Religion

TOK Assignment:

Religion

By definition, Religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth. It is the devotion to something or someone that a person regards as a supreme being.

There is this saying that "Never discuss religion or politics” as discussions over these two result in a great deal of controversy and heated debate providing no real conclusion except the different perspectives on religion which can cause misunderstandings in relationships. Such topics are avoided, especially religion so as maintain harmony in relationships. Even the language that one uses while talking about one’s own or someone else’s relationship should be appropriate so as to avoid offending others. When one shares their perspective on religion, it releases all kinds of issues that can be dealt with. The religion you follow is a sort of identity especially culturally as it defines you background and heritage. Hence the need for most people to follow religion.

Often when the religion is discussed, heated debates start off. Therefore when you are proving a point, it is necessary to support your belief with an experience in order to present your point more strongly. Religion often depicts emotions depending on the kind of person you are and the beliefs you possess. The religion you follow shows what type of a person you are, what do you believe in and the reason why you believe in it.

According to me God has always existed. I believe in the existence of God, a supreme being above all of us. But religion as most people believe, is the path towards finding God. Practicing religion is done in order to reach that one Supreme entity. It is a way of channelizing your beliefs towards that Supreme entity. People generally tend to believe that religion leads to God but that may not necessarily be the case. These people perform innumerable rituals and customs in order to what they think,“ appeases GOD”. It is a belief that has been fed into us from the very beginning that there is God and he is above all and in order for him to help us or see us, we pray as well as perform all sorts of rituals. It is difficult to question the existence and normally people refrain themselves from doing so.

However there are books and journals written on past occurrences that allow people to believe in God and devote themselves to him but how reliable are these sources? Infact even when ritual or “ havans “ are going, the priest narrates real life stories about the existence of God and how by performing this ritual, one will be able to see God or a miracle will happen.

Therefore religion becomes this fallacy, this sort of thing people follow in order to make that connection with God. Religion becomes the path to meet God. Also religion allows us to reach out to something that may perhaps help us answer our questions. It has become a depending factor, a support system on which people rely on. It is a permit to allow people to perform certain acts and base it on the name of religion. For example most people fast for seven days without knowing the reason as to why they are fasting in the first place. They have no real knowledge as to why a fast is performed. They just follow this custom on the pretext of doing it for God.

There are other people who think that religion is an obligation, whether it is directed towards you family, a person or even the society. Then there are those sections of people who believe that religion is a way of finding God in you. It could be true, as people have experienced God – like miracles. Following religion correctly will help you find the right path to God. There are also those section of people who convert to religion from another one or become religious from holding a non –religious stance. This is possible but conversion occurs when someone find the religion appealing to their emotions. For example Richard Gere converted to Buddhism as he found their ideals common to his thoughts about God.

Now there are different religions all across the world. Sometimes you choose your religion or you follow what your ancestors have followed. For example if you are born a Hindu, you are bound to continue to follow the Hindi customs and rituals. There is rarely any questioning as to why one should be doing this. Also religion helps bring people closer together forming an unshakeable bond. It brings peace and serenity to one’s mind knowing that perhaps there is a force that is watching over them and guiding them in an unknown way. Most people pray in order to get a miracle to happen or when one needs something. Can this be defined as following a religion correctly?

People continue to change their stance and beliefs as they grow and learn more about all religions. Ones perception and opinions continue to, as they grow older. Therefore is a system of faith and which brings about a feeling of absolute dependence. It is a "cultural system" which was dominant for most of the 20th century and continues to be widely accepted today.

Surrogates

Surrogates is a science fiction film. It is based in the future, in the year 2017, where technology has advanced to such an extent that human beings are using these remote – controlled robotic bodies known as “ surrogates”, designed as better – looking versions of their human operators. However humans live in near – total isolation, rarely leaving the safety and comfort of their homes due to these surrogates. Because people are safe all the time, and damage done to a surrogate is not felt by its owner, it is a peaceful world free from fear, pain, and crime. But it is not reality. It’s a fake world controlled by robots devoid of any human emotions.

