<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<!-- Network content -->
<body style="background-color: #ffffff;">
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStartT|**|-~-->
<div id="ygrp-mlmsg" style="width:655px; position:relative;">
<div id="ygrp-msg" style="width: 490px; padding: 0 15px 0 0; float:left; z-index:1;">
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEndT|**|-~-->
<div id="ygrp-text">
<p>Responsibility and War Guilt<br>
A Culture-Setting Intelligentsia<br>
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Gabriel Matthew Schivone<br>
<br>
The Responsibility of Intellectuals<br>
<br>
GMS: Addressing a community of mostly students during a public forum at the<br>
steps of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in 1969, you expressed:<br>
"This particular community is a very relevant one to consider at a place<br>
like MIT because, of course, you're all free to enter this community-in<br>
fact, you're invited and encouraged to enter it. The community of technical<br>
intelligentsia, and weapons designers, and counterinsurgency experts, and<br>
pragmatic planners of an American empire is one that you have a great deal<br>
of inducement to become associated with. The inducements, in fact, are very<br>
real; their rewards in power, and affluence, and prestige and authority are<br>
quite significant.<wbr>" Let's start off talking about the significance of these<br>
inducements, on both a university and societal level. How crucial is it, in<br>
your view, that students particularly consider and understand this, as you<br>
describe, highly technocratic social order of the academic community and its<br>
function in society, that is, comparably to the more directly associated<br>
professional scholarship considering it?<br>
<br>
CHOMSKY: How important it is, to an individual, depends on what that<br>
individual's goals in life are. If the goals are to enrich yourself, gain<br>
privilege, do technically interesting work-in brief, if the goals are<br>
self-satisfaction-<wbr>then these questions are of no particular relevance. If<br>
you care about the consequences of your actions, what's happening in the<br>
world, what the future will be like for your grandchildren and so on, then<br>
they're very crucial. So, it's a question of what choices people make.<br>
<br>
<br>
GMS: What makes students a natural audience to speak to? And do you think<br>
it's worth 'speaking truth' to the professional scholarship as well or<br>
differently? Are there any short- or long-term possibilities here?<br>
<br>
I'm always uneasy about the concept of "speaking truth," as if we somehow<br>
know the truth and only have to enlighten others who have not risen to our<br>
elevated level. The search for truth is a cooperative, unending endeavor. We<br>
can, and should, engage in it to the extent we can and encourage others to<br>
do so as well, seeking to free ourselves from constraints imposed by<br>
coercive institutions, dogma, irrationality, excessive conformity and lack<br>
of initiative and imagination, and numerous other obstacles.<br>
<br>
As for possibilities, they are limited only by will and choice.<br>
<br>
Students are at a stage of their lives where these choices are most urgent<br>
and compelling, and when they also enjoy unusual, if not unique, freedom and<br>
opportunity to explore the choices available, to evaluate them, and to<br>
pursue them.<br>
<br>
GMS: In your view, what is it about the privileges within university<br>
education and academic scholarship which, as you assert in some of the<br>
things you've written, correlate with them a greater responsibility for<br>
catastrophic atrocities such as the Vietnam War or those in the Middle East<br>
in which the United States is now involved?<br>
<br>
Well, there are really some moral truisms. One of them is that opportunity<br>
confers responsibility. If you have very limited opportunities, then you<br>
have limited responsibility for what you do. If you have substantial<br>
opportunity you have greater responsibility for what you do. I mean, that's<br>
kind of elementary, I don't know how it can be discussed.<br>
<br>
And the people who we call 'intellectuals' are just those who happen to have<br>
substantial opportunity. They have privilege, they have resources, they have<br>
training. In our society, they have a high degree of freedom-not a hundred<br>
percent, but quite a lot-and that gives them a range of choices that they<br>
can pursue with a fair degree of freedom, and that hence simply confers<br>
responsibility for the predictable consequences of the choices they make.<br>
<br>
The Rise of a Technical Intelligentsia<br>
<br>
GMS: I think at this point it may do well for us to go over a bit the<br>
beginnings and evolution of the ideological currents which now prevail<br>
throughout modern social intellectual life in the U.S. Essentially, from<br>
where may we trace the development of this strong coterie of technical<br>
experts in the schools, and elsewhere, sometimes having been referred to as<br>
a 'bought' or 'secular priesthood'?<br>
<br>
Well, it really goes back to the latter-part of the nineteenth century, when<br>
there was substantial discussion-not just in the United States but in<br>
Europe, too-of what was then sometimes called 'a new class' of scientific<br>
intellectuals. In that period of time there was a level of knowledge and<br>
