. and Geisbert, T. (2011). ‘Ebola hemorrhagic fever’. The Lancet, 377(9768), pp.849-862. [Online] DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60667-8 (Accessed: 1 November 2014) Fernando, M. (2014). ‘No Sri Lankan infected by Ebola in West Africa Ambassador Ratnapala’. [Online] Sundayobserver.lk. Available at: http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2014/08/17/fea05.asp (Accessed: 1 November 2014). 2014). Jaax, N., Jahrling, P., Geisbert, T., Geisbert, J., Steele, K., McKee, K., Nagley, D., Johnson, E., Jaax, G. and Peters, C. (1995). ‘Transmission of Ebola virus (Zaire strain) to uninfected control monkeys in a biocontainment laboratory’. The Lancet, 346(8991-8992), pp.1669-1671. [Online] DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92841-3 (Accessed: 11 October 2014). Kivi, R. (2014). ‘Ebola virus and disease’ [Online] Available at: http://www.healthline.com/health/ebola-hemorrhagic-fever#Overview (Accessed: 10 October 2014). Mayo Clinic. (2014). ‘Ebola virus and Marburg virus Tests and diagnosis Diseases and Conditions’. [Online] Available at: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ebola-virus/basics/tests-diagnosis/con-20031241 (Accessed: 10 October 2014). McElroy, A., Erickson, B., Flietstra, T., Rollin, P., Nichol, S., Towner, J. and Spiropoulou, C. (2014). ‘Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever: Novel Biomarker Correlates of Clinical Outcome’. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 210(4), pp.558-566. [Online] DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiu088 (Accessed: 1 November 2014). Mupapa, K., Mukundu, W., Bwaka, M., Kipasa, M., De Roo, A., Kuvula, K., Kibadi, K., Massamba, M., Ndaberey, D., Colebunders, R. and Muyembeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ Tamfum, J. (1999). ‘Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever and Pregnancy’. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 179(1), pp.S11-S12. [Online] DOI: 10.1086/514289 (Accessed: 1 November 2014). National Health Service. (2014). ‘Ebola virus disease NHS Choices’. [Online] Available at: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ebola-virus/pages/ebola-virus.aspx(Accessed: 10 October 2014). National Library of Medicine. (2014). ‘Ebola hemorrhagic fever’. [Online] Available at: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001339.htm (Accessed: 10 October 2014). Noda, T., Hagiwara, K., Sagara, H. and Kawaoka,Y. (2010. ‘Characterization of the ebola virus nucleoprotein-RNA complex’. Journal of General Virology, 91(6), pp.1478-1483. [Online] DOI: 10.1099/vir.0.019794-0 (Accessed: 11 October 2014). Pattyn, S. R. (2014). ‘Ebola Virus Hemorrhagic Fever’. [Online] Available at: http://www.itg.be/internet/ebola/ebola-20.htm (Accessed: 10 October 2014). Paustian, (2014). ‘Ebola is a filamentous virus with a single-stranded RNA genome’. The Microbial World: A look at all things small. [Online] Microbiologytext.com. Available at: http://www.microbiologytext.com/index.php?module=Bookfunc=displayarticleart_id=494 (Access: 11 October 2014). Peters, C. (2005). ‘Marburg and Ebola — Arming Ourselves against the Deadly Filoviruses’. New England Journal of Medicine, 352(25), pp.2571-257. [Online] DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp058109 (Accessed: 1 November.2014). Peters, C. J. and Peters, J.W. (1999) ‘An introduction to ebola: the virus and the disease’, Journal of Ebola, (1999)179, pp. ix-xvi. [Online] DOI: 10.1086/514322 (Accessed: 13 September 2014). Pozos, J. (2014). ‘Ebola’. [Online] Austincc.edu. Available at: http://www.austincc.edu/microbio/2704w/ev.htm (Accessed: 10 October 2014). Public Health Agency of Canada, (2014). Ebola virus Pathogen Safety Data Sheets. [Online] Available at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote1 (Accessed: 10 October 2014). Pourrut, X., Kumulungui, B., Wittmann, T., Moussavou, G., Dà ©licat, A., Yaba, P., Nkoghe, D., Gonzalez, J. and Leroy, E. (2005). ‘The natural history of ebola virus in Africa; Microbes and Infection, 7(7-8), pp.1005-1014. [Online] DOI: 10.1016/j.micinf.2005.04.006 (Accessed: 11 October 2014). Rancaniello, V. (2014). ‘About Viruses and Viral Diseases’. Virology. Available at: http://www.virology.ws/ (Accessed: 11 October 2014). Saijo, M., Niikura, M., Ikegami, T., Kurane, I., Kurata, T. and Morikawa, S. (2006). ‘Laboratory Diagnostic Systems for Ebola and Marburg Hemorrhagic Fevers Developed with Recombinant Proteins’. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, [Online] 13(4), pp.444-451. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/cvi.13.4.444-451.2006 (Accessed: 10 October 2014). Sullivan, N., Yang, Z. and Nabel, G.J. (2003). ‘Ebola virus pathogenesis: implications for vaccines and therapies’. Journal of Virology, (2003) [Online] 77(18), pp.9733-9737. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jvi.77.18.9733-9737.2003 (Accessed: 2 November 2014). The New York Times, (2014). ‘Ebola hemorrhagic fever’. [Online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/health/ guides/disease/ebola-hemorrhagic-fever/overview.htmL (Accessed: 10 October 2014). Waterman, T. (1999). ‘Brief general history of ebola’. [Online] Web.stanford.edu. Available at: https://web.stanford.edu/group/virus/filo/history.html (Accessed: 11 October 2014). Willey, J. (2014). Ebola Virus: Facts on Symptoms and the Latest Outbreak. [Online] Medicinenet.com. Available at: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/mobileart.asp?articlekey=160898page=6 (Accessed: 10 October 2014). World Health Organization (2014). ‘Ebola virus disease’. [Online] WHO Fact Sheet. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/ (Accessed: 11 October 2014). Zaki, S., Shieh, W., Greer, P., Goldsmith, C., Ferebee, T., Katshitshi, J., Tshioko, F., Bwaka, M., Swanepoel, R., Calain, P., Khan, A., Lloyd, E., Rollin, P., Ksiazek, T. and Peters, C. (1999). ‘A Novel Immunohistochemical Assay for the Detection of Ebola Virus in Skin: Implications for Diagnosis, Spread, and Surveillance of Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever’. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 179(s1), pp.S36-S47. [Online] DOI: 10.1086/514319. (Accessed: 11 October 2014). 1

Philosophy: The Power of Ideas Essay

 · Is it more common for people to make decisions regarding religion based on reason or by faith? Explain your answer. Considering the development of religious philosophy, it commonly appears that people make decision regarding their religion based on their faith. People create their religious doctrines, idealism, and theology based on the faith towards the existence of God wherein they argue that these principles are given with divine intervention and provision. In the aspect of religion, people decide matters within their institution as their approach for developing and strengthening their relationship towards their God through the medium of faith. Indeed, people pursue their religious interest based on faith rather than their own reasoning as an influential part of their religious philosophy is their faithful submission towards the divine being. As part of their religion, people make decisions as inspired by their faith thus, putting much more interest and significance on their religious teachings rather pursing their own idealism. In general, people put much more emphasis on faith towards the idealism of the divine being rather than the philosophy of the human beings.  · Considering the historical development of religious philosophy, whose philosophies do you think most advanced Western religious thought? Explain your answer. In the course of religious development in the world, most religious philosophies originated from the western culture though only some has full advanced and realized the western thought. Under this aspect, that the philosophy of the Roman Catholic religion manifests much representation of the western thoughts. Their teachings have promoted the monotheistic view towards divine existence and have strengthened the relationship of the human beings with their divine creator. Because of the significant foundations laid by their philosophy, the western thoughts were widely accepted by the other culture giving the western idealism much influence to the world. Because of the contribution of this specific religious philosophy, the world has realized the western thoughts regarding the existence of the divine being and has established their own religious relationship in relation to the western idealism

Getting Away with Torture