This movie starts with Agent Tom Greer ( Bruce Willis) who is an FBI agent who, through the use of his own surrogate, investigates the first murder in years: Jarod Canter, a college student and the son of Dr. Lionel Canter (James Cromwell), the original inventor of surrogates, who uses multiple surrogates himself. The case grows more complicated, however, when several police officers are murdered when their surrogates are destroyed, something which is not supposed to happen, as the human operator is normally safe from the damage done to his/her surrogate. This is a movie where science plays with humans. What science meant in the 20^th century is very different from the science in today, in the 21^st century. Science is being wrongly used; it is being abused on the pretext of technological advancement. But what is not being taken into consideration is that science is an area of knowledge, if used wrongly then the consequences can be harsh. This is what is highlighted in the movie.

The technological advancement in the movie is great. A robotic body controlled by a human mind is a futuristic concept. But it is not reality. The emotions of a human being are not taken into consideration. The entire movie is based on the movements of these robots, not their feelings. Therefore the language they speak is solely what the mind of their human being counterpart is thinking. They have no such mind of their own. They are technically brainwashed by their real counterpart. The only language that they speak is what is being told them to do.

What this movie shows is how a defect in the system can lead to such a big problem that human beings are being controlled by their robotic counterparts. It highlights the issue of how one man Agent Greer has to solve this problem. The tagline of the movie is appropriate. It states that “ how do you save humanity when the only thing that’s real is you? How to save humanity is being questioned in the movie. This is a reflection of ethics. Is it ethical to create a robotic masterpiece? Many religious organizations would be against the creation of the ultra powerful robotic counterpart of man. This movie questions the idea of creating a robot in the first place. Is it really necessary? The repercussions are highlighted in the latter part of the movie.

There are two opposing teams in the movie. One is the creator of the surrogates, Dr. Lionel Canter ( the original inventor) and the other the Dreads, a group of humans led by a mysterious man known only as The Prophet (Ving Rhames) who is against the use of surrogates. But what happens is that Jarod is killed and the suspect is a member of the Dreads. The main suspect is Miles Strickland who uses the OD to kill Jarod and the rest of the 5 police officers tracking him. Greer himself barely escapes death by the weapon. Although his surrogate is physically damaged, it is able to pursue Strickland before it is destroyed by the Dreads. Although there are robotic characters present in the first, they are able to convey the emotions of the human counterparts.

Later in the movie we get to know that the original creator of the surrogates was a paraplegic and hence he felt the need to construct a robotic figure in order to fulfill his own demands. Therefore his need for this creation was justified but for the others to abuse such sensitive technology was not right and unethical. Misuse of science was unethical.

Therefore this movie has two different perspectives in it. One is the creator who created for the sake of filling that void he had, due to him being a paraplegic and the other was to advance in science and ultimately abuse this area of knowledge for one’s own advantage putting whole human race in danger.

On the whole this movie is about how mind is clouded by emotion or perception therefore it has a great impact on reason and language. However, without perception, thinking will not take place and thus reasoning will not come into the picture. Thus perception is important. Similarly emotion is important as without it creative thinking and reasoning will not be possible. The creator was driven by emotion whilst creating the surrogate. Without emotions life will be monotonous, which is seen through the surrogates. Emotions serve as a part of the bases for language. Gestures and expressions are done to express emotions and thus convey the message. When Agent Greer and his wife communicate, they did via their surrogates therefore showing lack of emotion. Without emotions, life is redundant. Thus it will be preferable, to reason out a problem without jumping to conclusions however, emotions should not be shunned as they too play an important role in one’s life.

Therefore this movie shows how each emotion, perception , reason and language are interdependent and how they affect the human race. Surrogates starts off with dull lifeless robots driven by reason and language but in the end they are destroyed in order to allow emotion and perceptions to settle back in human race.

Jinnah. He had a pistol. He used it

This article is a clear example of the line, “ Anybody can make history. Only a great man can write it”. Jinnah and Nehru were great people in their own right. But this article is biased. It is a summary off events regarding the partition of India but it has been manipulated by the author, Tarun Vijay, who indirectly one particular point of view.

The entire article is written through his perspective, which is modeled on the RSS concept and the communist BJP. The author has used language as a tool, making use of important lines said by famous and great leaders in their speeches, in a different context in order to bring forward his point on this issue. He has manipulated parts of the speech made by these men in order to suit his perspective. For example Jinnah’s speech,

“I am not prepared to discuss ethics. We have a pistol and are in a position to use it."

So said Mohammad Ali Jinnah while delivering his presidential speech at the Muslim League convention on July 19, 1946. Tarun Vijay has used this line specifically to evoke a certain emotion – anger amongst the readers, blaming Jinnah for the partition and a verbal attack against the Muslim community.

