I went to a Rose Cafe last week where we met with the CEO of Sun Coffee Roasters and we talked about the initiatives his company has been taking to make sure that the coffee farmers are paid fairly. He also mentioned that his company advocates for building schools for the children of the farmers that the company buys their coffee from. I think what Sun Coffee is doing is a really great thing and more companies should follow their lead. A lot of our products come from overseas, and a lot of those overseas workers aren’t treated very well. There have been reported cases of child labor, unsafe working conditions, and workers getting paid very little– some pennies a day. I think that we need to realize that we are very fortunate to live in a country with good labour laws, and do our part to ensure that everyone around the world also is treated fairly and safely. There are already a lot of companies that promise that they treat their workers fairly and ensure safe working habits. The one issue with this is that their products often cost more than their competitors because of the increase in operating costs. Many people might only look at the cost of a product before they buy it, rather than think about where it came from, and depending on their circumstances, it might be hard for them to afford the more expensive, but more ethical product. This is a major problem, but if we can get more people who can afford the more ethical product to buy it, then maybe we’ll be able to raise safety standards for consumer products worldwide

This past Rose Cafe, we had a refreshing and interesting change from our usual style and topic of discussions and talked about the controversial topic of torture. Dr. Nick Cheesman from Australian National University and his activist colleague Pornpen Khongkachonkiet led the talk, talking mainly from the lens of Southeast Asia where their work is centered. As someone who grew up in Southeast Asia in the city of Singapore,this was very interesting to me.

I found it really interesting to hear from our two speakers because Pornpen was able to offer us the perspective of someone who witnesses and actually deals with matters of torture on a daily basis, while Dr. Cheeseman offered an academic opinion based on his own research in Myannmnar/Burma.

After hearing the talk and listening to the delicate perspectives and information surrounding torture, my existing opinion around torture- that it is something completley evil and immoral and takes away every piece of humanity from the victim- was reinforced. The talk was a difficult and emotional one but I am glad we were able to hear some expert perspectives on such an important, sensitive yet rarely discussed is

The art of torture has a long and evil precedence in our society, and it continues to be used today in various professions. Torture tactics are designed to illicit a specific reaction or response from the victim who might or might not be involved with the pertinent issue at hand. I have always wondered if torture is acceptable to use on some people more than others. For example, do terrorists deserve to be tortured for committing some of the most heinous crimes in the world more than a regular criminal? The inability to justify torture is what proposes the question is torture really necessary? Dr. Chessman’s talk about the use of torture in southern Thailand and Myanmar raised some important questions like why people use torture and what kinds of issues does it raise?

Dr. Chessman and his colleague Pornpern, a human rights activist, described the the intention behind torture and its catastrophic effects on the victims. Pornpern, who interviewed several victims of torture in southeast Asia, raised a very important question about the intention behind torture. He asked if it was worth dehumanizing another person to obtain a piece of information? Is information superior to one’s morality? More importantly is fake information worth torturing people over because many times torture victims are completely unaware of the information being asked of them and are coerced into lying. I think it is unacceptable to torture human beings regardless of whether or not they are innocent and it is even more unacceptable to justify torture as an efficient means of retrieving important information. Torturers create their own scapegoats and put them through physical and emotional pain to satisfy their own demands and needs. In the end the torturers become the so called criminals that they are interviewing and sacrifice their own morality for what might be a small piece of information.

Last week at the Rose Cafe we were fortunate enough to welcome Nick Cheesman, from Australian National University and his research companion, Pornpen, an activist from Thailand, to talk about torture in South East Asia. We spoke about torture, how effective/not effective it is, and how it imposes on people’s rights. I did not know the topic of the talk going into the cafe, and did not expect such a heavy topic; the rose cafe’s are normally light-hearted and mildly academic related.

I was very interested in Cheesman and Pornpen’s viewpoint about why torture still occurs. Pornpen stated that her research points to the idea that torture is a cathartic way of dealing with an issue without solving the core of the problem. I find this statement really accurate, as it also explains the concept of scapegoats.

In addition, one of the most interesting questions asked during this cafe was the question “Does torture work.” Cheesman stressed that this question itself was dangerous. Furthermore, despite various political assertions recently that torture is effective, Cheesman stated that this was not true. I completely agree with Cheesman’s statement, and find the amount of people who do not agree, and the fact that our own president does not agree with Cheesman’s viewpoint very disturbing. Perhaps this is a product of propaganda in our society? For example, the fact that torture is shown to be so effective in movies and plays, etc.

