To disguise oneself is the melancholy of these times.

"La stanze di vita quotidiane. "(Rooms of ordinary life) We dress, enter. We leave and try to find our make-up while in search of another scene. That became the outer part of human condition. That, to me, is melanchloy.

It is a pitty that people don't laugh. "Humor is an underestimated aspect of literature" (Gerard Reve). My theory is that the audience is acting seriously on these type of events and is afraid to laugh; an "intelectual" should not have fun.

During a discussion you can imagine that people didn't laugh, because your answers may be very unexpectedly for people who don not know your work wel.

However during a performance, i.e. when you read something, that may be differently. Can you tell me if people were laughing when you read the article for the NRC, two days ago ?.

I mean the article about the trip to Gitmo, you read 04/28.

No, Arnon, you shouldn't disguise yourself
not as one of your characters
Choose Harpo Marx
Or do you prefer Groucho?

A disguise, try Sinterklaas

I believe in Sinterklaas. Ok, people may say he is only a man in disguise, but then what is a pope, a rabbi or an imam? At least Sinterklaas does not kill you when you insult him by stating that he is only a man in disguise. That is why I prefer Sinterklaas as a religion.

Mrs Appleby asked you to describe your cultural background 'in terms of nations'. I didn't know that Palestine, one of the 'countries' you listed, was one!
Also, I was wondering how long do you have to live in the US for in order to start considering this country as part of your cultural background too?
Other than that, keep up the good work at PEN/ Words Without Borders. But please be a little gentle on the country in which you reside along the way. Because if the US doesn't fight this dirty war on terror, who will?!

Eva van Campen

Yes Mrs. Appleby asked me to list my cultural background in terms of “nations.” Probably because of the Bellini’s at the Carlyle I switched on this site to “countries.” Nevertheless does this make a lot of difference?
How many nations do you know that cannot be labeled country and vice versa?
As to being gentle on the US: on many occasions I have defended the US – not that it needed my defense – and if you would have done a little bit more research you would have noted that yourself.
The question about cultural influences in terms of nations was slightly ironic don’t you think, therefore I omitted the two countries where I have apartments, and where you can argue I reside, Ireland and the US. (And I added Palestine, or should I have said the Palestinian Authority?)
What the “dirty war on terror” has to do with all this is a great miracle. It seems to me that you are willing to defend torture, but there is no need for you to start a semantic discussion on the difference between a nation and a country when all you have to say is that you favor torture.
This site is open for everybody, also for sadists. Even for sadists who have not come out of the closet yet.

torture

Mr. Grunberg, I respectfully disagree with you opinion on fighting terror. Torture should be allowed, when there is a good chance that it is possible to save a significant number of lives and to defend democracy. Pretection of individual personal human rights at all costs is an outdated concept from humanism.

p.s.: I am not a sadist.

Mr. Neufelder

We should not allow ourselves to think that torture will only be used in the case of a “ticking bomb.”
Furthermore: it is known that torture is counter productive, FBI agents complained that interrogation methods applied by other US agencies at Gitmo, and other places, were at best counterproductive.
If we really think that we myst defend ourselves by applying torture we lost another opportunity to claim that we are civilized.
I’m by no means a pacifist but I’m appalled that we think we can legalize torture without harming ourselves.
I urge you to read accounts of victims of torture.

Dear miss van Campen and mister Neufelder, to me it comes across as if The Great Empire of America, the land of freedom and opportunity, has managed to brainwash its inhabitants. Not that I can really blame you. If I were to work the hours all American citizens are expected to work, there's no time left over to think, and so: it's easy for the Empire to influence its citizens' way of thinking. My suggestion: take some time off. And travel.

Torture (2)

Ms. Moolenaar and Mr. Grunberg.

I am from Germany and have travel led quite a lot. I don't have to work anymore. and spend a lot of time on studies.

Regarding Torture, there are two issues Mr Grunberg mentioned.
1: It is counterproductive. If so, we should not do it obviously. I will look into this.
2: Does it make us an uncivilized country/humans. Like I mentioned, individual human rights might be an outdated concept. I do think that torture should only be allowed when approved by a judge, not like the U.S. is currently doing in Guantanamo, and should only being allowed as last resort.

Would you think the same of torture if a child of yours and other people's childs can be saved when torture is applied. It is easy to say that torture is inhuman, but what is the opposite ?.

I am definitely not in FAVOR of torture, but would not be against it in a particular situation.

