Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Torture Harms the Torturer Too

The Tortured Lives of Interrogators – washingtonpost.com

“I tortured people,” said Lagouranis, 37, who was a military intelligence specialist in Iraq from January 2004 until January 2005. “You have to twist your mind up so much to justify doing that.”

Being an interrogator, Lagouranis discovered, can be torture.

I think the most compelling arguments against torture are its fundamental immorality, what it does to this country;s moral standing, what it does to this country's legal standing, and that it doesn't work real well, in that order. But I'm willing to add what it does to the torturers to the end of the list.

They could, after all refuse, costly as it would be to them personally. And, indeed, some do:

Lagouranis's tools included stress positions, a staged execution and hypothermia so extreme the detainees' lips turned purple. He has written an account of his experiences in a book, “Fear Up Harsh,” which has been read by the Pentagon and will be published this week. Stephen Lewis, an interrogator who was deployed with Lagouranis, confirmed the account, and Staff Sgt. Shawn Campbell, who was Lagouranis's team leader and direct supervisor, said Lagouranis's assertions were “as true as true can get. It's all verifiable.” John Sifton, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, said the group investigated many of Lagouranis's claims about abuses and independently corroborated them.

“At every point, there was part of me resisting, part of me enjoying,” Lagouranis said. “Using dogs on someone, there was a tingling throughout my body. If you saw the reaction in the prisoner, it's thrilling.”

In Mosul, he took detainees outside the prison gate to a metal shipping container they called “the disco,” with blaring music and lights. Before and after questioning, military police officers stripped them and checked for injuries, noting cuts and bumps “like a car inspection at a parking garage.” Once a week, an Iraqi councilman and an American colonel visited. “We had to hide the tortured guys,” Lagouranis said.

Then a soldier's aunt sent over several copies of Viktor E. Frankel's Holocaust memoir, “Man's Search for Meaning.” Lagouranis found himself trying to pick up tips from the Nazis. He realized he had gone too far.

At that point, Lagouranis said, he moderated his techniques and submitted sworn statements to supervisors concerning prisoner abuse.

The Post's article has lots more, not all of it unambiguous, and is worth reading in full.

Posted in Torture | 2 Comments

Zimmer On Google’s Purchase of Feedburner

If you aren't reading Dr. Michael Zimmer's thoughts “on the intersections of technology & values, privacy & surveillance, the Web & new media, culture & communication,” then you are missing out.

He's become one of the most reliably thoughtful voices in my newsreader.

Today's offering — just a routinely aha! comment — concerns Google & FeedBurner:

I haven't had a chance to think long and hard yet about Google's recent decision to acquire FeedBurner, and I'm sure most reactions will center on how this provides Google yet another medium to deliver contextual ads.

But my first reaction was slightly different:

What FeedBurner seems to provide Google — as much as an advertising medium — is an automatic feed of new Web content and an instant mapping of the all important links between pages. Now, instead of Google needing to rely on the efficiency of its crawlers to find these new blog posts, they will be delivered right to Google's front door every time we ping http://ping.feedburner.com.

I think this must be right. More generally, as one of the first adopters of feedburner, I have mixed feelings about this acquisition. I'm happy that the founders are being rewarded, I'm glad feedburner's long-term stability is assured, but I'm beginning to feel that there's going to be Google in everything I touch online.

PS. Congratulations on the new Ph.D, Dr. Zimmer.

Posted in Internet | 3 Comments

Senator Bill Nelson Votes for Torture

Senator Bill Nelson Votes for Torture.

Or, as the NYT put it,

The Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday questioned the continuing value of the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret interrogation program for terrorism suspects, suggesting that international condemnation and the obstacles it has created to criminal prosecution may outweigh its worth in gathering information.

The committee rejected by one vote a Democratic proposal that would essentially have cut money for the program by banning harsh interrogation techniques except in dire emergencies, a committee report revealed.

And that one vote was Florida's own Bill Nelson.

In a closed session on May 23, two Democrats, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Dianne Feinstein of California, proposed barring spending on interrogation techniques that go beyond the Army Field Manual, which bans physical pressure or pain. Under their proposal, the only exception would have been when the president determined “that an individual has information about a specific and imminent threat.”.

The amendment failed when Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, joined all the Republicans in voting no.

All Floridians should be ashamed of Sen. Bill Nelson, who provided the deciding vote to prevent the Senate from taking a stand against torture.

He has sunk to the level of Sen. Martinez, which is pretty low indeed.

There is no excuse for this sort of vote. None.

Posted in Torture | 7 Comments

600 Blows

I make it 600 more days of the Bush admnistration

Posted in Politics: US | 1 Comment

A Fool for a Client

The mind boggles.

Blogger unmasked, court case upended: As Ivy League-educated pediatrician Robert P. Lindeman sat on the stand in Suffolk Superior Court this month, defending himself in a malpractice suit involving the death of a 12-year-old patient, the opposing counsel startled him with a question.

Was Lindeman Flea?

Flea, jurors in the case didn't know, was the screen name for a blogger who had written often and at length about a trial remarkably similar to the one that was going on in the courtroom that day.

In his blog, Flea had ridiculed the plaintiff's case and the plaintiff's lawyer. He had revealed the defense strategy. He had accused members of the jury of dozing.

With the jury looking on in puzzlement, Lindeman admitted that he was, in fact, Flea.

So, here's a little tip for anyone who finds themselves involved in a lawsuit: don't blog about the case (or, at least, have every posting approved by your lawyer). And if you do have a blog, maybe you should mention this fact to your lawyer…

P.S. I'm sure someone in the blogosphere will try to spin this case as some sort of attack on bloggers' inherent right to anonymity. It isn't.

(Thanks to DF for the link.)

Posted in Blogs | 6 Comments

Call Me a Churl If You Like

I remember getting really excited about the idea of Heifer International, giving donations that would buy need people around the world cows and goats. Until, that is, I read the (very) fine print and discovered that my gift would not in fact buy someone an actual cow or goat, but would go into the charity’s general fund.

The prices in this catalog represent the complete livestock gift of a quality animal, technical assistance and training. Each purchase is symbolic and represents a contribution to the entire mission of Heifer International. Donations will be used where needed most to help struggling people.

How many actual cows or goats emerged at the other end was uncertain.

How unfortunate therefore to see a great group like Oxfam stoop to the same tactic. If you read their online pitch for Oxfam America Unwrapped you could easily come to believe that your gift of $75 would actually buy someone an actual cow.

But that’s not how it works:

In technical terms (what the lawyers tell us we need to explain):
Oxfam America works in 26 countries around the world. This catalog contains gift items that symbolically represent our work. The items selected represent project goals from grants disbursed by our seven offices around the world. The purchase of each gift item is a contribution toward Oxfam America’s many programs, not a donation to a specific project or goal. Your donation will be used where it is needed the most–to help people living in poverty throughout the world.

Or, as the FAQ says:

Am I really buying a camel?
First off, let’s be clear: Neither you nor your gift recipient will receive a camel (other than the handsome photo on the gift card). When you buy a camel from Oxfam America Unwrapped, you are actually giving much more. The impact of your donation will have far-reaching effects. In each case, your donation will be used where it is most needed. For more information, click on the “How it Works” tab (at the top of the page).



Does a camel really cost $175?
Since our gifts are symbolic, these prices represent a suggested donation. We have drawn from a range of gifts so that you can make a donation that is meaningful—and fits your budget!

Good causes, especially Oxfam, but I don’t like the tricksy marketing.

I’m not sure what the going rate is for a camel, but I suspect that when you “give a camel” you are not giving a camel, not to mention “so much more” — the going rate for a camel seems to be £300 to £2,000. If so, that $175 will thus buy at most half of one of the mangiest variety.

[If all went according to plan, I’m just back from Italy now, but very jet lagged. And I am leaving for my next trip … tonight. So I’ve queued up some more posts to cover for me. This is one of them.]

Posted in Econ & Money | 4 Comments