technical expertise accumulating that allowed a kind of managerial class of<br>
educated, trained people to have a greater share in decision-making and<br>
planning. It was thought that they were a new class displacing the<br>
aristocracy, the owners, political leaders and so on, and they could have a<br>
larger role-and of course they liked that idea.<br>
<br>
Out of this group developed an ideology of technocratic planning. In<br>
industry it was called 'scientific management'. It developed in intellectual<br>
life with a concept of what was called a 'responsible class' of<br>
technocratic, serious intellectuals who could solve the world's problems<br>
rationally, and would have to be protected from the 'vulgar masses' who<br>
might interfere with them. And it goes right up until the present.<br>
<br>
Just how realistic this is, is another question, but for the class of<br>
technical intellectuals, it's a very attractive conception that, 'We are the<br>
rational, intelligent people, and management and decision-making should be<br>
in our hands.' <br>
<br>
Actually, as I've pointed out in some of the things I've written, it's very<br>
close to Bolshevism. And, in fact, if you put side-by-side, say, statements<br>
by people like Robert McNamara and V.I. Lenin, it's strikingly similar. In<br>
both cases there's a conception of a vanguard of rational planners who know<br>
the direction that society ought to go and can make efficient decisions, and<br>
have to be allowed to do so without interference from, what one of them,<br>
Walter Lippmann, called the 'meddlesome and ignorant outsiders' , namely,<br>
the population, who just get in the way.<br>
<br>
It's not an entirely new conception: it's just a new category of people. Two<br>
hundred years ago you didn't have an easily identifiable class of technical<br>
intellectuals, just generally educated people. But as scientific and<br>
technical progress increased there were people who felt they can appropriate<br>
it and become the proper managers of the society, in every domain. That, as<br>
I said, goes from scientific management in industry, to social and political<br>
control.<br>
<br>
There are periods in history, for example, during the Kennedy years, when<br>
these ideas really flourished. There were, as they called themselves, 'the<br>
best and the brightest.' The 'smart guys' who could run everything if only<br>
they were allowed to; who could do things scientifically without people<br>
getting in their way.<br>
<br>
It's a pretty constant strain, and understandable. And it underlies the fear<br>
and dislike of democracy that runs through elite culture always, and very<br>
dramatically right now. It often correlates closely with posturing about<br>
love of democracy. As any reader of Orwell would expect, these two things<br>
tend to correlate. The more you hate democracy, the more you talk about how<br>
wonderful it is and how much you're dedicated to it. It's one of the clearer<br>
expressions of the visceral fear and dislike of democracy, and of allowing,<br>
again, going back to Lippmann, the 'ignorant and meddlesome outsiders' to<br>
get in our way. They have to be distracted and marginalized somehow while we<br>
can take care of the serious questions.<br>
<br>
Now, that's the basic strain. And you find it all the time, but increasingly<br>
in the modern period when, at least, claims to expertise become somewhat<br>
more plausible. Whether they're authentic or not is, again, a different<br>
question. But, the claims to expertise are very striking. So, economists<br>
tell you, 'We know how to run the economy'; the political scientists tell<br>
you, 'We know how to run the world, and you keep out of it because you don't<br>
have special knowledge and training.'<br>
<br>
When you look at it, the claims tend to erode pretty quickly. It's not<br>
quantum physics; there is, at least, a pretense, and sometimes, some<br>
justification for the claims. But what matters for human life is,<br>
typically, well within the reach of the concerned person who is willing to<br>
undertake some effort.<br>
<br>
GMS: Given the, albeit, self-proclaimed notion that this new class is<br>
entitled to decision-making, how close are they to actual policy, then?<br>
<br>
My feeling is that they're nowhere near as powerful as they think they are.<br>
So, when, say, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote about the technocratic elite<br>
which is taking over the running of society-or when McNamara wrote about it,<br>
or others-there'<wbr>s a lot of illusion there. Meaning, they can gain positions<br>
of authority and decision-making when they act in the interests of those who<br>
really own and run the society. You can have people that are just as<br>
competent, or more competent, and who have conceptions of social and<br>
economic order that run counter to, say, corporate power, and they're not<br>
going to be in the planning sectors. So, to get into those planning sectors<br>
you first of all have to conform to the interests of the real concentrations<br>
of power. <br>
<br>
And, again, there are a lot of illusions about this-in the media, too. Tom<br>
Wicker is a famous example, one of the 'left commentators' of the New York<br>
Times. He would get very angry when critics would tell him he's conforming<br>
to power interests and that he's keeping within the doctrinal framework of<br>