@Ms. Moolenaar

Please don´t attack me as a person, but please respond on the contents of my remark. I love a discussion, but this is not a good way.

@neufelder

Torture may work on the short term, to prevent the next "attack". On the long run it will probably work against you. A country that uses torture has lost all its credibility and will probably create new enemies.

I do realize that this is easy to say. When you are in a situation that it concerns a relative, you might have other feelings. It is always difficult to separate feelings from ratio. The Dutch covernment has paid money to release a hostage two years ago. Everybody was happy that this person was liberated, however this could encourage new hostagesituations.

Torture

@ Mister Gerhard and others
I can understand that in some cases you feel the urge to torture somebody in a desperate search for the true, but mister Grunberg is right, it is definitely counter productive. It is an illusion that torture produces true. Torture will only give you what you want to hear, and it is seldom the true; at the best it is a mixture of true and lies. Please read about it, I assume you have not been a victim of torture.

@mr. Neufelder. You're right. I didn't mean it to be personal, so if it came across as such: my apologies (I'd like to explain what I meant exactly but that will take up too much space here). On the issue of torture - I feel no human being should have the right to inflict harm on another human being, period.

Mr. Neufelder

I never made any assumptions about the place where you reside.
Now to the practical obstacles of your proposal: in the case of “a ticking bomb” there is no time to consult a judge. If there would be time to consult a judge the bomb would not be ticking.
Do we know of terrorist attacks that were prevented because of torture?
Even the supreme court of Israel – a country that has reasons to fear an immanent attack – has refused to legalize torture, if you would speak to knowledgeable people inside the intelligence community I doubt it if they would describe torture as an effective instrument of gathering information. (We know that people who are tortured are willing to say anything to stop the torture.)
Not the moral side of all this. I don’t know what you mean with your suggestion that human rights are outdated.
Maybe your try to suggest that the west should not longer feign that it is civilized. I think, as stated before, that a civilization can and should be used by the way it treat its criminals, its outlaws and its mentally ill patients.
You favor terrorizing anybody who might be described as an enemy of the state, because that’s what’s legalization of torture is going to provoke.
You seem to think that individuals and communities will thrive when they live in a state of fear. Well, I don’t.
I don’t need the sentimental abuse of children, dogs and other pets, I hear you clear and loud: you defend torture.
And I say to you clear and loud: torture has not produced anything, nothing was gained from torture, not one single crime was prevented because of torture.
We know of the horrors of the past and yet you have the guts to invoke children as an excuse for torture. This does not only mean that you are not well informed, it means that you are corny. I think of you as a man who would love to say to his child, his dog or his cat: “You live, because we tortured a terrorist slowly to death, and you should know doggie: human rights are out. Dog rights are in.”

Thank you for your responses. I can imagine that the person who is tortured will say anything to stop the torture. Also I don't want to promote that people will live in fear, because they might be tortured. I am not in favor of such states.

I agree that using children for the discussion is rather cheap and can be called corny. I wanted to get this discussion less theoretical, but I used the wrong words

Now lets take the following example, from a couple of years ago. Also involving children I am afraid, a horrible horrible story indeed, one that you want to forget. I do not want to abuse this example, but it is the best example I know.

There was this man in Belgium, who abused a number of children, Dutroux was his name. When he was detained, there were still a number of persons missing, there was many evidence that he was involved. He was questioned by the police quite intensively, he was kept awake for a long period and so forth. I think that this can be considered a form of torture . As a result two missing girls were found and some remainings of others.

What is your opinion about this case.

Mr. Neufelder

The Dutroux-case is rather complicated not in the last place because of all the judicial errors and the mistakes made by the Belgian police. As it is stated on wikipedia: “…and the ensuing scandal was one of the reasons for the reorganisation of Belgium's law enforcement agencies.”
There is no proof whatsoever that torturing mr. Dutroux would have saved the lives of his victims. I’d like to remind you that there was among the Belgian citizens a certain desire for the death penalty after the Durtroux-case, but I don’t know of Belgians who were claiming that bringing torture back to Belgium would solve problems and save lives.
You seem to be eager to connect the subject of children to torture and vice versa, as a Freudian I think this is telling.

It's weird to see contributions take such a practical approach in defending torture: it may help the good people to information that the bad people are not willing to provide otherwise. And that may save some good people. Or it may not.
But isn't the abstention of torture one of the crucial elements to distinguish the good people from the bad people? Isn't the use of torture a threat to democracy (and indeed civilization) from within as bad as the threats to democracy from the outside?