Global Governance 11 (2005), 389–406 REVIEW ESSAY Getting Away with Torture Kenneth Roth The Bush administration’s use of torture and inhumane treatment has undermined one of the most basic global standards governing how governments can treat people under their control. Contrary to the efforts of the administration to pass this abuse off as the spontaneous misconduct of a few low-level soldiers, ample evidence demonstrates that it reflects policy decisions taken at the highest levels of the U. S. government.Repairing the damage done to global standards will require acknowledging this policy role and launching a genuinely independent investigation to identify those responsible and hold them accountable. The creation of regulated exceptions to the absolute prohibition of torture and mistreatment, as suggested by several academics, will not redeem the tarnished reputation of the United States or restore the global standards that the Bush administration has so severely dama ged. KEYWORDS: torture, Abu Ghraib, Guatanamo, interrogation, cruel treatment.B’Tselem, â€Å"Legislation Allowing the Use of Physical Force and Mental Coercion in Interrogations by the General Security Service,† B’Tselem Position Paper, January 2000, 80 pp. Mark Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror (New York: New York Review of Books, 2004), 592 pp. Alan M. Dershowitz, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 288 pp. Karen J. Greenberg and Joshua L. Dratel, eds. , The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 1,284 pp. Philip B. Heymann and Juliette N.Kayyem, Preserving Security and Democratic Freedoms in the War on Terrorism (Cambridge: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 2004), 195 pp. Human Rights Watch, The Road to Abu Ghraib (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2004), 37 pp. Sanford Levinson, ed. , Torture: A Collection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 328 pp. 389 390 Getting Away with Torture ho would have thought it still necessary to debate the merits of torture? Sure, there are always some governments that torture, but they do it clandestinely. Torture is inherently shameful—something that, if practiced, is done in the shadows.In the system of international human rights law and institutions that has been constructed since World War II, there is no more basic prohibition than the ban on torture. Even the right to life admits exceptions, such as the killing of combatants allowed in wartime. But torture is forbidden unconditionally, whether in time of peace or war, whether at the local police precinct or in the face of a major security threat. Yet, suddenly, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, torture and related mistreatment have become serious policy options for the United States.Academics are proposing ways to regulate the pain that can be inflicted on suspects in detention. Overly clever U. S. government lawyers have tried to define away laws against torture. The Bush administration claims latitude to abuse detainees that its predecessors would never have dared to contemplate. Washington’s new willingness to contemplate torture is not just theoretical. The abuse of prisoners has flourished in the gulag of offshore detention centers that the Bush administration now maintains in Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the secret dungeons where the U. S. government’s â€Å"disappeared† prisoners are held.Hidden from public scrutiny, shielded from legal accountability, the interrogators in these facilities have been allowed to flout the most basic rules for the decent and humane treatment of detainees. Yet torture remains the despicable practice it has always been. It dehumanizes people by treating them as pawns to be manipulated through their pain. It harnesses the awesome power of the state and appl ies it to human beings at their most vulnerable. Breaching any restraint of reciprocity, it subjects the victim to abuse that the perpetrator would never himself want to suffer.Before looking at why Americans are suddenly confronting the torture option, it is useful to clarify what, exactly, torture is. The word torture has entered the vernacular to describe a host of irritants, but its formal meaning in international law is quite specific: the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, for whatever reason. Torture as defined in international law is not done by private actors but by government officials or those operating with their consent or acquiescence. 1 Torture exists on a continuum of mistreatment.Abuse just short of torture is known in international law as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The lines between these different degrees of mistreatment are W Kenneth Roth 391 not crystal clear—lesser forms are often gateways to tort ure—which is one reason why international law prohibits all such forms of coercion. 2 Torture as well as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is flatly prohibited by such treaties as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and the Geneva Conventions.All of these treaties are widely ratified, including by the United States. None permits any exception to these prohibitions, even in time of war or a serious security threat. Indeed, these prohibitions are so fundamental that the Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, the most authoritative U. S. treatise on the matter, lists them as peremptory jus cogens norms, meaning they bind governments as a matter of customary international law, even in the absence of a treaty.Breach of these prohibitions gives rise to a crime of universal jurisdiction, allowing the perpetrator to be prosecut ed in any competent tribunal anywhere. Yet it is precisely because of the fundamental character of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment that the Bush administration’s deliberate disregard for it is so damaging. If this basic human rights protection can be cast aside, no right is secure. Moreover, the Bush administration is not just any government. When most governments breach international human rights law, they commit a violation—the breach is condemned or prosecuted, but the rule remains firm.Yet when a government as dominant and influential as the United States openly defies that law and seeks to justify its defiance, it also undermines the law itself, and invites others to do the same. That shakes the very foundations of the international system for the protection of human rights that has been carefully constructed over the past sixty years. This unlawful conduct has also damaged Washington’s credibility as a proponent of hum an rights and a leader of the campaign against terrorism. The U. S. government’s record of promoting human rights has always been mixed.For every offender it berated for human rights transgressions, there was another whose abuses it ignored, excused, or even supported. Yet despite this inconsistency, the United States historically has played a key role in defending human rights. Its embrace of coercive interrogation—part of a broader betrayal of human rights principles in the name of combating terrorism—has significantly impaired its ability to mount that defense. As a result, governments facing human rights pressure from the United States now find it increasingly easy to turn the tables, to challenge Washington’s standing to uphold principles that it violates itself. 92 Getting Away with Torture Whether it is Egypt justifying torture by reference to U. S. practice, Malaysia defending administrative detention by invoking Guantanamo, Russia citing Abu Ghra ib to blame abuses in Chechnya solely on lowlevel soldiers, Nepal explaining a coup by reference to America’s postSeptember 11 excesses, or Cuba claiming the Bush administration had â€Å"no moral authority to accuse† it of human rights violations, repressive governments find it easier to deflect U. S. pressure because of Washington’s own sorry counterterrorism record on human rights.Indeed, when Human Rights Watch asked State Department officials to protest administrative detention in Malaysia and prolonged incommunicado detention in Uganda, they demurred, explaining, in the words of one, â€Å"With what we are doing in Guantanamo, we’re on thin ice to push this. †3 Washington’s loss of credibility has not been for lack of rhetorical support for concepts that are closely related to human rights, but the embrace of explicit human rights language seems to have been calculatedly rare.In his January 2005 inauguration speech, President Bush spok e extensively of his devotion to â€Å"freedom† and â€Å"liberty,† his opposition to â€Å"tyranny† and â€Å"terrorism,† but hardly at all about his commitment to human rights. 