the media, which goes back to their corporate structure and so on. And he<br>
would answer, very angrily-and correctly-that nobody tells him what to say.<br>
He writes anything he wants,-which is absolutely true. But if he wasn't<br>
writing the things he did he wouldn't have a column in the New York Times.<br>
<br>
That's the kind of thing that is very hard to perceive. People do not<br>
want-or often are not able-to perceive that they are conforming to external<br>
authority. They feel themselves to be very free-and indeed they are-as long<br>
as they conform. But power lies elsewhere. That's as old as history in the<br>
modern period. It's often very explicit.<br>
<br>
Adam Smith, for example, discussing England, quite interestingly pointed out<br>
that the merchants and manufacturers-<wbr>the economic forces of his day-are the<br>
'principal architects of policy', and they make sure that their own<br>
interests are 'most peculiarly attended to', no matter how grievous the<br>
effect on others, including the people in England. And that's a good<br>
principle of statecraft, and social and economic planning, which runs pretty<br>
much to the present. When you get people with management and decision-making<br>
skills, they can enter into that system and they can make the actual<br>
decisions-within a framework that's set within the real concentrations of<br>
power. And now it's not the merchants and manufacturers of Adam Smith's day,<br>
it's the multinational corporations, financial institutions, and so on. But,<br>
stray too far beyond their concerns and you won't be the decision-maker.<br>
<br>
It's not a mechanical phenomenon, but it's overwhelmingly true that the<br>
people who make it to decision-making positions (that is, what they think of<br>
as decision-making positions) are those who conform to the basic framework<br>
of the people who fundamentally own and run the society. That's why you have<br>
a certain choice of technocratic managers and not some other choice of<br>
people equally or better capable of carrying out policies but have different<br>
ideas.<br>
<br>
GMS: What about degrees of responsibility and shared burdens of guilt on an<br>
individual level? What can we learn about how one views oneself often in<br>
positions of power or authority?<br>
<br>
You almost never find anyone, whether it's in a weapons plant, or planning<br>
agency, or in corporate management, or almost anywhere, who says, 'I'm<br>
really a bad guy, and I just want to do things that benefit myself and my<br>
friends.' Almost invariably you get noble rhetoric like: 'We're working for<br>
the benefit of the people.' The corporate executive who is slaving for the<br>
benefit of the workers and community; the friendly banker who just wants to<br>
help everybody start their business; the political leader who's trying to<br>
bring freedom and justice to the world-and they probably all believe it. I'm<br>
not suggesting that they're lying. There's an array of routine<br>
justifications for whatever you're doing. And it's easy to believe them.<br>
It's very hard to look into the mirror and say, 'Yeah, that guy looking at<br>
me is a vicious criminal.' It's much easier to say, 'That guy looking at me<br>
is really very benign, self-sacrificing, and he has to do these things<br>
because it's for the benefit of everyone.'<br>
<br>
Or you get respected moralists like Reinhold Niebuhr, who was once called<br>
'the theologian of the establishment'<wbr>. And the reason is because he<br>
presented a framework which, essentially, justified just about anything they<br>
wanted to do. His thesis is dressed up in long words and so on (it's what<br>
you do if you're an intellectual)<wbr>. But what it came down to is that, 'Even<br>
if you try to do good, evil's going to come out of it; that's the paradox of<br>
grace'. -And that's wonderful for war criminals. 'We try to do good but evil<br>
necessarily comes out of it.' And it's influential. So, I don't think that<br>
people in decision-making positions are lying when they describe themselves<br>
as benevolent. -Or people working on more advanced nuclear weapons. Ask them<br>
what they're doing, they'll say: 'We're trying to preserve the peace of the<br>
world.' People who are devising military strategies that are massacring<br>
people, they'll say, 'Well, that's the cost you have to pay for freedom and<br>
justice', and so on.<br>
<br>
But, we don't take those sentiments seriously when we hear them from<br>
enemies, say, from Stalinist commissars. They'll give you the same answers.<br>
But, we don't take that seriously because they can know what they're doing<br>
if they choose to. If they choose not to, that's their choice. If they<br>
choose to believe self-satisfying propaganda, that's their choice. But it<br>
doesn't change the moral responsibility. We understand that perfectly well<br>
with regard to others. It's very hard to apply the same reasoning to<br>
ourselves. <br>
<br>
In fact, one of the-maybe the most-elementary of moral principles is that of<br>
universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if<br>
it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth<br>
looking at has that at its core somehow. But that principle is<br>
overwhelmingly disregarded all the time. If you want to run through examples<br>
we can easily do it. Take, say, George W. Bush, since he happens to be<br>