Tarun Vijay manages to get his point across to the readers, by showing his anti Jinnah and anti Pakistani views, and at the same time talks about the works of Jinnah and other people’s speeches. Vijay uses historical examples to show Jinnah’s ruthlessness. Starting with talk about an “unimaginable massacre of Hindus in Kolkata”, Vijay manages to use his words to stir the feelings within the Indians reading this article. The speeches that he uses are very anti – Jinnah and pro – Hindu.

He goes on talking about different events, which are once again chosen with a bias, to prove his pro – Hindu point. Tarun Vijay includes Dr.Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the then leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, who was anti Jinnah, which is clearly brought out’

“Jinnah is out to destroy the very soul of India”

This sentence is clearly evident of Vijay’s intentions to bring out criticism against Jinnah. Along with this statement, Vijay has added his own inputs. He states that Mookerjee formed a volunteer group of the Hindus named the Hindustan National Guards, resisted horrendous goondaism of the League and moved in the riot-affected areas giving courage to the victims of a planned slaughter and orgy of violence by the League’s marauders. This is a clear indication of his intentions of writing this article. It was to provoke and stir the feelings of the readers towards Hinduism, through the medium of language.

Tarun Vijay does state his opinion of supremacy and the greatness of the RSS, through his words, quotations, and historical examples. He uses a quote from the Gita to talk about the RSS. This shows how he uses language, to stir emotions of the readers, at the same time, give the impression that following the RSS is following god. He equates the RSS to a deity.

Tarun also brings in ethics by quoting Jinnah when he said that he did not want to talk about ethics, Vijay manipulates the mind into thinking that Jinnah was unethical as he killed Hindus ruthlessly and mercilessly while the Hindus like the BJP and the RSS were so docile, ethical, and politically correct. On the issue of ethics, Tarun Vijay himself is highly unethical in writing about Jinnah and the Muslim Community; branding them as the traitor to India and causing a divide in Indian unity. He goes to the extent of quoting Dr. Mookerjee;

“The idea of two nationalities in India is only a new-fangled notion invented by Jinnah for his purposes and contrary to the facts. More than 90% of the Indian Mussalmans are descendants of converted Hindus and belong as much to the Indian nation as the Hindus themselves.”

He also brings political science to the forefront, when he brings in the politics of the time, and events that differentiate the BJP from the RSS and politics at the time of the partition and politics today. He also brings in other parties such as the Congress, BJP and the RSS besides the Muslim League.

Though he doesn’t directly insult Jinnah, he uses quotes that insult, and ruin him. For example he mentions what MJ Akbar Khan said about Jinnah’s antics. How Muhammad Ali Jinnah was an aristocrat by temperament, catholic in taste, sectarian in politics, and the father of Pakistan, who became the unlikeliest parent that an Islamic republic could possibly have. Jinnah did not even know Urdu. This indicates that Tarun Vijay criticized Jinnah not only for the partition of India but also being a bad leader or representative of Pakistan. The use of ethics, human sciences, and history enhances the effect that Vijay makes on his reader.

He takes a personal dig at Jinnah when he mentions this;

“It’s better to die unwavering even in tatters than to change track midway and die stinking rich.”

This quote is from the Gita and what the RSS believe in. This proves his association with the RSS.

He not only criticizes Jinnah and the Muslim League but also upholds the name of the BJP and the RSS. This truly shows his support for these two parties.

In the end he talks about how the two leaders Syama Prasad and Deen Dayal Upadhyaya and how they are two major icons of faith for the Hindu nationalist parivar.

Talking about Gandhi raises the flag of patriotism in the reader’s eyes. Gandhi a person of great awe in India, is written about with respect by Vijay, while Jinnah is insulted hence attacking emotions and using this psychological method, Vijay appeals to reader and evokes emotions and manages to do justify his title of the article. Tarun Vijay is successful in criticizing Jinnah, praising BJP and RSS and presenting his perspective on this issue. In this way, Vijay manages to share his biased opinion on Jinnah, and succeeds in brainwashing the readers.

Iran's Nuclear Issue

K and W Assignment 2:

Iran “Must Discuss” Nuclear Issue

In this article we learn about how the two countries, Iran and USA have different issues to be concerned with. Iran offered comprehensive talks but not on its key nuclear programmes, while USA wishes to discuss the Nuclear deal, especially Iran’s nuclear issues. Both the countries have different concerns and are unable to understand the others’ issues. They have different motives and perspectives, which results in both not agreeing on the same issue.