4 The distinction has enormous significance. It is one thing to pronounce oneself on the side of the â€Å"free,† quite another to be bound by the full array of human rights standards that are the foundation of freedom. It is one thing to declare oneself opposed to terrorism, quite another to embrace the body of international human rights and humanitarian law that enshrines the values rejecting terrorism.This linguistic sleight of hand—this refusal to accept the legal obligations embraced by rights-respecting states—has both reduced Washington’s credibility and facilitated its use of coercive interrogation. Because of this hypocrisy, many human rights defenders, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, now cringe when the United States comes t o their defense. Reformers in the Middle East speak of â€Å"the hug of death†Ã¢â‚¬â€the ill effects of Washington’s hypocritical embrace.They may crave a powerful ally, but identifying too closely with a government that so brazenly ignores international law, whether in its own abuses or its alliance with other abusers, has become a sure route to disrepute. At a time when the Bush administration is extolling itself as a champion of reform in the Middle East, as the catalyst behind recent democratic developments, however modest, in Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian territories, it is a sad irony that so few reformers welcome its support.That weakening of Washington’s moral authority in the Middle East is particularly tragic, because that region is where effective counterterrorism efforts are most needed. Open and responsive political systems Kenneth Roth 393 are the best way to encourage people to pursue their grievances peacefully. But whe n the most vocal governmental advocate of democracy deliberately violates human rights, it undermines democratically inclined reformers and strengthens the appeal of those who preach more radical visions. Instead, U. S. buses have provided a new rallying cry for terrorist recruiters, and the pictures from Abu Ghraib have become the recruiting posters for Terrorism, Inc. Many militants need no additional incentive to attack civilians, but if a weakened human rights culture eases even a few fence-sitters toward the path of violence, the consequences can be dire. Why is the United States taking this approach? To vent frustration, to exact revenge—possibly—but certainly not because torture and mistreatment are required for national security or protection.Respect for the Geneva Conventions does not preclude vigorously interrogating detainees about a limitless range of topics. The U. S. Army’s field manual on intelligence interrogation makes clear that coercion underm ines the quest for reliable information. 5 The U. S. military command in Iraq says that Iraqi detainees are providing more useful intelligence when they are not subjected to abuse. In the words of Craig Murray, the United Kingdom’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan, who was speaking of the UK’s reliance on torture-extracted testimony, â€Å"We are selling our souls for dross. 6 Moreover, coercive interrogation is making us less safe by effectively precluding criminal prosecution of its victims. Once a confession is coerced, it becomes extremely difficult to prove, as due process requires, that a subsequent prosecution of the suspect is free of the fruits of that coercion. As a result, the Bush administration finds itself holding some suspects who clearly have joined terrorist conspiracies and might have been criminally convicted and subjected to long prison terms, but against whom prosecution has become impossible. In February 2005, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) began openly fretting about the problem.What happens, it worried, when continuing to detain suspects without trial becomes politically untenable, but prosecuting them is legally impossible because of taint from coercive interrogation? 7 None of this is to say that the United States is the worst human rights abuser. There are many more serious contenders for that notorious title, including governments that torture more frequently and more ruthlessly. But the United States is certainly the most influential abuser, making its contribution to the degradation of human rights standards unique and the costs to global institutions for upholding human rights incalculable.It is not enough to argue, as its defenders do, that the Bush administration is well intentioned—that they are the â€Å"good guys,† in the 394 Getting Away with Torture words of the Wall Street Journal. 8 A society ordered on intentions rather than law is a lawless society. Nor does it excuse the administrati on’s human rights record, as its defenders have tried to do, to note that it removed two tyrannical governments—the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Ba’ath Party in Iraq. Attacks on repressive regimes cannot justify attacks on the body of principles that makes their repression illegal.So, how did we get here? How did the United States, historically perhaps the most vigorous governmental proponent of human rights, come to undermine through its own actions one of the most basic human rights there is? Several books, both new and old, provide insight into this sorry state of affairs. Cover-Up and Self-Investigation When the photos from Abu Ghraib became public, the Bush administration reacted like many abusive governments that are caught redhanded: it went into damage control mode. It agreed that the torture and abuse featured in the photographs were wrong but sought to minimize the problem.The abusers, it claimed, were a handful of errant soldiers, a few â€Å"bad a pples† at the bottom of the barrel. The problem, it argued, was contained, both geographically (one section of Abu Ghraib prison) and structurally (only low-level soldiers, not more senior commanders). The abuse photographed at Abu Ghraib and broadcast around the world, it maintained, had nothing to do with the decisions and policies of more senior officials. President Bush vowed that â€Å"wrongdoers will be brought to justice,†9 but as of March 2005, virtually all of those facing prosecution were of the rank of sergeant or below.To some extent, the sheer outrageousness of the sexual and physical depravity featured in the Abu Ghraib photographs made it easier for the administration to disown responsibility. Few believe that President Bush or his senior officials would have ordered, for example, Lyndie England to parade about a naked detainee on a leash. Yet behind this particular mistreatment was an atmosphere of abuse to which the Bush administration, at the highest l evels, did contribute. The ingredients of that atmosphere are described in several new books.The most comprehensive compilation of the documentary record is contained in The Torture Papers, a book edited by Karen Greenberg and Joshua Dratel, which includes all of the administration’s notorious â€Å"torture memos† available by late 2004. Mark Danner’s book, Torture and Truth, includes many of these same documents, as well as his insightful analysis, drawn from his articles in the New York Review of Kenneth Roth 395 Books, of the policy decisions that lay behind them. The Human Rights Watch report, The Road to Abu Ghraib,10 details how this atmosphere played out on he ground, as American interrogators deployed â€Å"stress and duress† interrogation techniques and then covered up the cruel and occasionally deadly consequences. Torture: A Collection, a new set of essays on torture edited by Sanford Levinson, contains thoughtful essays from a range of scholar s, including a vigorous debate about how to limit torture in the post-September 11 environment. The key to the administration’s strategy of damage control was a series of carefully limited investigations—at least ten so far.The reports of several of these are reprinted in the Greenberg and Dratel compilation. Most of the investigations, such as those conducted by Maj. Gen. George Fay and Lt. Gen. Anthony Jones, involved uniformed military officials examining the conduct of their subordinates; these officers lacked the authority to scrutinize senior Pentagon officials. Typical was the most recent investigation, conducted by Vice Admiral Albert T. Church III, who said he did not interview senior officials such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or draw conclusions about their individual responsibility. 11The one investigation with the theoretical capacity to examine the conduct of Secretary Rumsfeld and his top aides—the inquiry led by former secretary of def ense James Schlesinger—was initiated by Rumsfeld himself and seemed to go out of its way to distance Rumsfeld from the problem. At the press conference releasing the investigative report, Schlesinger said that Rumsfeld’s resignation â€Å"would be a boon to all America’s enemies. † The Schlesinger investigation lacked the independence of, for example, the September 11 Commission, which was established with the active involvement of the U.S. Congress. 