president. If you apply the standards that we applied to Nazi war criminals<br>
at Nuremberg, he'd be hanged. Is it an even conceivable possibility? It's<br>
not even discussable. Because we don't apply to ourselves the principles we<br>
apply to others.<br>
<br>
There's a lot of talk about 'terror' and how awful it is. Whose terror? Our<br>
terror against them? I mean, is that considered reprehensible? No, it's<br>
considered highly moral; it's considered self-defense, and so on. Now, their<br>
terror against us, that's awful, and terrible, and so on.<br>
<br>
But, to try to rise to the level of becoming a minimal moral agent, and just<br>
enter in the domain of moral discourse is very difficult. Because that means<br>
accepting the principle of universality. And you can experiment for yourself<br>
and see how often that's accepted, either in personal or political life.<br>
Very rarely.<br>
<br>
Looking at Nuremberg and the Culture of Torture<br>
<br>
GMS: What about criminal responsibility and intellectuals? Nuremberg is an<br>
interesting precedent.<br>
<br>
The Nuremberg case is a very interesting precedent. First of all, the<br>
Nuremberg trials-of all the tribunals that have taken place, from then until<br>
today-it is, I think, the most serious by far. But, nevertheless, it was<br>
very seriously flawed. And it was recognized to be. When Telford Taylor, the<br>
chief prosecutor, wrote about it, he recognized that it was flawed, and it<br>
was so for a number of fundamental reasons. For one thing, the Nazi war<br>
criminals were being tried for crimes that had not yet been declared to be<br>
crimes. So, it was ex post facto. 'We're now declaring these things you did<br>
to be crimes.' That is already questionable.<br>
<br>
Secondly, the choice of what was considered a crime was based on a very<br>
explicit criterion, namely, denial of the principle of universality. In<br>
other words, something was called a crime at Nuremberg if they did it and we<br>
didn't do it. <br>
<br>
So, for example, the bombing of urban concentrations was not considered a<br>
crime. The bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, and so on-those aren't crimes. Why?<br>
Because we did them. So, therefore, it's not a crime. In fact, Nazi war<br>
criminals who were charged were able to escape prosecution when they could<br>
show that the Americans and the British did the same thing they did. Admiral<br>
Doenitz, a submarine commander who was involved in all kinds of war crimes,<br>
called in the defense a high official in the British admiralty and, I think,<br>
Admiral Nimitz from the United States, who testified that, 'Yeah, that's the<br>
kind of thing we did.' And, therefore, they weren't sentenced for these<br>
crimes. Doenitz was absolved. And that's the way it ran through. Now, that's<br>
a very serious flaw. Nevertheless, of all the tribunals, that's the most<br>
serious one.<br>
<br>
When Chief Justice Jackson, chief counsel for the prosecution, spoke to the<br>
tribunal and explained to them the importance of what they were doing, he<br>
said, to paraphrase, that: 'We are handing these defendants a poisoned<br>
chalice, and if we ever sip from it we must be subject to the same<br>
punishments, otherwise this whole trial is a farce.' Well, you can look at<br>
the history from then on, and we've sipped from the poisoned chalice many<br>
times, but it's never been considered a crime. So, that means we are saying<br>
that trial was a farce.<br>
<br>
Interestingly, in Jackson's opening statement he claimed that the defense<br>
did not wish to incriminate the whole German populace from whence the<br>
defendants came, for the crimes they committed, but only the "planners and<br>
designers" of those crimes, "the inciters and leaders without whose evil<br>
architecture the world would not have been for so long scourged with the<br>
violence and lawlessness.<wbr>of this terrible war."<br>
<br>
That's correct. And that's another principle which we flatly reject. So, at<br>
Nuremberg, we weren't trying the people who threw Jews into crematoria; we<br>
were trying the leaders. When we ever have a trial for crimes it's of some<br>
low-level person-like a torturer from Abu Ghraib-not the people who were<br>
setting up the framework from which they operate. And we certainly don't try<br>
political leaders for the crime of aggression. That's out of the question.<br>
The invasion of Iraq was about as clear-cut a case of aggression than you<br>
can imagine. In fact, by the Nuremberg principles, if you read them<br>
carefully, the U.S. war against Nicaragua was a crime of aggression for<br>
which Ronald Reagan should have been tried. But, it's inconceivable; you<br>
can't even mention it in the West. And the reason is our radical denial of<br>
the most elementary moral truisms. We just flatly reject them. We don't even<br>
think we reject them, and that's even worse than rejecting them outright.<br>
<br>
I mean, if we were able to say to ourselves, 'Look, we are totally immoral,<br>
we don't accept elementary moral principles,' that would be a kind of<br>
respectable position in a certain way. But, when we sink to the level where<br>
we cannot even perceive that we're violating elementary moral principles and<br>
international law, that's pretty bad. But that's the nature of the<br>
intellectual culture-not just in the United States-but in powerful societies<br>
everywhere. <br>
<br>