The point of difference arises form the fact that Iran offers to “embark on comprehensive talks” but does not mention its nuclear programme; this ambiguity and procrastination is leading US to be suspicious of Iran’s nuclear intentions. Iran is conveniently ignoring the nuclear issue; and the only reason why US has agreed to participate in talks is if Iran discuses its nuclear programmes. Iran’s dealing with the nuclear issue is making USA agitated and the US wants a clear “ head on “ answer. The discussion between USA and Iran over the Iran’s nuclear issues has not been very successful in the past and therefore the US has taken drastic measures by inviting Iran to the P+5 Group Meet, where the US hopes Iran will discuss the its nuclear programmes.

The P+5 Group consists of UK, China, France, Russia, Us plus Germany. These countries are all developed and industrialized nations and are also declared as nuclear enriched nations. All these countries have common ideologies and manifesto regarding their nuclear issues. The six countries expressed their shared concerns about Iranian nuclear activities as well as their expectation that Iran will be prepared to have “serious and substantive discussions” when all the parties meet in Geneva October 1. They also state that they have a shared commitment to “a dual track of engagement and pressure” in the group’s efforts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This shows that they already have a prejudice or pre- conceived notion that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons. Even though Iran has said before that its programme is “ for civilian purposes only”, the other countries have their own perspective on the matter from before hand and are not ready to believe what Iran is saying. Although Iran’s not discussing the issue makes its intentions even more doubtful. But Iran also wishes to discuss its social and economic problems for which America has no time. This complete disregard to issues faced by Iran will create resentment among Iranians.

Also it is hypocritical for them to state that Iran does not have a right to nuclear technology since they themselves refuse to discard their nuclear weapons. Like in the League of Nations, one of the points was that if any member country committed aggression, serious consequences would be there but the countries that laid down these conditions were the ones that committed the aggression like Japan and Italy. Looking at this scenario from a neutral point of view it is hard to believe and reason out that the use of nuclear weapons in Iran is dangerous but in other South East Asian countries, their use is absolutely safe. It is believed that Czechoslovakia is the biggest producer of illegal weapons and Pakistan of illegal nuclear technology. But they face no confrontation? This arises from the fact US supports Pakistan and is just biased towards Iran.

This article elicits the major difference between the Western idea and Arabic countries in the use of nuclear technology. When one looks at it from the Western perspective, it is hard not to believe that Iran is misusing nuclear arms and technology. Iran is situated in a perpetually volatile environment in the Middle East and with such technology misuse, it is always possible that the procurement of a nuclear weapon may make the Middle East more powerful. It is also a threat to world peace as it might start of a nuclear war and may bring the world to the brink of extinction. But Iran on the other hand stays by it stand that it is using it for nuclear purposes. Looking at it from Iran’s point of view, America is a danger to other countries as earlier it has attacked Iraq for because of its oil monopoly and in the future if Iran does not agree to America then America might take harsher steps to contain nuclear use in Iran by attacking it.

Therefore both sides are doubtful and their motives are suspicious. Iran’s decision to talk about all issues other than its nuclear programmes make a reader like me suspicious of its intentions and America forcing Iran to only talking about its nuclear issues shows that it has concealed motives.

Therefore a country like Iran must talk mire freely about its nuclear technology use and America must hear Iran’s other issues. Both the countries' issues are important and should be dealt with a more open mind without any premature judgment, as the misuse of nuclear power is a major threat to world peace.

Source: http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2009/September/20090924155018esnamfuak0.8528253.html?CP.rss=true

What i learnt new in IB History?

Three things I never knew before coming to BD:

A lot of things changed for me when I came to BD. I was forced to change my opinion and point of view on many things, in particular, HISTORY. In my previous school, we learnt about various things such as the First and Second World War and we had almost eight chapters on Gandhiji and the good that he brought and did for the Indian society. But when I came here I learnt that things were very different. The knowledge gained from my textbook was on the basis of one of the points of view on history. Today I learn various perspectives on the past and understand the concept of a counter argument.

