On the aged and distinguished pointlessness of torture

Rendition

withall affirming that the Divel can take any shape, and speake plaine English
     — from the trial of Rebecca West

One of our activities when Dori was visiting two weeks ago was to visit Colchester castle, which I’d never been to. Like many such castles, it was used for much of its life as a prison, with the sort of horrid conditions typical of such places. One of the many unpleasant uses of this prison was for torture during witch trials. This included the torture of Rebecca West, a 15 year old girl that eventually confessed to having been “married” to the devil by the elder witches, and gave up her mother and numerous others, most of which were hanged. (There’s a transcript of the trial on-line, which includes the quote above.)

All quite creepy, especially since the U.S. government still believes that torture is a reasonable way to acquire meaningful information.

A few days ago WeatherGirl and I saw Eastern Promises and Rendition in a single night of light entertainment. (Plus all three of us saw an excellent stage production of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus on Friday, so light and fluffies all around!) Eastern Promises was certificate 18 in the UK, while Rendition was 15. I understand those ratings and they make a fair amount of sense, but I personally found Rendition more disturbing, mostly because of the awful and futile torture. It’s so clear that the character in question, and very nearly any of us, would soon say whatever our examiners wanted to hear in a desperate effort to bring an end to the abuse. Under such circumstances, any information gathered is clearly valueless, making the whole process nothing more than a horrid exercise in the molestation of our fellow humans.

It was also tough because WeatherGirl’s not a U.S. citizen; her status is almost identical to that of the man that is kidnapped and tortured in the film. The two important differences are that she’s not African/Middle Eastern, and she’s female, but from a legal perspective she’s no more or less protected than he was. Sadly, though, when the rule of law breaks down almost entirely (as Our Fearless Leader has allowed to happen in many ways), questions of legal protection become irrelevant in the face of this cackling rush to the shackles and truncheon.

No tag for this post.

Related posts

There are good lawyers, and there are…

'the law' by losiek on Flickr
In the recent and ongoing efforts preserve, rehabilitate, and ultimately strengthen the Morris Theatre, two local lawyers have played (and continue to play) crucial positive roles. They have donated time, expertise, and enthusiastic support, and it’s hard to imagine any of this progress being made without their assistance.

Every profession (most definitely including education) has its low-lifes and losers, however, that do their best ot make everyone look bad, and endless reams of lawyer jokes have to be based on something. Well some some of those cephalopods in wigs are apparently assisting a “scientific” author who’s either very thin skinned or very greedy or both. Stuart Pivar is the author of Lifecode, which PeeZed panned twice (two editions, so two chances to be bitten, you see). Pivar has apparently had enough of this whole idea of peer review of scientific work and is suing PeeZed and Seed Media (who manage the whole Scienceblogs site where PeeZed’s Pharyngula lives). He’s looking for a total of $15 mil, apparently arguing that Paul’s comments have damaged book sales, bruised his ego, etc., blah, stuff.

I don’t claim to be on top of all the details (it is, not surprisingly, complex and will take a while to fully unfold), but it would appear that at least part of the problem is the PeeZed (and various of his regular commenters) helped determine that at least one of the book jacket blurbs (which was also used on-line to promote the book) was partly out of context and partly an outright fabrication. Oops.

Suing is apparently more fun than admitting to a mistake, so Paul’s now been sucked into the mire of “Holy frivolous litigation, Batman!“. Not surprisingly, much blogging is happening on the subject, so you can read til your vision blurs (or your stomache turns). PeeZed’s saying nothing (on advice of counsel), Panda’s Thumb has a nice piece (complete with a photo of Dr. Evil!), this piece on Sunclipse has the whole timeline complete with links, and this Scientific American blog post has more detail on the specifics of the legal filing.

I wonder what the impact of being a “commercial” blogger instead of a “private” or “academic” blogger has on all of this? Would Pivar be less (or more) likely to sue if Paul was blogging on the U of M blog cluster instead of ScienceBlogs? In what way would that change both the offense and defense in the case? I have good reason to believe that the U’s lawyers would happily and aggressively defend their faculty in such a case, but I suspect that Paul’s contract with Seed means that it’s their lawyers who get to handle this ball.

I don’t think there’s much anyone can do at this point but watch and wait as the lawyers unwrap and rewrap this puzzle. I always have this naive hope that the courts will recognize this sort of thing for the vicious, intimidatory tactic that it is, but “naive” is the key word there, and I am often wrong.

Thanks to losiek for the cool photo.

No tag for this post.

Related posts