GMS: You mentioned Doenitz escaping culpability for his crimes. Two who<br>
didn't escape punishment and were among the most severely punished at<br>
Nuremberg were Julius Streicher, an editor of a major newspaper, and-also an<br>
interesting example-Dr. Wolfram Sievers of the Ahnenerbe Society's Institute<br>
of Military Scientific Research, whose own crimes were traced back to the<br>
University of Strasbourg. Not the typical people prosecuted for<br>
international war crimes, it seems, given their civilian professions.<br>
<br>
Yeah; and there's a justification for that, namely, those defendants could<br>
understand what they were doing. They could understand the consequences of<br>
the work that they were carrying out. But, of course, if we were to accept<br>
this awful principle of universality, that would have a pretty long reach-to<br>
journalists, university researchers, and so on.<br>
<br>
<br>
GMS: Let me quote for you the mission statement of the Army Research Office.<br>
This "premier extramural" research agency of the Army is grounded upon<br>
"developing and exploiting innovative advances to insure the Nation's<br>
technological superiority.<wbr>" It executes this mission "through conduct of an<br>
aggressive basic science research program on behalf of the Army so that<br>
cutting-edge scientific discoveries and the general store of scientific<br>
knowledge will be optimally used to develop and improve weapons systems that<br>
establish land-force dominance."<br>
<br>
This is a pentagon office, and they're doing their job. In our system, the<br>
military is under civilian control. Civilians assign a certain task to the<br>
military: their job is to obey, and carry the role out, otherwise you quit.<br>
That's what it means to have a military under civilian control. So, you<br>
can't really blame them for their mission statement. They're doing what<br>
they're told to do by the civilian authorities. The civilian authorities are<br>
the culpable ones. If we don't like those policies (and I don't, and you<br>
don't), then we go back to those civilians who designed the framework and<br>
gave the orders. <br>
<br>
You can, as the Nuremberg precedents indicated, be charged with obeying<br>
illegal orders, but that's often a stretch. If a person is in a position of<br>
military command, they are sworn, in fact, to obey civilian orders, even if<br>
they don't like them. If you say they're really just criminal orders, then,<br>
yes, they can reject them, and get into trouble and so on. But this is just<br>
carrying out the function that they're ordered to carry out. So, we go<br>
straight back to the civilian authority and then to the general intellectual<br>
culture, which regards this as proper and legitimate. And now we're back to<br>
universities, newspapers, the centers of the doctrinal system.<br>
<br>
GMS: It's just the forthright honesty of the mission statement which is also<br>
very striking, I think.<br>
<br>
Well, it's like going to an armory and finding out they're making better<br>
guns. That's what they're supposed to do. Their orders are, 'Make this gun<br>
work better.', and so they're doing it. And, if they're honest, they'll say,<br>
'Yeah, that's what we're doing; that's what the civilian authorities told us<br>
to do.'<br>
<br>
At some point, people have to ask, 'Do I want to make a better gun?' That's<br>
where the Nuremberg issues arise. But, you really can't blame people very<br>
severely for carrying out the orders that they're told to carry out when<br>
there's nothing in the culture that tells them there's anything wrong with<br>
it. I mean, you have to be kind of like a moral hero to perceive it, to<br>
break out of the cultural framework and say, 'Look, what I'm doing is<br>
wrong.' Like somebody who deserts from the army because they think the war<br>
is wrong. That's not the place to assign guilt, I think. Just as at<br>
Nuremberg. As I said, they didn't try the SS guards who threw people into<br>
crematoria, at Nuremberg. They might have been tried elsewhere, but not at<br>
Nuremberg. <br>
<br>
GMS: But, in this case, the results of the ARO's mission statement in<br>
harvesting scholarly work for better weapons design, it's professors,<br>
scholars, researchers, scientific designers, etc., who have these choices to<br>
focus serious intellectual effort and to be so used for such ends, and who<br>
aren't acting necessarily from direct orders but are acting more out of<br>
freewill.<br>
<br>
It's freewill, but don't forget that there's a general intellectual culture<br>
that raises no objection to this.<br>
<br>
Let's take the Iraq war. There's libraries of material arguing about the<br>
war, debating it, asking 'What should we do?', this and that, and the other<br>
thing. Now, try to find a sentence somewhere that says that 'carrying out a<br>
war of aggression is the supreme international crime, which differs from<br>
other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows'<br>
(paraphrasing from Nuremberg). Try to find that somewhere. -I mean, you can<br>
find it. I've written about it, and you can find a couple other dozen people<br>
who have written about it in the world. But is it part of the intellectual<br>
culture? Can you find it in a newspaper, or in a journal; in Congress; any<br>
public discourse; anything that's part of the general exchange of knowledge<br>
and ideas? I mean, do students study it in school? Do they have courses<br>