12 As for the CIA—the branch of the U. S. government believed to hold the most important terrorist suspects—it has apparently escaped scrutiny by anyone other than its own inspector general. Meanwhile, no one seems to be looking at the role of President Bush and other senior administration officials. As for criminal investigations, there has been none independent of the Bush administration. When an unidentified government official retaliated against a critic of the administration by revealing th at his wife was a CIA agent—a erious crime because it could endanger her—the administration agreed, under pressure, to appoint a special prosecutor who has been promised independence from administration direction. Yet the administration has refused to appoint a special prosecutor to determine whether senior officials authorized torture and other coercive interrogation—a far more serious and systematic offense. So far, prosecutors 396 Getting Away with Torture under the direction of the administration have focused only on the little guy. The Policies Behind Abu Ghraib What would a genuinely independent investigation find?It would reveal that the abusive interrogation seen at Abu Ghraib did not erupt spontaneously at the lowest levels of the military chain of command. It was not merely a â€Å"management† failure, as the Schlesinger investigation suggested. As shown in the collection of official documents organized by Greenberg and Dratel and Danner, Danner ’s analysis, and the Human Rights Watch study, these abuses were the direct product of an environment of lawlessness, an atmosphere created by policy decisions taken at the highest levels of the Bush administration, long before the start of the Iraq war.They reflect a determination to fight terrorism unconstrained by fundamental principles of international human rights and humanitarian law, despite commitments by the United States and governments around the world to respect those principles even in times of war and severe security threats. These policy decisions included: †¢ The decision not to grant the detainees in U. S. custody at Guantanamo their rights under the Geneva Conventions, even though the conventions apply to all people picked up on the battlefield of Afghanistan.Senior Bush officials vowed that all detainees would be treated â€Å"humanely,† but that vow seems never to have been seriously implemented and at times was qualified (and arguably eviscera ted) by a selfcreated exception for â€Å"military necessity. † Meanwhile, the effective shredding of the Geneva Conventions—and the corresponding sidestepping of the U. S. Army’s interrogation manual—sent U. S. interrogators the signal that, in the words of one leading counterterrorist official, â€Å"the gloves come off. †13 The decision not to clarify for nearly two years that, regardless of the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, all detainees in U. S. custody are protected by the parallel requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture. Even when, at the urging of human rights groups, the Pentagon’s general counsel belatedly reaffirmed, in June 2003, that CAT prohibited not only torture but also other forms of ill treatment, that announcement was communicated to interrogators, if at all, in a way that had no discernible impact on their behavior.Kenneth Roth 397 †¢ The decision to interpret the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment narrowly, to permit certain forms of coercive interrogation—that is, certain efforts to ratchet up a suspect’s pain, suffering, and humiliation to make him talk. At the time of ratifying the ICCPR in 1992 and the CAT in 1994, the U. S. government said it would interpret this prohibition to mean the same thing as the requirements of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.The clear intent was to require that if an interrogation technique would be unconstitutional if used in an American police station or jail, it would violate these treaties if used against suspects overseas. Yet U. S. interrogators under the Bush administration have routinely subjected overseas terrorist suspects to abusive techniques that would clearly have been prohibited if used in the United States. That the use of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment was intentional was suggested by Att orneyGeneral Alberto Gonzales during his confirmation process.In his written reply to Senate questions—after the administration had supposedly repudiated the worst aspects of its torture memos—he interpreted the U. S. reservation as permitting the use of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment so long as it was done against non-Americans outside the United States. 14 That makes the United States the only government in the world to claim openly as a matter of policy the power to use cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.Other governments obviously subject detainees to inhumane treatment or worse as a matter of clandestine policy, but the Bush administration is the only government to proclaim this policy publicly. Reflecting that policy, the Bush administration in late 2004 successfully stopped a congressional effort to proscribe the CIA’s use of torture and inhumane treatment in interrogation. †¢ The decision to hold some suspects—eleven known15 and r eportedly some three dozen—in unacknowledged incommunicado detention, beyond the reach of even the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).Many other suspects were apparently temporarily hidden from the ICRC. Victims of such â€Å"disappearances† are at the greatest risk of torture and other mistreatment. For example, U. S. forces continue to maintain closed detention sites in Afghanistan, where beatings, threats, and sexual humiliation are still reported. At least twenty-six prisoners have died in U. S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 in what army and navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide. 16 One of those deaths was as recently as September 2004. The refusal for over two years to prosecute U. S. soldiers implicated in the December 2002 deaths of two suspects in U. S. custody in Afghanistan—deaths ruled â€Å"homicides† by U. S. Army pathologists. 398 Getting Away with Torture Instead, the interroga tors were sent to Abu Ghraib, where some were allegedly involved in more abuse. †¢ The approval by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld of some interrogation methods for Guantanamo that violated, at the very least, the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and possibly the ban on torture.These techniques included placing detainees in painful stress positions, hooding them, stripping them of their clothes, and scaring them with guard dogs. That approval was later rescinded, but it contributed to the environment in which the legal obligations of the United States were seen as dispensable. †¢ The reported approval by an unidentified senior Bush administration official, and use, of â€Å"water boarding†Ã¢â‚¬â€known as the â€Å"submarine† in Latin America—a torture technique in which the victim is made to believe he will drown, and in practice sometimes does.Remarkably, Porter Goss, the CIA director, defended water boarding in March 2005 testimon y before the Senate as a â€Å"professional interrogation technique. †17 †¢ The sending of suspects to governments such as Syria, Uzbekistan, and Egypt that practice systematic torture. Sometimes diplomatic assurances have been sought that the suspects would not be mistreated, but if, as in these cases, the government receiving the suspect routinely flouts its legal obligation under the CAT, it is wrong to expect better compliance with the nonbinding word of a diplomat.The administration claimed that it monitored prisoners’ treatment, but a single prisoner, lacking the anonymity afforded by a larger group, would often be unable to report abuse for fear of reprisal. One U. S. official who visited foreign detention sites disparaged this charade: â€Å"They say they are not abusing them, and that satisfies the legal requirement, but we all know they do. †18 †¢ The decision (adopted by the Bush administration from its earliest days) to oppose and undermine the International Criminal Court (ICC), in part out of fear that it might compel the United States to prosecute U.S. personnel implicated in war crimes or other comparable offenses that the administration would prefer to ignore. The administration spoke in terms of the ICC infringing U. S. sovereignty, but since the ICC could not have jurisdiction over offenses committed by Americans in the United States without Washington’s consent, the sovereignty argument actually cuts the other way: it is a violation of the sovereignty of other governments on whose territory an atrocity might be committed not to be free to determine whether to prosecute the crime themselves or to send the matter to the ICC.The administration’s position on the ICC was thus reduced to an assertion of exceptionalism—a claim that no international enforcement regime should regulate U. S. criminality overseas. Kenneth Roth 399 That signaled the administration’s determination to