A Most Horrifying "Scandal"

This week's reading hasn't been easy. With the topic of torture we like to think that we are somehow separated from that of the witch-hunts, but that is not entirely true. Photos and recorded documents of the Abu Ghraib incident prove that.

During the war in Iraq, military personnel stationed at Abu Ghraib prison were said to have abused detainees with various forms of torture and sexual violence. It was said that these acts of torture were used as a means of gathering information, such as in the incidents of the witch-hunts. What is also similar to the witch-hunts, is that torture was authorized by government military leaders. "There was evidence that authorization for the torture had come from high up in military hierarchy, with allegations being made that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had authorized some of the actions" (Wikipedia).

As we have read before, many people react differently to the topic of torture and with this incident in particular. In the "Global Reaction" section of the Wikipedia article, it quotes Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, the foreign minister of the Vatican, saying that this incident at Abu Ghraib was "a more serious blow to the United States than September 11, 2001 attacks. Except that the blow was not inflicted by terrorists but by the Americans against themselves" (Wikipedia). This means that since the incident has proven that the United States is in fact willing to use torture, that the rest of the world will look on the country very poorly, and possibly even encourage new enemies. However, many people also responded in favor of the torture, saying that if it is necessary, it should be used.

These might be a hard questions to ask, but what do you think of the whole "scandal"?

Do you think that torture should be permitted as a means of gaining information?

"Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse." Wikipedia.org.

Misogyny, Misandry, or Misanthropy: Gender Bias in the Early Modern Witch-Hunts

In our class discussions, we critically analyze the causes, effects, and parties involved in the medieval European witch-hunts. At times, such as when viewing woodcuts and illustrations such as the cover of our Kors and Peters book, depicted below, we also address the concept of gender and the role that it played. We see that the vast majority of those accused of witchcraft were females, the majority of those prosecuting and investigating such accusations were males, and we see two stark contrasts between the punishments awarded to these groups.

The word misogyny is often used far more often than is necessary or than is appropriate. Yes, our studies and texts in class primarily focus on those who lack a Y chromosome, but it does not solely focus on punishing only those individuals. Misandry is a concept that is often ignored, many don’t want to speak of the oppression, contempt, and prejudice that are held against men throughout various aspects of history and in our modern day. As opposed to labeling the entire scope of the witch-hunts as being misogynistic, or misandristic, a much more adequate and fitting term would be misanthropic.  

In our Kors and Peters book, we read the Malleus Maleficarum written by Heinrich Kramer. In this text, which quickly became paramount to the witch hunts, both men and women are described in how they succumb to the practice of witchcraft, and goes so far as to explain and justify the reasoning behind why women were more often accused, such as claiming “women are more carnal than men,” “women are more easily swayed and influenced,” and “a woman falsely accused Joseph which resulted in his incarceration because he refused to engage in intercourse with her, thus they are more likely to act out in jealousy or envy and turn to evil methods in order to achieve such means” (K&P).  

Although there aren’t any current studies heavily examining gender and the representation of each and every accused individual in these hunts, in order to fully understand the implications of one’s sex and certain body parts that they may or may not have, one first needs to understand and come to view gender as more of a spectrum than a binary, in addition to concepts such as human sexuality. Why does the Bible condemn homosexuality and acts of sodomy? Why were such acts punished during these hunts? If two consenting adults choose to engage in private activities, even if one of those adults happens to be a demonic or evil entity, what exactly gives the rights to these inquisitors and these magistrates to pass physical judgment and execute, fine, or otherwise punish these individuals? Why were Catholics able to prosecute Jews, Waldensians, and pagans?

Although the majority of these prosecutions and interrogations were reserved for women, in order to fully understand the implications and scope of the witch-hunts, men and their roles as accused cannot be overlooked. 

Image credits:

Baldung/Kors and Peters image:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Baldung_Hexen_1508_kol.JPG

Malleus Maleficarum image:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Malleus.jpg/250px-Malleus.jpg

Bibliography:

Kors, Alan Charles, and Edward Peters. Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. Second ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.