where they teach students that 'to carry out a war of aggression is the<br>
supreme international crime which encompasses all the evil that follows'?<br>
<br>
So, for example, if sectarian warfare is a horrible atrocity, as it is,<br>
who's responsible? By the principles of Nuremberg, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney,<br>
Wolfowitz, Rice-they're responsible for sectarian warfare because they<br>
carried out the supreme international crime which encompasses all the evil<br>
that follows. Try and find somebody who points that out. You can't. Because<br>
our dominant intellectual culture accepts as legitimate our crushing anybody<br>
we like.<br>
<br>
And take Iran. Both political parties-and practically the whole press-accept<br>
it as legitimate and, in fact, honorable, that 'all options are on the<br>
table', presumably including nuclear weapons, to quote Hilary Clinton and<br>
everyone else. 'All options are on the table' means we threaten war. Well,<br>
there's something called the U.N. Charter, which outlaws 'the threat or use<br>
of force' in international affairs. Does anybody care? Actually, I saw one<br>
op-ed somewhere by Ray Takeyh, an Iran specialist close to the government,<br>
who pointed out that threats are serious violations of international law.<br>
But that's so rare that when you find it it's like finding a diamond in a<br>
pile of hay or something. It's not part of the culture. We're allowed to<br>
threaten anyone we want-and to attack anyone we want. And, when a person<br>
grows up and acts in a culture like that, they're culpable in a sense, but<br>
the culpability is much broader.<br>
<br>
I was just reading a couple days ago a review of a new book by Steven Miles,<br>
a medical doctor and bioethicist, who ran through 35,000 pages of documents<br>
he got from the Freedom of Information Act on the torture in Abu Ghraib. And<br>
the question that concerned him is, 'What were the doctors doing during all<br>
of this?' All through those torture sessions there were doctors, nurses,<br>
behavioral scientists and others who were organizing them. What were they<br>
doing when this torture was going on? Well, you go through the detailed<br>
record and it turns out that they were designing and improving it. Just like<br>
Nazi doctors.<br>
<br>
Robert Jay Lifton did a big study on Nazi doctors. He points out in<br>
connection with the Nazi doctors that, in a way, it's not those individual<br>
doctors who had the final guilt, it was a culture and a society which<br>
accepted torture and criminal activities as legitimate. The same is true<br>
with the tortures at Abu Ghraib. I mean, just to focus on them as if they're<br>
somehow terrible people is just a serious mistake. They're coming out of a<br>
culture that regards this as legitimate. Maybe there are some excesses you<br>
don't really do but torture in interrogation is considered legitimate.<br>
<br>
There's a big debate now on, 'Who's an enemy combatant?'; a big technical<br>
debate. Suppose we invade another country and we capture somebody who's<br>
defending the country against our invasion: what do you mean to call them an<br>
'enemy combatant'? If some country invaded the United States and let's say<br>
you were captured throwing a rock at one of the soldiers, would it be<br>
legitimate to send you to the equivalent of Guantanamo, and then have a<br>
debate about whether you're a 'lawful' or 'unlawful' combatant? The whole<br>
discussion is kind of, like, off in outer space somewhere. But, in a culture<br>
which accepts that we own and rule the world, it's reasonable. But, also, we<br>
should go back to the roots of the intellectual or moral culture, not just<br>
to the individuals directly involved.<br>
<br>
GMS: As you mentioned before, whether students are taught serious moral<br>
principles: At my school, the University of Arizona, there are courses in<br>
bioethics-required ones, in fact, to hard scientific undergraduates (I took<br>
one, out of interest)- which mostly just discuss scenarios in terms of<br>
'slippery slopes' and hypothetical questions within certain bounds, and<br>
still none at all in the social sciences or humanities. Do you think there<br>
should be? Would that be beneficial?<br>
<br>
If they were honest, yes. If they're honest they'd be talking about what<br>
we're talking about, and doing case studies. There's no point pontificating<br>
about high minded principles. That's easy. Nazi doctors could do that, too.<br>
<br>
Let's take a look at the cases and ask how the principles apply-to Vietnam;<br>
to El Salvador; to Iraq; to Palestine-just run through the cases and see how<br>
the principles apply to our own actions. That's what is of prime importance,<br>
and what is least discussed.<br>
<br>
GMS: As a note to end on, there seems to be some very serious aberrations<br>
and defects in our society and our level of culture. How, in your view,<br>
might they be corrected and a new level of culture be established, say, one<br>
in which torture isn't accepted? (After all, slavery and child labor were<br>
each accepted for a long period of time and now are not.)<br>
<br>
Your examples give the answer to the question, the only answer that has ever<br>
been known. Slavery and child labor didn't become unacceptable by magic. It<br>
took hard, dedicated, courageous work by lots of people. The same is true of<br>