protect U. S. personnel from external accountability for any serious human rights offense that it might authorize. Since, in the absence of a special prosecutor, the administration itself controlled the prospects for domestic criminal accountability, its position offered an effective promise of impunity. The decision by the Justice Department, the Defense Department, and the White House counsel to concoct dubious legal theories to justify torture, despite objections from the State Department and professional military attorneys. Under the direction of politically appointed lawyers, the administration offered such absurd interpretations of the law as the claim that coercion is not torture unless the pain caused is â€Å"equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body function will likely result. Similarly, the administration claimed that President Bush has â€Å"command er-in-chief authority† to order torture—a theory under which Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein may as well be given the keys to their jail cells, since they too presumably would have had â€Å"commander-in-chief authority† to authorize the atrocities that they directed. The Justice Department, in a December 2004 memorandum modifying the definition of torture, chose not to repudiate the claim about commander-in-chief authority to order torture but instead stated that repudiation was unnecessary because, it said, the president opposes torture as a matter of policy.These policy decisions, taken not by low-level soldiers but by senior officials of the Bush administration, created an â€Å"anything goes† atmosphere, an environment in which the ends were assumed to justify the means. Sometimes the mistreatment of detainees was merely tolerated, but at other times it was actively encouraged or even ordered. In that environment, when the demand came from on hi gh for â€Å"actionable intelligence†Ã¢â‚¬â€intelligence that might help stem the steady stream of U. S. asualties at the hands of Iraqi insurgents—it was hardly surprising that interrogators saw no obstacle in the legal prohibition of torture and mistreatment. Nor did these basic human rights rules limit the broader effort to protect Americans from the post-September 11 risks of terrorism. To this day, the Bush administration has failed to repudiate many of these decisions. It continues to refuse to apply the Geneva Conventions to any of the more than 500 detainees held at Guantanamo (despite a U. S. court ruling rejecting its position) and to many others detained in Iraq and Afghanistan.It continues to â€Å"disappear† detainees, despite ample proof that these â€Å"ghost detainees† are extraordinarily vulnerable 400 Getting Away with Torture to torture. It continues to defend the practice of â€Å"rendering† suspects to governments that torture on the basis of unbelievable assurances and meaningless monitoring. It refuses to accept the duty never to use cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment anywhere. It continues its vendetta against the ICC. It has only selectively repudiated the many specious arguments for torture contained in the administration lawyers’ notorious â€Å"torture memos. And long after the abuses of Abu Ghraib became public—at least as late as June 2004—the Bush administration reportedly continued to subject Guantanamo detainees to beatings, prolonged isolation, sexual humiliation, extreme temperatures, and painful stress positioning, all practices that the ICRC reportedly called â€Å"tantamount to torture. †19 In selecting his cabinet for his second presidential term, President Bush seemed to rule out even informal accountability. Secretary of State Colin Powell, the cabinet official who most forcefully opposed the administration’s disavowal of the Geneva Conventions, left his post.Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who ordered abusive interrogation techniques in violation of international law, stayed on. White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, who sought production of the memos justifying torture and who wrote that the fight against terrorism renders â€Å"obsolete† and â€Å"quaint† the Geneva Conventions’ limitations on the interrogation and treatment of prisoners, was rewarded with appointment as attorney general. 20 As for the broader Bush administration, the November 2004 electoral victory seems to have reinforced its traditional disinclination to serious self-examination.It persists in its refusal to admit any policylevel misconduct in the treatment of detainees under interrogation. The Twisted Logic of Torture The Bush administration’s policy of abusive interrogation has received important support in the United States from three Harvard professors: Alan Dershowitz and Phil Heymann of Harvard Law School and Juliette Kayy em of Harvard’s Kennedy School. Rather than reinforce the absolute prohibitions of international law, each would seek to regulate exceptions to the prohibitions on mistreating detainees.Ostensibly their aim is to curtail that mistreatment but, by legitimizing it through regulation, they would have the opposite effect. Dershowitz, in his book Why Terrorism Works and in his chapter in the Levinson compilation, typifies this regulatory approach. In his view, torture is inevitable, so prohibiting it will only drive it underground, where low-level officials use it in their discretion. Instead, he would subject torture to judicial oversight by requiring investigators who want Kenneth Roth 401 to use it to seek the approval of a judge—to procure a torture warrant, much like they would seek a search warrant or an arrest warrant.This independent scrutiny, he posits, would reduce the incidence of torture. Dershowitz’s argument is built largely on faith that forcing tortur e into the open would reduce its use. But he simply assumes that judges would have a less permissive attitude toward torture than do the senior members of the Bush administration. The available evidence is not encouraging. Since torture would presumably be sought in connection with investigations into serious criminal or national security matters, the information behind the request for a torture warrant would presumably be secret.As in the case of a search warrant or a wiretap, that would mean an ex parte application to a judge, with no notice to the would-be victim of torture and no independent counsel opposing the request. How rigorous would judicial oversight be in such cases? We can derive some sense from the record of the courts used to approve foreign intelligence wiretaps, and the picture is not impressive. According to the Center for Democracy and Technology, between 1993 and 2003, courts operating under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) were asked to approve nearly 10,000 wiretaps of foreign sovereign agents.Of those, all but four were approved. When an intelligence agent claims that life-and-death matters of national security are at stake, there is no reason to believe that the scrutiny by Dershowitz’s torture courts would be any more rigorous. In the meantime, by signaling that torture is at least sometimes acceptable, Deshowitz would reduce the stigma associated with its use. Torture would no longer be a despicable practice never to be used, but merely one more tool in the law enforcement arsenal.Torture specialists eager to practice their trade would appear, international prohibitions of torture would be undermined, and America’s credibility as an opponent of torture would be deeply tarnished. Dershowitz points out that accepting clandestine torture also legitimizes it, but he seems never seriously to consider the alternative: vigorously trying to stop, and prosecute, anyone who breaches the absolute ban on torture. He ymann and Kayyem take a slightly different approach in their monograph, Preserving Security and Democratic Freedoms in the War on Terrorism. They foreswear torture but would allow a U. S. resident to order cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment so long as he or she certified to Congress that American lives were at stake. Again, the theory is that such treatment would be rare because the president would be reluctant to invoke that power. But since the president has already claimed â€Å"commander-in-chief authority† to order even torture, and since his attorney general claimed the power as recently as January 2005 to 402 Getting Away with Torture order cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment so long as it is used against non-Americans overseas,21 Heymann and Kayyem are probably overestimating presidential inhibitions.Making the defense against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment depend on the man who has made such treatment a central part of U. S. counterterrorism strategy i s truly asking the fox to guard the chicken coop. Heymann and Kayyem take a similar regulatory