Torture at Abu Ghraib

The photographs taken by the 372nd Military Police Company that shows detainees being tortured at Abu Ghraib are hard to look at. Male detainees were stripped naked, arranged in sexually explicit positions, and even forced to masturbate; all while being photographed or filmed. Many were beaten, waterboarded, and threatened with death. It is hard to believe that the United States could be responsible for such atrocities, but according to a Newsweek article titled The Debate Over Torture, it states that "The international Convention Against Torture, ratified by the United States in 1994, bans the "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" treatment of all prisoners. But Justice Department lawyers had obligingly declared that the president could ignore such constraints" (CP 166). It is also worth noting that many of these prisoners are not even prisoners at all, but rather considered enemy combatants that are not afforded the protection of the Geneva Convention rules. When the barbarity of what was happening at the prison came to light, an investigation was launched, and many of the lower ranking military members were sentenced to various lengths of jail time. One of the key components that came from the investigation was that "the 800th MP Brigade was not adequately trained for a mission that included operating a prison or penal institution at Abu Ghraib Prison Complex" (CP 160). Of course, those who were involved in the aggravated torture of the prisoners deserve to be punished, but do you believe that they were acting on their own, or were they merely following orders from higher command?

An American Alternative: Torture in the 21st Century

When one hears of torture, they immediately think of the middle ages (incorrectly) or of the inhumane treatment by the Axis Powers during the Second World War. However the use of torture is not a bygone process. On the contrary torture has been found to have occurred in the last decade. And the party responsible is not an uncivilized group or nation. The assailants acted under the authority of none other than the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency. The individuals which were subjected to various tortures – such as waterboarding, containment in small boxes, standing handcuffed to hanging rods for weeks at a time – were prisoners who were accused of being important leaders of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. The goal of this torturing and subsequent interrogations was to extract information regarding the identities of additional terrorists and potential targets. Although there was much controversy regarding this use by the American forces to gain information, the importance lies in the fact that the torture was not the product of rogue subordinates in the field. What is more the decision to utilize this form of extraction was decided by higher officials back in the states.

In a 2009 article from the New York Times, a C.I.A. officer stated that, “It wasn’t up to individual interrogators to decide… [because every step] had to have the approval of the deputy director for operations” (Danner). The officer continued that before any torture could be done, those in the field had to ask permission via cable transmission of their superiors (Danner, 2009). Thus it was beyond the power of the “boots on the ground” to make the decisions about whether or not to apply torture to an individual. The author of the article further writes that although there is need for justice to be directed toward the alleged terrorists that “the use of torture deprives society… of the possibility for rendering justice. Torture destroys justice… in effect [relinquishing] this sacred right in exchange for speculative benefits whose value is… much disputed” (Danner, 2009).

Essentially torture of terrorists would come to be a major trouble in the American War on Terror, creating much highly debatable results. There are many similarities that exist between the 21^st century and the early modern era when torture would be used to great extant to withdraw information during the great witch-hunts. Looking back at the accounts of the witch-hunts, what are the links that officials in power had over the torture procedures? And do you feel that the information that is gained from torture, whether in the present day or centuries ago, is truly beneficial to the original intention of the torturers?

Early Modern Depiction of a Torture Technique that would be used in the 21st Century.

To read the New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/opinion/15danner.html?_r=0

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't

As we have learned in class, it seems that people (especially women) who were accused of witchcraft had little to no rights when it came to their defense. From Rebecca Lemp, who's letters from her own children and husband could not save her, to Johannes Junius, a burgomaster from Bamberg, legal defense for accused witches appeared to be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario for them.  Friedrich Spee, a confessor of witches wrote in the Cautio criminalis about a woman named Gaia. When it comes to living a good life or a bad life, he says "If a bad one, then, say they, the proof is cogent against her" and "If, however, she has led a good one, this also is none the less a proof; for thus, they say, are witches wont to cloak themselves and try to seem especially proper" (Kors and Peters 426). Usually, torture was used in order to obtain a confession. However, it doesn't seem to matter because, according to Spee, "when once a beginning has been made with the torture, the die is already cast - she cannot escape, she must die" (Kors and Peters 427). Even though there was the appearance of fairness (judges, lawyers, note takers, etc.), do you believe that those accused of witchcraft were doomed right from the beginning?