torture, which was once completely routine.<br>
<br>
If I remember correctly, the renowned Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie<br>
wrote somewhere that prisons began to proliferate in Norway in the early<br>
19th century. They weren't much needed before, when the punishment for<br>
robbery could be driving a stake through the hand of the accused. Now it's<br>
perhaps the most civilized country on earth.<br>
<br>
There has been a gradual codification of constraints against torture, and<br>
they have had some effect, though only limited, even before the Bush<br>
regression to savagery. Alfred McCoy's work reviews that ugly history.<br>
Still, there is improvement, and there can be more if enough people are<br>
willing to undertake the efforts that led to large-scale rejection of<br>
slavery and child labor-still far from complete.<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStart|**|-~-->
<span width="1" style="color: white;">__._,_.___</span>
<!-- Start the section with Message In topic -->
<div id="ygrp-actbar">
<span class="left">
<a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/message/1694;_ylc=X3oDMTM0cmZlN3M4BF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BG1zZ0lkAzE2OTQEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMTg3MzY1NjQ5BHRwY0lkAzE2OTQ-">
Toute la discussion </a> (<span class="bld">1</span>)
</span>
<a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwdW11N2toBF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BG1zZ0lkAzE2OTQEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMTg3MzY1NjQ5?act=reply&messageNum=1694">
<span class="bld">
Répondre </span> (en mode Web)
</a> |
<a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaGFhOTJjBF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE4NzM2NTY0OQ--" class="bld">
Nouvelle discussion </a>
</div>
<!------- Start Nav Bar ------>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<div id="ygrp-vitnav">
<a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYm8zaHU2BF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTE4NzM2NTY0OQ--">Messages</a>
| <a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJmamJhN2I2BF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2ZpbGVzBHN0aW1lAzExODczNjU2NDk-">Fichiers</a>
| <a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNzI2YzA2BF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Bob3QEc3RpbWUDMTE4NzM2NTY0OQ--">Photos</a>
| <a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJmc3RsMWYyBF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2xpbmtzBHN0aW1lAzExODczNjU2NDk-">Liens</a>
| <a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/database;_ylc=X3oDMTJjNDBtaGdqBF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2RiBHN0aW1lAzExODczNjU2NDk-">Base de données</a>
| <a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYmpkc3BtBF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3BvbGxzBHN0aW1lAzExODczNjU2NDk-">Sondages</a>
| <a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJlazZrMWd1BF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21icnMEc3RpbWUDMTE4NzM2NTY0OQ--">Membres</a>
| <a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/calendar;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYmx2Z25xBF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2NhbARzdGltZQMxMTg3MzY1NjQ5">Agenda</a>
</div>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<!-- Do not have place to put it yet -->
<div id="ygrp-grft">
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
Pour se desinscire, envoyer un mel à parislinguists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR>
Pour s'inscrire, envoyer un mel à parislinguists-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
</div>
<!-- yahoo logo -->
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<div id="ygrp-ft">
<a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkOTg4NTdzBF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMTg3MzY1NjQ5">
<img src="http://l.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/i/fr/yg/ygcal.gif" height="19" width="114" border="0" alt="Yahoo! Groupes"></a> <br>
<a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdGhic2JmBF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzExODczNjU2NDk-">Modifier vos options par le Web</a> ((Compte Yahoo! requis) <br>
Modifier vos options par mail : <a href="mailto:parislinguists-digest@yahoogroupes.fr?subject=Envoi de mails : Sélection">Activer l’envoi groupé</a> | <a href = "mailto:parislinguists-traditional@yahoogroupes.fr?subject=Activer le format: Traditionnel">Activer le format Traditionnel</a> <br>
<a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdjA0amI2BF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxMTg3MzY1NjQ5">
Aller sur votre groupe
</a> |
<a href="http://fr.docs.yahoo.com/info/utos.html">
Conditions d’utilisation de Yahoo! Groupes </a> |
<a href="mailto:parislinguists-desabonnement@yahoogroupes.fr?subject=">
Désinscription </a>
</div> <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
</div> <!-- ygrp-msg -->
<!-- Sponsor -->
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<div id="ygrp-sponsor" style="width:140px;float: left; clear: none; margin-left: 5px; background:white; margin-bottom:25px ;position:absolute; top:0; right: 0;">
<!-- Network content -->
<!-- Start vitality -->
<div id="ygrp-vital">