approach to coercive interrogation short of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The U. S. Army’s field manual on intelligence interrogation makes clear that coercive interrogation is unnecessary, unreliable, and wrong.That’s because, as most professional interrogators explain, coercive interrogation is far less likely to produce reliable information than the time-tested methods of careful questioning, probing, cross-checking, and gaining the confidence of the detainee. A person facing severe pain is likely to say whatever he thinks will stop the torture. But a skilled interrogator can often extract accurate information from the toughest suspect without resorting to coercion. Yet Heymann and Kayyem would abandon that bright-line rule and permit coercive interrogation so long as the president notifies Congress of the techniques to be used.However, setting American interroga tors free from the firm mooring of the U. S. Army field manual can be dangerous, as we have seen so painfully in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. If mere coercion (itself a violation of the Geneva Conventions in wartime) does not work—and, given that the suspect is supposedly a hardened terrorist, often it will not—interrogators will be all too tempted to ratchet up the pain, suffering, and humiliation until the suspect cracks, regardless of the dubious reliability of information provided in such circumstances.In this way, coercion predictably gives way to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, which in turn gives rise to torture. The proposals from Dershowitz and Heymann and Kayyem suffer from the same fundamental defect: they seek to regulate the mistreatment of detainees rather than reinforce the prohibition against such abuse. In the end, any effort to regulate mistreatment ends up legitimizing it and inviting repetition. â€Å"Never† can not be redeemed if allowed to be read as â€Å"sometimes. † Regulation too easily becomes license.Behind the Dershowitz and Heymann and Kayyem proposals is some variation of the â€Å"ticking bomb† scenario, a situation in which interrogators are said to believe that a terrorist suspect in custody knows where a ticking bomb has been planted and must urgently force that information from him to save lives. Torture and inhumane treatment Kenneth Roth 403 may be wrong, those who talk of ticking bombs would concede, but the mass murder of a terrorist attack is worse, so in these supposedly rare situations, the lesser evil must be tolerated to prevent the greater one.The ticking bomb scenario makes for great philosophical discussion, but it rarely arises in real life, at least not in a way that avoids opening the door to pervasive torture. In fact, interrogators hardly ever learn that a suspect in custody knows of a particular, imminent terrorist bombing. Intelligence is rar ely if ever good enough to demonstrate a particular suspect’s knowledge of an imminent attack. Instead, interrogators tend to use circumstantial evidence to show such â€Å"knowledge,† such as someone’s association with or presumed membership in a terrorist group.Moreover, the ticking bomb scenario is a dangerously expansive metaphor capable of embracing anyone who might have knowledge not just of immediate attacks but also of attacks at unspecified future times. After all, why are the victims of only an imminent terrorist attack deserving of protection by torture and mistreatment? Why not also use such coercion to prevent a terrorist attack tomorrow or next week or next year? And once the taboo against torture and mistreatment is broken, why stop with the alleged terrorists themselves?Why not also torture and abuse their families or associates—or anyone who might provide lifesaving information? The slope is very slippery. Israel’s experience is in structive in showing how dangerously elastic the ticking bomb rationale can become, as described by the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem in its report on interrogations by Israel’s intelligence agency, the General Security Services (GSS). In 1987, an official government commission, headed by former Israeli Supreme Court president Moshe Landau, recommended authorizing the use of â€Å"moderate physical pressure† in ticking bomb situations.As B’Tselem describes, a practice initially justified as rare and exceptional, taken only when necessary to save lives, gradually became standard GSS procedure. Soon, some 80 to 90 percent of Palestinian security detainees were being tortured until 1999 when the Israeli Supreme Court curtailed the practice. Dershowitz cites the court’s belated intervention as validation of his theory that regulating torture is the best way to defeat it, but he never asks whether the severe victimization of so many Palestinians c ould have been avoided with a prohibitory approach from the start.Notably, Israel’s escalation in the use of torture took place even though a ministerial committee chaired by the prime minister was supervising interrogation practices—a regulatory procedure similar to the one proposed by Heymann and Kayyem. Indeed, in September 1994, following several suicide bombings, the ministerial committee 404 Getting Away with Torture even loosened the restrictions on interrogators by permitting â€Å"increased physical pressure. † Heymann and Kayyem never explain why, especially in light of the abysmal record of the Bush administration, we should expect any better from high-level U. S. officials.The Way Forward Faced with substantial evidence showing that the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere were caused in large part by official government policies, the Bush administration must reaffirm the importance of making human rights a guiding force for U. S. conduct, even in figh ting terrorism. That requires acknowledging and reversing the policy decisions behind the administration’s torture and mistreatment of detainees, holding accountable those responsible at all levels of government for this abuse (not just a bunch of privates and sergeants), and publicly committing to ending all forms of coercive interrogation.These steps are necessary to reaffirm the prohibition of torture and ill treatment, to redeem Washington’s voice as a credible proponent of human rights, and to restore the effectiveness of a U. S. -led campaign against terrorism. Yet all that is easier said than done. How can President Bush and the Republican-controlled U. S. Congress be convinced to establish a fully independent investigative commission—similar to the one created to examine the attacks of September 11, 2001—to determine what went wrong in the administration’s interrogation practices and to prescribe remedial steps?How can Attorney-General Gonz ales, who as White House counsel played a central role in formulating the administration’s interrogation policy, be persuaded to recognize his obvious conflict of interest and appoint a special prosecutor charged with investigating criminal misconduct independently of the Justice Department’s direction? These are not steps that the administration or its congressional allies will take willingly. Pressure will be needed. And that pressure cannot and should not come from only the usual suspects.The torture and abuse of prisoners is an affront to the most basic American values. It is antithetical to the core beliefs in the integrity of the individual on which the United States was founded. And it violates one of the most basic prohibitions of international law. This is not a partisan concern, not an issue limited to one part of the political spectrum. It is a matter that all Americans—and their friends around the world—should insist be meaningfully addressed and changed.It is an issue that should preoccupy governments, whether friend or foe, as well as such international organizations and actors as Kenneth Roth 405 the UN Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Committee, High Commissioner on Human Rights, and Special Rapporteur on Torture. Taking on the world’s superpower is never easy, but it is essential if the basic architecture of international human rights law and institutions is not to be deeply compromised.As Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the March 2005 International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security: â€Å"Upholding human rights is not merely compatible with successful counter-terrorism strategy. It is an essential element. †22 There is no room for torture, even in fighting terrorism; it risks undermining the foundation on which all of our rights rest. Notes Kenneth Roth is executive director of Human Rights Watch. 1. See Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art. 1. . Ibid. , Art. 16. 3. See â€Å"Malaysia: P. M’s Visit Puts Spotlight on Detainee Abuse,† Human Rights Watch News, 19 July 2004, available online at http://hrw. org/english/ docs/2004/07/19/malays9097. htm. 4. Fifty-fifth Inaugural Ceremony, 20 January 2005; see www. whitehouse. gov/inaugural. 5. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation, Washington, D. C. , 28 September 1992, available online at http://atiam. train. army. mil/portal/atia/adlsc/view/public/302562-1/FM/3452/FM34_52. PDF. 6. ‘Torture Intelligence’ Criticized,† BBC News, 11 October 2004, available online at http://news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/uk/3732488. stm. 7. Douglas Jehl, â€Å"C. I. A. Is Seen as Seeking New Role on Detainees,† New York Times, 16 February 2005. 8. â€Å"Red Double-Crossed Again,† Wall Street Journal, 2 December 2004. 9. Remarks by President Bush and His Majesty King Abdullah II of the Hashemite K ingdom of Jordan in a Press Availability, 6 May 2004, available online at www. whitehouse. gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040506-9. html. 10. Available online at http://www. rw. org/reports/2004/usa0604/. 11. Josh White and Bradley Graham, â€Å"Senators Question Absence of Blame in Abuse Report,† Washington Post, 11 March 2005. 12. The 9/11 Commission Report, see http://a257. g. akamaitech. net/7/257/ 2422/05aug20041050/www. gpoaccess. gov/911/pdf/fullreport. pdf. 13. Testimony of Cofer Black, former director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, before a joint session of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, 26 September 2002, available online at www. fas. org/irp/congress/ 2002_hr/092602black. tml. (â€Å"All I want to say is that there was ‘before’ 9/11 and ‘after’ 9/11. After 9/11 the gloves come off. †) 14. â€Å"A Degrading Policy,† Washington Post, 26 January 2005; â€Å"U. S. Justifying Abuse of Detainees,† H uman Rights Watch News, 25 January 2005. 406 Getting Away with Torture 15. Human Rights Watch, The United States’ â€Å"Disappeared†: The CIA’s Long-Term â€Å"Ghost Detainees† (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2004), available online at www. hrw. org/backgrounder/usa/us1004/index. htm. 16. Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt, â€Å"U. S.Military Says 26 Inmate Deaths May Be Homicide,† New York Times, 16 March 2005. 17. Douglas Jehl, â€Å"Questions Are Left by C. I. A. Chief on the Use of Torture,† New York Times, 18 March 2005. 18. Dana Priest, â€Å"CIA’s Assurances on Transferred Suspects Doubted,† Washington Post, 17 March 2005. 19. Neil A. Lewis, â€Å"Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantanamo,† New York Times, 30 November 2004. 20. Memorandum to the President from Alberto R. Gonzales, 25 January 2002, available online at www. msnbc. msn. com/id/4999148/site/newsweek. â€Å"In my judgment, this new paradigm [the war aga inst terrorism] renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded . . . [listed] privileges. †) 21. â€Å"A Degrading Policy† and â€Å"U. S. Justifying Abuse of Detainees. † 22. Keynote address to the Closing Plenary of the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security, â€Å"A Global Strategy for Fighting Terrorism,† Madrid, Spain, 10 March 2005, available online at www. un. org/apps/sg/ sgstats. asp? nid=1345.

Marxs Deployment Of The Term Abstraction - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 2092 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Philosophy Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? The term abstraction manifoldly pervades Marxs writing. The heterogeneity of its meaning is related to the fact that Marx understands production within a system of capitalism to be a totalizing process which presides over the finiteness of the individual mind and therefore determinations, particulars and forms must be understood as relations in an ongoing process and they can only be considered in isolation as abstractions. Nevertheless, these abstractions are real insofar as they constitute the spaces, actions and behaviours of concrete social reality for individuals whether they are experienced as such or not. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Marxs Deployment Of The Term Abstraction" essay for you Create order Using Roberto Finellis response to Chris Arthurs work on abstraction, this essay will focus on a particularity drawn out by Marx in the Grundrisse related to the engagement of exchange and from this, will elaborate on Marxs deployment of the term abstraction in his critique of political economy. In The Chapter on Capital, Marx considers the nature of the putative social relations into which individuals must enter in order to engage in exchange. Before particularizing the moment of exchange, Marx tactfully draws our attention to the perceptual limitations induced by the totality of capitalist production, where the subject holds that a social relation, a definite relation between individualsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦appearsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦as a purely physical, external thing which can be found, as such, in nature and which is indistinguishable in form from its natural existence. (Marx, 1993, p.240) Marx rejoins this faulty apprehension with the simple fact that Nature does not produce money, an y more than it produces a rate of exchange or a banker. (Marx, 1993, p. 240) In this discreet move through which the concrete given of social reality is revealed to be the hidden operations of capital, Marx offers an early indication of his method for interrogating abstraction as a way of life. Looking at the form in which the moment of exchange realizes itself, Marx distinguishes an equality brought to bear on the individuals involved in exchange. The expression of exchange value in commodities through the labour time spent in their production means that the moment of exchange, no matter the use values being compared, rearticulates that equivalence and in so doing transforms the individuals involved in the exchange into equivalent exchangers. Both the exchangers and the commodities they exchange, are by the logic of exchange value, equal; The subjects in exchange exist for one another only through these equivalents, as of equal worth, and prove themselves to be such through the exchange of the objectivity in which the one exist for the other. (Marx, 1993, p.242) The content outwith the act of exchange, the natural differences between the exchangers (needs, production, wealth etc.), does not alter the state of equality enshrined in the act of exchange. Rather, it is the natural differences of exchangers outside the act that are the very precondition of the equality expressed in the exchange. The social relation within which individual exchangers find themselves in the act of exchange is one predicated on the fact that each individual needs something from the other and has produced something the other needs in return, whether it is commodities, labour or money makes no difference in this case. The condition where individuals reciprocally produce the objects that service the needs of others and meet as such, determines the equivalence that anchors the act of exchange. Through the act of exchange, individuals acknowledge and realize in each others mutual compu lsions the general self-seeking interest of human beings. Yet, when thoroughly considered it is forgotten that in the act of exchange, the presupposition of exchange valueà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦in itself implies compulsion over the individual, since his immediate product is not a product for him, but only becomes such in the social process, and since it must take on this general but nevertheless external form; and that the individual has an existence only as producer of exchange value, hence that the whole negation of his natural existence is already implied; that he is therefore entirely determined by society. (Marx, 1993, p.249) What at first appears as a natural and concrete moment in social reality is in fact riven by historical process. The formal determinations expressed in the act of exchange produce equality insofar as they coerce the individual into furnishing the needs of society in general in the form of exchange value through abstract labour. Roberto Finelli draws attentio n to this role of formal determinations as much as it concerns a form as something that is invisible, something not directly perceptible, unlike material determination.' (Finelli, 2007, p.4) In Marxs conceptualisation of totality, Finelli sees the abstraction-emptying out (Finelli, p.6) of the concrete. Finellis view holds that the surface of concrete reality, including as we saw the example of the act of exchange, is propped up by a repression of abstract processes ongoing in the totality of production. Abstraction, says Finelli, is a colonisation which is dissimulated and negated through an hysterical over-determination of the surface which, coloured and embellished, always has to display