After this question was asked, Cheesman proceeded to warn us that he would begin to talk about something disturbing, and we were welcome to leave. As I am someone who was feeling uncomfortable, I left at this point.

There was a very serious talk that occurred between Nick Cheesman and his research companion last week. We discussed torture broadly and then specifically how it was used in Thailand. The details and gravity of the talk definitely made it the most serious Rose cafe that we had this semester.

I thought how wrong it was that torture was used so broadly in Thailand, but then I realized that the US employed the methods for a long time as well. This shows that between developed and developing countries, torture is too common.

Torture should not occur under any circumstance and neither should the death penalty. Those are both, in my opinion, violations of humanity and the state should not be allowed to make decisions regarding the wellbeing of any individual in that manner. There is just too much room for error and abuse. And there is a danger that people will view torture and executions as acceptable just because it is institutionalized within the state.

Overall, I am grateful for the talk as it forced me to think about these uncomfortable subjects.  I think the work that Nick Cheesman does is very important as torture is an issue that needs more discussion within our society since it is still used in many parts of the world.

Last week I went to a Rose Cafe where we talked about torture in SE Asia. I think that torture is wrong because of moral reasons. A comment was made that torture was mostly likely to occur in places that had an insurgency because the groups engaged in “us vs them” thinking. This made me think of the psych classes I’ve taken over the years where we talked about how normal people can do terrible things. For example, in the famous Milgram study, a majority of participants gave lethal shocks to other “subjects” when they answered questions incorrectly. No one was physically harmed in this study because the “subjects” were compatriots of the researcher, and no actual shocks were given. The participants, who were all normal, average people, believed that they were giving lethal shocks though. This study revealed that even average people can do terrible things in the right situations. It showed that the situation has a greater effect on how a person will react than the person’s personality. That may be one reason why many people who are facing an insurgency may engage in torture. Again, I think that torture is morally wrong, and should not be done under any circumstances, but using some key elements from psychology may help us understand why and how normal people can do such terrible things.

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the Rose Cafe hosted by Dr. Nick Cheesman, from Australian National University, and his colleague, Pornpen, a human rights activist from Thailand. They explored the use of torture, which Cheesman argued is never justifiable, as a “ticking time bomb” scenario never actually exists, and argued that we should try to find the reasons why it still happens.

One hypothesis, which Cheesman and Pornpen hinted at, as evidenced by Pornpen’s work in the South of Thailand, is this idea that torture is a sort of satisfying ritualization, or a catharsis, which attacks and issue without really solving it. Thus, victims might be interrogated and tortured for a crime they might not have even committed, simply because this provides immediate satisfaction. This relates to the structure of power, or perhaps a desire to express that through the inhumane subjugation of another human being.

I think we need to take a long look at our own society, which often takes a cavalier “let em have it” attitude towards victims of torture in this country, ascribing this to the idea that they are terrorists or criminals. Why do we have this attitude toward our fellow human beings? Is it because we don’t stop and think, or is there something far more sinister in how we all view the world?

This past Rose café we had the pleasure of having two people hosting the session. The topic was generally about the use of torture and focused on Myanmar and Southern Thailand. Fortunately in addition to Dr. Nick Cheesman, we also got the opportunity to learn about Southern Thailand from human activist Pornpen Khongkachonkiet. From what I could gleam from our sadly too short discussion was that there seems to be a systemic culture of finding the culprit due to the prevalence of violent crime and drug dealing. It didn’t matter if the accused was actually guilty or merely innocent; having a suspect and confession was far more important and thus led to the use of torture. Under such duress, I don’t think such information is admissible since judgement is impaired. It would be circumstantial at best but I don’t know enough to hold a legal opinion. However, torture is not something that can be eliminated entirely. I personally think it is part of human nature and often driven by desperation. All we can do is mitigate its use and allowing it to be used in court.