For example in the First World War we had learnt that the immediate cause of war was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. But we never individually looked at how the countries had a role to play in the war. Germany would have never involved France and Britain had it not executed the Schlieffen Plan and invaded Belgium. We learnt the intricacies of the causes of the First World War. I learnt that Russia had to play a major role in the World War. I always thought that Russia was a communist country and it was bad for the people and was a bad type of government. But the capitalist government was also harmful in its own way. Russia had to divert its domestic tensions away and its only hope to maintain peace was the war and the aftermath of the war resulted in socialism.

Another example is Gandhiji. All my life I have heard Gandhiji as a man who fought the for freedom and today we are free citizens only because of him. But we don’t know that Harijan Upliftment Movement he conducted was a ploy to prevent another uprising from the Harijans and to establish and maintain peace in the country. It was only because of the salvation of the Hindu caste, did the Shudra caste become non – existent. Infact Br. Ambedkar, a prominent harijan leader always fought against Gandhi. How is this possible? The man who fought for freedom of Harijans was rebuked by a Harijan?

Lastly I had this pre misconception that the leader of the Weimer Republic, Gustav Stresemann was a noble, loyal and moralistic figure in history that helped Germany in paying back the loans and rising fro the depression. This was what history textbooks portrayed him to be. The truth behind him however is that while he showed to the US and European nations that Germany was working towards disarmament, in the USSR, German soldiers were being trained with the most modern equipment available.

This information made me change my viewpoint on these three events or figures of history.

Anybody can make history. Only a great man can write it.

“Anybody can make history. Only a great man can write It. “ – Oscar Wilde

What is history? History seeks to study and explain the significant events of the past on the basis of currently existing evidence. History seeks to make a connection between the past and the present. It defines what was important in the past and those certain historical events that we should probably know about. It is important to know these events as they might leave an impression on our lives or in some way or another shape our lives and opinions. More importantly each individual creates some sort of a mark in his or her life, which is defined by the person’s experiences and outlook towards life. Some marks these people left become are known as recollections of the past of history. Without these we cannot find out the ultimate truth of the past and our conclusions about this past become distorted.

History is a source of knowledge for the past. Each version of history is different from one another, as each individual is different from one another. It is more than just a catalogue of events and the main job of a historian is to interpret and explain the past. When it comes to writing history, the historian will usually have to make a selection from the available evidence. Since primary sources are themselves a selective interpretation of the events, this shows that history is a selection of selection of events.

The fact that our knowledge of the past is filtered first through the eyes of the one who witnessed it and then through the eyes of the historian who wrote about it makes it difficult to establish the truth. The writing of history is also dominated by the era in which it is written. The passage of time is constantly adding new pages to the book of history, and this means that what has gone before will be reassessed by each new generation in the light of subsequent experience. History is made up of micro – histories and macro -history which is generally written in the textbook. This macro -history is a generalized version of that particular event, deducting all the small stories and articles associated with it.

There are few accounts of history that overrule the others, and those are the ones written by people in power or influenced by people in power. These particularly are history textbooks written and published by those who intend to set a good example for the society or country and try and glorify the country’s past, deducting the flaws. An example is the CBSE history textbook where all the content completely changed when the party changed from BJP to Congress. Gandhi was glorified even more. This was stimulated by political power and propaganda. Another common example is the Indian and Pakistani history textbooks. In our textbooks, Pakistan is regarded as the country responsible for the partitions and in their books; India is regarded for the division. This shows how both stances to one story are different but the history textbook will only consider one side in accordance with the country and party’s situations. Hence it can be said that history is written by people in power.

This is a sham, as people who are powerful often misuse the past and history as a way of gaining personal benefits. There are many fatal conspiracies in the past, which are uncovered, and many questions unanswered. These truths are known by powerful people but not disclosed to the public. Gandhi is known as our step to freedom but his Harijan upliftment movement did more bad than good to the Harijans as Gandhi met with much resentment from a prominent Harijan leader, Mr. B.r Ambedkar. Neil Armstrong’s landing on the moon is a huge conspiracy and now is also regarded as a CIA hoax. But in order to glorify one’s country, such realistic facts are concealed.

Therefore history is a mixture of good and bad events but the fallacy lies in the fact that great writes write history which is a record of the good events, completely devoid of the true essence of history.

K and w1

Theory of Knowledge

Knowledge and Work assignment 1:

      This article is about the alleged abuse inside the CIA Secret Prisons. There have been reports in CNN and Newsweek regarding the brutal torture inflicted on a suspected Al Qaeda Prisoner using a gun and electric drill technique to scare the prisoner and make him reveal the supposed truth.

           In the article, an apparently reliable source gave information on the long – concealed inspector – general’s report that was due to be made public on that particular Monday. This information was conveyed by “ sources familiar with the report confirmed to CNN ”.

           These particular unknown sources revealed that a CIA interrogator threatened an al Al Qaeda prisoner with a gun and an electric drill trying to scare him into giving up information. Other information that was given that attorney General, Eric Holder is considering appointing a prosecutor to investigate a CIA interrogation program. The gun and drill were used in two separate interrogation sessions against Abd al – Rahim al- nashiri, this was said by one of the sources. Nashiri is accused of plotting the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, which left 17 U.S Sailors dead. The sources did not want to be identified because the report, completed by the CIA’S inspector general in 2004 had not been yet released in public. However the federal judge has ordered a redacted version of the report released Monday as a part of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU. The interrogations took place in the CIA’s secret prisons before 2006, when then  - President George Bush moved all his detainees from such facilities to the federal prison in Guantanamo Bay, both sources said. Details of the report were first published by the Newsweek magazine that Friday. The same sources revealed that interrogators staged mock executions to try to frighten detainees into talking. Another instance was that a gun was fired in another room next to one terrorist suspect so he would think another prisoner was being killed. Such “ enhanced interrogation techniques were inflicted upon the accused. However the CIA spokesman said that the CIA in no way endorses such behavior that goes behind formal guidance. He also claimed that all these grotesque techniques had been looked at and professional in the Department of justice decided if and when to pursue prosecution. According to the spokesman, Paul Gimigliano’ this particular system of work had been going on for a long time.

           Also a former intelligence official, who was familiar with the report, said that while the report “ reaffirmed” the interrogation program, it also showed that some interrogators had strayed off from the usual interrogation techniques. He claims that only one official was prosecuted for misconduct and two of them resigned on account of not facing the CIA. The official also said that the CIA did not tolerate such incidents and the individual who had used the drill technique had been removed from the force.  However Anthony D Romero, executive director of ACLU claimed that interrogators have committed such serious crimes and such techniques are not only reprehensible but also illegal. Romero also added that releasing the report with minimal redactions is essential to the knowing of who committed the crimes and what techniques did they use exactly.

            Thus, the sources in the article; one that wishes to not be named, then the media, CNN and Newsweek, CIA Spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, a former intelligence official and Anthony d Romero, the executive director of the ACLU.

            The first source wishes to be unnamed and according to the particular source, the gun and drill incident was part of a long concealed report which was to be made public. However the source wishes to be unnamed till the report is made public. Perhaps the source could have been an accused prisoner or a person against the CIA. The source could have had its own personal bias. But later on in the article the source is confirmed by other sources such as Eric Holder and the former intelligence official who claim that such heinous techniques are used to torture prisoners without really knowing whether they are really terrorist or to brand them as terrorist because they have Muslim names. 

This arises from the fact that many Americans believe that all Muslims are not terrorist but all terorists are Muslims. It is a problem of the past experiences; such interrogators would have faced while questioning such prisoners. Muslims, especially from Pakistan face a lot of problems in America after the 9 11 attacks. They are looked at suspiciously and often imprisoned for no fault of theirs except being of that race. A lot of racial discrimination is carried out in heinous ways while interrogating such prisoners. This is not mentioned in the article. However they have called this crime reprehensible and illegal and plan to file a case against the CIA’s officials for not having conformed to the rules of interrogation                     Often these interrogators take out their personal frustration on the prisoners, they may urinate on them or make the prisoners take off their clothes and poke fun at them. Such grotesque crimes are not mentioned in the article.

       Also the federal judge handling the case has ordered a redacted version of the report as part of the lawsuit filed by the ACLU. Such redactions in the report would compromise on the correct information and even conceal the people involved in this. IN this way it shows that the judge is lenient and is on side of CIA. This is brought out clearly by Eric Holder’s statement.

            The various claims are somewhat connected besides being garnished with each ones’ bias. If this is true then the human rights commission should take action against the CIA, as the lawsuit might not be the best answer to solving the problem. I think such grotesque techniques used on prisoners is atrocious and even though they might have committed a crime they are humans and should be treated with dignity.

                                                                                                 Chaahat Wadhwana