the contrary of that which it is. (Finelli, p.66) With the concentration and centralisation of abstractions as a way of life, historically configured processes that reproduce social relations are naturalised and become perceived as concrete. The mediations comprising the disjunctive moments in so cial reality are made invisible by the cult of exteriority where objects don a superficial appearance in order to strike and seduce that ideological and deceitful organ par excellence which is our eye (Finelli, p.69), making the abstract symptoms of capital domination appear coherent and real. The predominance of exteriority over material essence is the result of appearance submitting to the expansive-reproductive logic (Finelli, p.66) of the totality of capital, which perpetually resumes its own basis in social reality. The concrete, which is now discovered to be the congelation of real processes abstracted from the totality of capital production, is hallowed, formed and determined to supply the relational totality of capital its iterative force; as Marx says, Within the value relation and the expression of value contained in it the abstract universal is not a property of the concrete, the sensuous-actual; on the contrary, the sensuous-actual is a mere hypostasis or determinate form of realization of the abstract universal. (Marx, 1992, p. 32) The final chapter, therefore, in the domination of abstraction over social life occurs when individuals become psychologically inducted into the realm of superficiality, when the mind receives as and responds as if to concretise that which is abstract, And there, through the abstract activity of many, the concrete is produced. (Finelli, p.70) Returning to our consideration of the act of exchange, the freedom promised there, as we saw earlier, proved in fact to be the contrary: inequality and unfreedom (Marx, 1993, p.249) The perceived freedom in the act of exchange is the historically produced naturalisation of exchange value behind which is hidden the social force of abstract labour. The social compulsion to embody the so-called freedoms in the act of exchange reinforces the grip of abstract labour over the exchanger, as the satisfaction granted by the former exchange realizes and legitimates abstract labour thro ugh exchange value, persuading the exchanger to see as free and beneficial a process that is ultimately coercive. To this, Finelli adds: In the society of capital, abstraction assumes the explicit contours of matter of factà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦it becomes a practically true abstractionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦The universal is real only when it is the fruit not of logical intellect or even of theoretical ideation but of collective historical praxis. (Toscano, 2008, p. 276) The universal realization of abstract processes as concrete objective reality occurs when the perceptual field is conditioned to the dissimulation of abstraction through social and historical mediation. This occurs when individuals internalize real abstractions and behave and act as such and when society binds its members to the capital-subject through their mutual adherence to the lure of the exchange value viz real abstraction, thereby manufacturing a radical reciprocal dependency. Lucio Colletti notes in his introduction to M arxs early writing that The result [of the domination of real abstractions] is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" given that labour in general is, in Marxs words, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the everlasting Nature-imposed condition of human existence à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" that the light of eternity comes to be cast upon the particular historical figure of the wage-labourer. (Marx, 1992, p.28) The concealment of forced abstract labour behind the ostensible form taken up by the act of exchange structures the needs and wants brought to bear on the act by the labourer/exchanger. The obligation attached to the act of exchange forcing the exchanger to labour in order to furnish the general abstract wants of society, produces his social reality in such a way that his desires become caught up with the reproductive logic of capital. His needs become malformed by the guiding principle of reproducing his labour power and the basis of his own subjection. The increasing separation of the labourer from his own concrete basis in reality which is an expression of the complete domination of dead matter over men (Marx, 1992, p. 319) results in the pursuit and production of alien objects and, symptomatically, the loss of and bondage to the object (Marx, 1992, p.324) The more real-abstractions operate as the governing logic over social life, the more powerful the alien, objective world becomes which he brings into being over against himself. (Marx, 1992, p.324) Thus, the obligation of entering into estranged labour, concealed behind the form taken up by exchange (with its promise of mutual satiation) forces the individual to naturalize an alien reality without being aware of its taking place; What the product of his labour is, he is not. (Marx, 1992, p.324) The labourers alienation resides in his being compelled to embody an ontology that goes contrary to his own nature, or breaks his dialogue with nature, by deceptive abstractions reified as concrete reality. The worker must continue to produce even when he is liberated from immediate physical need to service the needs of general society and thus continues to produce his own inorganic objective reality until he regardsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.his objectified labour, as an alien, hostile and powerful object which is independent of him [and] then his relationship to that object is such that another man à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" alien and hostile, powerful and independent of him à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" is its master. (Marx, 1992, p.331) The alienation generated by abstract labour is one which pervades mans relationship with nature and others to the extent that a class formation emerges, grouping individuals whose estranged relationship with objective reality is made equivalent under the control of the capitalist. However, Finelli prudently reminds us that the class, the proletariat, communism have been values and locations, ideal and real, conceived on the basis of the principle of abstract equality alone, or of an equality not vivified and made concrete by differences. It therefore ended up reflecting, in itself, precisely that same abstraction which it wanted to combat and eliminate. (Finelli, p.72) The ideal function of the proletariat, antagonistic as they are to the reproductive alienation generated by the abstract labour process and the real abstractions structuring social life through exchange value, is built upon the same abstract equality that stabilizes the act of exchange in capitalist circulation. With this threat in mind, Finelli resolves that real change can only emerge when a new anthropology is conceived that knows how to articulate difference together with equality, the right of everyone to see their own strictly unrepeatable singularity recognised, respected and developed. (Finelli, p.73) Abstraction continues to be a real reckoning force in modern life, particularly with the acceleration of global flows in our era of multinational capitalism. New forms of dissimulated abstractions synthetically generate the surface of concrete objective reality and condition the perceptual field to validate their hypostatization. Information technology is one obvious example of this process at work on contemporary lives. Comprehensively tracing the evolution of Marxs writing on the subject of abstraction and the explications and extensions offered by Finelli will, however, give us an opportunity to reveal the real abstractions at work in our lives and salvage the real concrete from complete vacancy. Bibliography Finelli, Roberto. 2007. Abstraction versus Contradiction: Observations on Chris Arthurs The New Dialectic and Marxs Capital, in Historical Materialism 15, 61-74 Marx, Karl. 1992. Early Writings. London: Penguin Books Marx, Karl. 1993. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. London: Penguin Books Ollman, Bertell. 2003. Dance of the Dialectic: Steps in Marxs Method. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Postone, Moishe, and Brennan, Timothy. 2009. Labor and the Logic of Abstraction: An Interview, in South Atlantic Quarterly 108(2), 305-330 Toscano, Alberto. 2008. The Open Secret of Real Abstraction, Rethinking Marxism, in A Journal of Economics, Culture Society 20(2), 273-287 Sayer, Derek. 1987. The Violence of Abstraction: The Analytic Foundations of Historical Materialism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell