FAKKU's new style

Okay, so I have this paper I've been working on all year in my English class. Originally it wasn't let known it was an all year paper, because if I had originally known I probably wouldn't have chosen this topic.

The event was sorta a hot topic at the time the paper was assigned soo yea.

I'm doing a huge paper on Guantanamo Bay, the history, what it was used for, what the Bush administration used it for, what Obama wants to do with it, what action he took, what the outcome could be.

I thought it'd be pretty straight forward, mention the pros and the cons, what the options could be... and so forth. But then I found out I had to do an interview.

At first I was like who the fuck am I going to interview for this paper?
My english teacher mentioned a politician and I was just fuck no.
I'm not extremely politically saavy, and I have the impression they'd just give me biased answers.

So I work at my college and one of the benefits I have is I can look up teachers in the teacher directory. I found a teacher who teaches about politics, and I contacted him. Apparently he has a MS is in research and analysis on National Security Issues - he said he'd be interested in helping me, but after he found out what direction I was heading with the paper, he was a bit more hesitant.

What I sent to him was:


The other parts of the email I already explained to you.

His response was:


I wasn't really intending to ask 'so how do you feel about all of this' What I really was hoping for him was to lay out some of the pros and cons and what could happen if such and such decision was made.

I'm sorta at a roadblock, I have no idea what to ask this guy that wouldn't make him feel too uncomfortable, and I need some questions to ask him. lol

If you even think of a different direction that's fair game too.

This paper isn't due for a while, but the steps are. I at least need to show I'm making progress with the paper and not blowing it off until the last two weeks of school. This by far is the hugest paper I've ever done.


~*~
Just a note, I realize there was a large discussion about Guantanamo Bay in SD already, I think that's what sorta inspired me to write during that time - but I'm not asking your opinions about what's going on with it, I'm just asking for help pertaining to my paper, so I felt it was a bit off topic from that original thread.

He's a politics professor so you can expect a polite, non-committal, diplomatic answer to your first query, it's understandable that he wants to see the questions in advance so as to prepare an appropriate response, I wouldn't be overly concerned. You should try and prepare difficult questions that will make him feel uncomfortable, after all you don't want his answers to be something along the lines of: "The human rights violations that go on in Guantanamo Bay are in violation of the Geneva convention", that is clear as far as any rational minded observer is concerned. Anyone can state facts, whereas in the genre of “expert speculation” you can find something that is arguably better.

You should pose questions on topics such as the US' indifference to international law, how to traverse such obstacles. Mass media control and propaganda, the typical American's definition of socialism, manufacturing consent and whether the closing of Guantanamo is merely a publicity stunt designed to add fuel to he “cult of personality” that has developed around Obama. Perhaps you could ask him what his definition of Justice is and whether it is right to make “moral” sacrifices in the name of progress. You could ask whether he believes that the majority of prisoners that were extradited from their countries, were genuine terrorists and how many were just tortured as part of a propaganda campaign designed in an attempt to legitimize the so-called "war on terror".

As for the consequences of Guantanamo being shut down, ask him whether he feels it is ironic that as Guantanamo, a bastion for injustice is closed down, the shadow of the Patriot act still looms in some kind of mockery. Oh – here's a good one, ask him what kind of a gambit closing Guantanamo was for the Oligarchs who rule the United States.

I personally wouldn't want him answering the questions with something along the lines of: the direct effects of Guantanamo bay closing will help to repair the image of the US in the eyes of the international community. Ask him whether the closing of Guantanamo bay will just lead to an upturn in “secret” interrogation facilities, and whether the closing of Guantanamo can in fact be construed as an end to the matter of government sponsored torture in the US. You may want to ask him whether with the closing of Guantanamo bay, the focal point for public awareness regarding unjust treatment of prisoners, will lead to the public forgetting the issue altogether or believing that it will go away?

I definitely don't think you should follow the line of questioning that is: “Do you think that now all these prisoners are released, there will be an upsurge in terrorist activity?” That seems like a childish and fear-mongering topic.

Come to think of it, I don't know if he would answer these questions.... maybe you're better off just giving him hoops to jump through. Or even just giving him a floor to voice his ideas about the financial market's collapse as he seems to want to. You'll probably get a lot more out of him that way too.

Depends what you want to achieve in your paper I suppose :roll:

Good luck

Personally, I would advise a somewhat more rational and somewhat less incendiary tone than the questions posited by Ambivalent Ecstasy, which barely, if at all, stop short of simply proclaiming the entire institution of US government a sham and a conspiracy, and paint the US media and population as corrupt and foolish. Unless you know for a fact that he is not from the US and that he very much dislikes the US, I doubt that approach will yield much besides scorn and tangents. Most people don't like going through an interrogation in which their home nation is thoroughly insulted, even if they themselves disagree with many of the things their home nation is doing.

Personally, I think it is a good strategy as an interviewer to try and ask the questions in a very factual and neutral manner so that you will get the most natural and accurate responses. If all you do is pitch softballs, then you won't get anything substantial, but if you repeatedly ask combative questions that obviously give away your own biases, you risk influencing the interview and setting an equally combative tone for the responses.

Here are some of the points I would make sure to cover(Some are sort of background or may be outside his expertise, but all these questions are important to think about when considering the issue of Guantanamo in its entirety and especially to establish a context in which to evaluate Obama's actions on the matter)

-The general consensus was that waterboarding as used in Guantanamo violated the Geneva convention. Do you agree? Why or why not?