Dr. Cheesman brings up a good point that we shouldn’t necessarily be asking is torture effective. Rather we should take a more holistic and upper level approach and ask questions like, “What drives the use of torture?” In other words, what factors might encourage or promote the use of torture as a systemic means of gathering information? This has political and moral implications that question the fabric of the country-or society-itself. Khongkachonkiet offered a contrast in information compared to Dr. Cheesman where the former drew upon her extensive experience with interviewing victims in the ‘Deep South’ to illustrate a picture of how it is living there, for the ordinary citizen, law enforcement and the government. The latter seemed to take a more theoretical approach, giving context and asking questions from the real world experiences that Khongkachonkiet describes. I appreciated the two perspectives as it allowed me to view the issue of torture from multiple angles. Torture is an interesting practice and I maintain that it will never go away but I think steps must be taken to limit its use. Something I wondered if Thailand’s apparent use of gratuitous torture would allow for sanctions. Or perhaps that may be too extreme and not worth risking the delicate balance of power that thrums through our globalized society. Regardless I don’t think it will be easy to change regions like Southern Thailand in their use of martial law, unconstitutionally seizing and exercising their power and torture since it seems systemic, engrained in their culture and is top-down. Major changes, most likely through legislature, and protests will be necessary to fight back. Organizations like Khongkachonkiet’s is key to this kind of movement in my opinion and I hope the UN can also get involved and advise Southern Thailand on a better path.

This was definitely one of the more interesting sessions that I have gone to because it opens my eyes to a field that I don’t necessarily get the opportunity to learn and discuss in since torture isn’t necessarily something that comes up in conversation or the relevant courses in educational career. I will definitely be looking into more on torture and picking up some of the books Dr. Cheesman mentioned!

On Wednesday evening, we had a difficult yet thoughtful discussion with Nick Cheesman and an activist Pornpen Khongkachonkiet about torture in Southeast Asia. We talked about a lawyer being kidnapped and tortured for his work defending insurgents, the effectiveness of torture (and why this question is entrenched in assumptions), and how torture can be a performative aspect of the state.

In thinking about the ways in which torture is portrayed in film, in television, and more generally in media it is always portrayed as a means to an end and a success. When I think of portrayals, I think there is a ubiquitous assumption that the person subjected to brutality is always guilty of something, that the pursuit of this person is for the purpose of some grander purpose, and that people will be saved in an impactful way that justifies the use of extrajudicial force. In pondering such a difficult topic, I wondered about the assertion that torture is used in identity construction of the state and as a way to impose and perform political power. People often forget that corporeal violence, especially from the state, is a controlling mechanism. If we agree with this analysis, it follows then that the reproduction of this imagery has the purpose of communicating a very particular message.

I wonder how this analysis of torture relates to the carceral state that we live in. How are we reproducing messages that people in prison deserve horrific treatment with proven lasting debilitating and traumatic effects like solitary confinement? How do we distance ourselves from individuals deemed criminals? How do we pathologize criminal acts and ignore the broader societal processes that may encourage these things? Lastly, how does the carceral setting factor into the building of the identity of the state. After all, we do know that people of color are disproportionately locked up and thus their status as “citizens” is diminished.

At last week’s Rose Cafe, Dr. Cheesman and Pornpen Khongkachonkiet provided a very interesting perspective and greater understanding of torture. Torture is definitely not a dinner-table topic, and while I was aware of how intense the conversation would be, I thought this Rose Cafe was interesting and thought-provoking.

Dr. Cheesman’s academic work on torture focuses on if it actually, quote-on-quote, works. It’s difficult to even pose this kind of question because it’s basically letting go of one’s ethics and view of humane treatment to subjecting a person to utmost pain in return for wanted information. Mr. Kkhongkachonkiet also provided great insight to this controversy. Is torture really worth giving up one’s moral values? Is it right to receive information in return for the degradation of human value as a human being?

I think that this talk definitely is prevalent to many issues that we have today in society, as well as the contemporary view on torture. It’s a difficult concept to grasp, but I certainly was challenged to ponder over the issue.

This Rose Cafe session was on the difficult subject of torture. It is a concept and practice that I find abhorrent, but nonetheless, it was great to have our speakers Dr. Cheesman and Pornpen Khongkachonkiet provide us with a richer understanding of the matter. I thought it was especially neat them as speakers, since Dr. Cheesman’s theoretical and academic-based work on torture complemented Pornpen’s activism in fighting torture. I was actually previously unaware that any academic work was actually being performed on the subject of torture, but I felt the ideas and results that Dr. Cheesman shared were certainly important. For example, a question commonly associated with torture is whether it “works”. Dr. Cheesman stated that it is problematic to be asking such a question in the first place, since it legitimizes the practice to an extent and ignores the severe ethical and moral issues with torture. I also felt Pornpen raised a great point in regards to this question when she discussed the concept of “value”. In many ways, asking whether something works is a question of what is valued, and it is deeply immoral to value any perceived gains like “information” over the value and dignity of a human life.