Ron Lander

I stated both practical and moral objections against torture. I believe both kind of arguments are necessary and should be mentioned in the debate. But I agree with you -- as I said before -- that a civilization should be judged by the way it treats its criminals etcetera. This means of course not torturing the criminals, but don’t you think that it means also protecting inmates from not being raped by other inmates and/or guards? To give just another example.

Hm, difficult question. I don't know exactly where the limits are. A difference is that torture is done by the authorities themselves and rape (hopefully) not. But that's not good enough, I know. I guess inmates should be protected against everything that other people are protected against too, with the exception of the loss of liberty. But that sounds awfully politically correct doesnt't it?

Indeed, the question what can be seen as torture and what not is probably difficult to answer. Where are the boundaries? I was hoping we would get there.

About 20 years ago there was a discussion on the Dutch television with a number of military staff and police officers about this subject (“De achterkant van het gelijk”). In the beginning of the show everybody was firmly against torture in any form, physical or mental. Then the host asked questions like “What if you could save 1000 persons if you would lock up a person in solitude for 1 day ?”, etcetera. At the end of the show the majority of the participants admitted that a form of torture was acceptable in a particular situation. Repulsive and frightful isn’t it.

In practice the Dutch government also applies unacceptable methods, in my opinion. For instance the way asylum seekers are treated and locked up. Yet 600.00 people voted for Rita Verdonk, the minister who was in charge of many of these violations of human rights. Also the questioning methods by the police are under debate and have lead to many judicial errors.

Gerhard Neufelder was a non-existing person, based on the opinion of real people that I have met. He doesn’t resemble me in any way, and it was quite stressful to imitate him. It helped me to create arguments to stop torture in any form. I am sorry for misleading you.

Neufelder

Your revelation that Mr. Neufelder doesn’t exist doesn’t come as a big surprise. Nevertheless I had to take his opinions and comments at face value. My only question: why had Mr. Neufelder to be German? Isn’t that a little cheap?

That's a bit too fast and it also mixes up arguments. There are many activities that (almost) everybody will consider torture (including rape by guards). Civilized, democratic governments should abstain form them. Then there are activities that some will consider serious enough to be called torture and others not. These activities have a lesser impact on the prisoner an will therefore definitely not lead to him/her giving up essential information. These activities are therfore useless and civilized, democratic governments should abstain from them. Ergo: the exact limits of torture are not very relevant.
As to protection of prisoners to e.g. rape by other inmates: governments should not willfully expose prisoners under their responsibility to risks that they would not expose free civlians too. The reason why I qualified this answer as mayby too easy and politically correct is only that it is an easy answer to give, but probably a difficult one to realize in practice. I still don't see how that brings us to the goal you wanted to achieve.
Using my real name.
(Mr Grunberg, I apologize for taking up so much space)

Ron

What’s the goal I wanted to achieve?
I just stated that there is no justification for torture. (the case of the ticking bomb is a highly hypothetical one.) As to the rape of inmates, the absence of torture is not enough to call a society civilized.

Arnon, sorry for the misunderstanding: you posted your last remark while I was writing mine. I was not reacting to you, but to Mr Neufelder, who apparently wanted to prove that it's not clear what is torture and what is not.

There was no specific reason that Neufelder was German. I just didn’t want to make him Dutch or American. Furthermore, I didn’t want to blow my ‘cover’ of being Dutch, so I choose a native language close to my own. Some other aspects of Neufelder, I made up along the way.

Thank you for responding seriously to this hypothetical person. My intention was, and is, the exchange of arguments and to strengthen my own arguments on this issue. I have learned that choosing the “opposite” is helpful in that. Unfortunately, persons that have Neufelders opinion don’t speak them out.

The reason why I mentioned “limits of torture” and asylum seekers are because of the recent case in which a Chinese woman was detained to put her under pressure to reveal her true identity, so she could be sent back to her country of origin. She had to choose to keep her 9 year old son with her, in prison, or be separated from him. She was thus forced to give the information the immigration officers wanted to have.
Thankfully the parliament responded to that, but it probably also means that lots of other people, without children, are being detained for the same reason. I think this counts as torture as well and is unacceptable.

neufelders opinion

The suggestion that people with N.'s opinion do not speak out is surprising to me. Maybe if people like N. wouldn't yell that loud that torture can be protecting or positive in anyway, there wouldn't have been such a necessity to argue and fight so much for people who were victims of torture to get JUSTICE.