<a href="http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbDk4N3VnBF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BGdycElkAzMxNDkxMjQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMyMTIzODEyNTI4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTE4NzM2NTY0OQ--">
Aller sur votre groupe </a>
</div>
<!-- Network content -->
<div id="nc">
<div class="ad">
<div id="hd1">Yahoo! 360º</div>
<p><a href="http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJrdGY5cTgwBF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BF9wAzEEZ3JwSWQDMzE0OTEyNARncnBzcElkAzIxMjM4MTI1MjgEc2VjA25jbW9kBHNsawMzNjAEc3RpbWUDMTE4NzM2NTY0OQ--;_ylg=1/SIG=120i89lsb/**http%3A//fr.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44791/*http%3A//fr.360.yahoo.com">Partagez l'essentiel</a></p>
<p>Blog et photos avec</p>
<p>vos proches.</p>
</div>
<div class="ad">
<div id="hd1">Yahoo! Groupes</div>
<p><a href="http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJuYm5odWptBF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BF9wAzIEZ3JwSWQDMzE0OTEyNARncnBzcElkAzIxMjM4MTI1MjgEc2VjA25jbW9kBHNsawNncm91cHMEc3RpbWUDMTE4NzM2NTY0OQ--;_ylg=1/SIG=1239gto63/**http%3A//fr.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44790/*http%3A//fr.groups.yahoo.com">Créez votre groupe</a></p>
<p>Partagez vos goûts</p>
<p>avec les autres.</p>
</div>
<div class="ad">
<div id="hd1">Y! Toolbar</div>
<p><a href="http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJvMGU3Z3BpBF9TAzk3NDkwNDY4BF9wAzMEZ3JwSWQDMzE0OTEyNARncnBzcElkAzIxMjM4MTI1MjgEc2VjA25jbW9kBHNsawN0b29sYmFyBHN0aW1lAzExODczNjU2NDk-;_ylg=1/SIG=1243ka2s1/**http%3A//fr.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44789/*http%3A//fr.toolbar.yahoo.com">100% gratuit !</a></p>
<p>En 1 clic, accédez</p>
<p>à vos groupes.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div> <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<div style="clear:both; color: #FFF; font-size:1px;">.</div>
</div> <img src="http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97490468/grpId=3149124/grpspId=2123812528/msgId=1694/stime=1187365649/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3" width="1" height="1"> <br>
<span style="color: white;">__,_._,___</span>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~-->
</body>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStart|**|-~-->
<head>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px; font-family: arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;*font-size:small;*font:x-small;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;*font-size:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family: Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin: 0 0 1em 0;
}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family: Arial;
clear: both;
}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top: 10px;
font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 77%;
margin: 0;
}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding: 0 1px;
}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear: both;
margin: 25px 0;
white-space:nowrap;
color: #666;
text-align: right;
}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float: left;
white-space:nowrap;
}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 77%;
padding: 15px 0;
}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family: verdana;
font-size: 77%;
border-top: 1px solid #666;
padding: 5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom: 10px;
}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color: #e0ecee;
margin-bottom: 20px;
padding: 2px 0 8px 8px;
}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size: 77%;
font-family: Verdana;
font-weight: bold;
color: #333;
text-transform: uppercase;
}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding: 0;
margin: 2px 0;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type: none;
clear: both;
border: 1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight: bold;
color: #ff7900;
float: right;
width: 2em;
text-align:right;
padding-right: .5em;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight: bold;
}
#ygrp-vital a {
text-decoration: none;
}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration: underline;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color: #999;
font-size: 77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding: 6px 13px;
background-color: #e0ecee;
margin-bottom: 20px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding: 0 0 0 8px;
margin: 0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type: square;
padding: 6px 0;
font-size: 77%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration: none;
font-size: 130%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc {
background-color: #eee;
margin-bottom: 20px;
padding: 0 8px;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding: 8px 0;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family: Arial;
font-weight: bold;
color: #628c2a;
font-size: 100%;
line-height: 122%;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration: none;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration: underline;
}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin: 0;
}
o {font-size: 0; }
.MsoNormal {
margin: 0 0 0 0;
}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size: 120%;
}
blockquote{margin: 0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq {margin:4}
-->
</style>
</head>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~-->
</html><!--End group email -->