Like in many fields, having a two-fold approach combining the academics/theory with practice seems especially effective for fighting torture. Activists like Pornpen deserve the highest admiration for their efforts, and the research of individuals like Dr. Cheesman can lead to deeper understandings of the subject, which is also crucial since it is difficult to combat what one can’t understand or perceive. Thus, ideally, researchers and academics can constantly share their work and findings with activists in order to better inform them in their approach to tackling torture.

Last night’s Rose Café focused on torture in South East Asia. It was difficult to hear about the prevalence of torture in some countries. The speakers talked about police torturing people during the investigation of a crime to get a confession. Even though the real perpetrator might go free, the police want to create the impression that they quickly solve crime. Of course, this approach does not solve crime, but is itself a crime. I could not imagine the horror of being an innocent person, or a guilty person, tortured and forced to confess.

The issue of torture is clearly important; however, I would imagine that researching the topic as a profession, as the speakers do, would take a mental toll. I would imagine that researching terrible stories of torture for years would be extremely difficult. However, shedding light on the issue is an important means of helping reduce torture so perhaps that positive benefit helps the researchers push forward.

During this semester of Rose Cafes, I have been fascinated at the topics that academics devote their careers too. A past speaker was an expert in the history of fats and oils. Without the Rose Café, I never would have appreciated the range of unique and niche topics that are researched in academia.

I hope that the research into torture and the awareness brought by this research will help eliminate the terrible human rights abuses discussed in the session.

Thinking about torture is a very present issue for me since I am planning on commissioning into the military. Personally, I am resolutely of the opinion that torture is not an effective method of obtaining critical information from prisoners. Many times over it has been shown that people will just say what they have to so that they stop getting tortured. There have also been numerous instances in the past ages of torture being used as a method just to get somebody to confess to a crime that they may have not actually committed.

You have to ask yourself, what would it be like to be strapped down to a table with a rag over your face and water poured over your mouth? It is completely impossible for anybody that has not had it done to them to actually imagine the experience. But I’ve had an MRI and even that was pretty bad — being restrained and put into a closed tube — and that was to help me! People who have been waterboarded say that it is the worst thing that they have ever had to do in their lives.

It is too easy to look at someone as simply an enemy. I know many friends that when asked about using torture would respond with something like “well they would do it to us, so the sob deserves it I guess.” But this kind of Tit for Tat thinking is precisely what allows torture to continue to be used in militaries. Often times it is not even for information, but for pure retribution.

Aside from all of this, I think that the most striking point made in the talk was that when torture is discussed in the political realm it is often projected purely hypothetically and cerebrally. “Does it work?” I think that a very valid point that he brought up, however, is that torture should not be an issue that is allowed to be thought of simply as a tool which happens to be not such a pleasant one to use. The other implications and ramifications of using torture should be thought about certainly before, and probably in place of, the logical and practical application side of torture methods.

This Wednesday’s Rose Cafe about the state and torture is probably the most thought-provoking as well as rewarding talk I have attended this academic year. The combination of human rights activist, Ms. Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, and scholar, Dr. Nick Cheesman, is very interesting; as I was able to understand torture both from academic and political perspectives.

Dr. Cheesman shared some of his academic researches on torture. He suggested that the debate of whether torture is an effective way to extract information and whether its gains outweigh the harms the victims bear, is like the famous trolley problem. There is no absolutely right decision as whether to push down the person on the bridge or let the five people lying on the rail die. Likewise, one should not expect a definitive answer in regards to the dilemma of torture. Furthermore, Dr. Cheesman stated that this kind of debate prevents people from looking at the bigger picture–torture is not simply a tool for information extraction, but a part of state ideology that has symbolic meanings. Moreover, I really appreciate Dr. Cheesman’s candor, when he acknowledged that even though he is a scholar, he is not neutral on his research subject–torture.

While Dr. Cheesman’s research has more emphasis on Myanmar, Ms. Pornpen Khongkachonkiet is a human rights activist in Thailand. I have admiration for activists, for they have little financial incentives for their works, and are often times under threat, both from the state and private parties. In other words, activism is kind of work that requires both courage and expertise. Although Ms. Khongkachonkiet’s did not discuss her live as an activist in the talk, her presence was very inspiring in the sense that it encouraged me to do similar works in the near future.

This talk is the last Rose Scholar event of the semester, and I am so glad it ended on such a high note.