-What is the significance of violating the Geneva convention accords? On what level are international treaties legally binding? On what level are they morally binding? What should be the process for the US as a country to decide to nullify a treaty?

-When, if ever, is torture legally justified? Morally justified? Why, what circumstances can we use to judge this?

-Does torture provide reliable information? What evidence do we have for this?

-The US constitution explicitly guarantees the rights contained therein only to citizens of the US. Should they be extended to the foreigners held in Guantanamo? Why or why not?

-The Supreme Court made several rulings that in some ways chastised the Bush administration for the proceedings in Guantanamo. Do you believe the judicial branch was doing its job properly? Do you think the Bush administration's policies flaunted the SC rulings in any significant ways? Has the Obama administration acted differently in this respect? How?

-Do you think the existence and use of Guantanamo helped, hindered, did some of both, or did neither to the fight against terrorism? In what ways?

-Do you think that the military tribunals, as suggested by the Bush administration, can offer "fair" proceedings to terrorism suspects? Why or why not? If not, how should these suspects be dealt with?

-How should the US deal with the apparent conflict of interest between fair and transparent trials and the need to keep certain information classified for national security purposes?

-In what ways will Obama's action concerning Guantanamo help the fight against terrorism? In what ways will it hinder it?

-In what other ways will Obama's decision concerning Guantanamo help the US? In what other ways will it hinder the US?

-Which factions, scholars, interest groups, advisors, etc have had the greatest effect on Obama's decisions regard Guantanamo? How much effect did they have? In what way? Is this a positive or negative thing?

-How accurately has the media reported on matters concerning Guantanamo? Between the media and various political factions, how accurate is the public perception of Guantamo? In what ways does it differ from reality? Does this affect Obama's policy? If so, how?

-Some of the controversy surrounding Guantanamo and similar national security measures have arisen from the fact that some members of the legislative branch have claimed that they have been asked to authorize executive powers without obtaining the necessarily information to adequately evaluate the request because of classified information due to national security concerns. How real is this problem? Where is the balance here? Has Obama dealt with this issue differently than the Bush administration? How? Is this change positive or negative? In what ways?

I'm sure there is a lot more that could provide good information, but I would at least think about those things listed above. Part of the problem, though, is that Obamas actions are very current events and his policy is still being shaped in regard to Guantanamo. As the academic said, many things remain unknown.

Ah, thanks for the responses, but the suggestions that Ambivalent Ecstasy gave me I think are examples of what he wouldn't want to answer. .__.;

Some of the things you mentioned White Lion I have direct quotes from Obama in out internet database at school, with things like waterboarding.

I'll definitely be looking to asking some of those questions, but I agree with you, I want it to be a very neutral interview. I don't want to put him on the spot like somebody would with Obama, because it's not the teachers fault for any of this, he's just the messenger and they say not to shoot the messenger.

I understand this is a current event and that there's a lot of open ends, which is why I sorta wanted to do it. It would be easier to lay out some things of which could happen, why, and so forth.

To give opposing views and support why, give supportive views and explain why. I have to present this to my class and by the end of it I'd like to give them enough information for them to equally decide on their own what their opinion is even if we don't have any answers yet.

I just figured this would be a more interesting topic then some others who are just writing about depression or racism, etc.

Ugh. I never met such an asshole of a teacher. He's working in a community college, he needs to get over himself. He looked at the questions I chose from WhiteLion plus a few of my own and he responded:



Soo. Now this is due in a week with an interview and I'm shit out of luck. I'm waiting to hear from my english teacher on clearance to interview somebody else. I'm thinking Fpod, since he plans on coming up here next weekend, but that means I'm really cutting it close. It's annoying that she wants this recorded or else I could just have anybody do it over the phone/internet/etc.

Rofl, that guy does sound like an arsehole :P - I still like my questions. I mean even if he wouldn't answer them, at least they're provocative!

I agree with WhiteLion's statements regarding my questions, they do barely stop short of calling the US government a sham, but then again, they're questions - surely they can be answered by someone with this "gentleman's" expertise. Combative interviews make for interesting reading. You can ask him whatever you like if you prepare thoroughly.

Is there no way you could record it over the phone? Or perhaps over voice chat? You said you wanted it recorded, does it need to be in person?

It needs to be done with one of those tape recorders, not video just voice.
He did say he'd look at the person's answer and look at their integrity... not sure why he'd want to see that.

I mean, why bother if you don't want to answer the questions and instead make me jump through hoops to ask a 'normal citizen' and then tell me whether or not they're right.

That really sucks. He didn't specify the reasoning behind declining to answer the questions? Makes it look like he's just an arrogant jerk.



I understanding asking for evidence that you actually did an interview as opposed to fabricating one, but what does he mean check their integrity? That's kind of weird. How do you judge that from a tape?

Still, if you are allowed to, Fpod is a good person to interview. We all know that he's intelligent, politically aware, and will have insightful things to say about the issue.




The problem is that I think it influences the interview. If you are on Crossfire and you are trying to get a debate going fine, but if you want to get the person's opinion in a straight factual manner, I think neutrality is helpful. If you don't give away your beliefs obviously right away, they can't think about your stance when they answer, and people do think about that kind of stuff.

You're going to have a well-educated guy sitting opposite you who will do what he can to push his point of view. You're going to get opinion anyway, so you might as well have contrast. You are actually asking him for conjecture on the subject, so be prepared to provide some counter-play of your own. The interview is always going to have a certain "taste" to it, but as the interviewer you get to pick what flavor you like best.





I personally think it's an ego trip, it allows you to look at what one of the "normals" has to say and then compare it to someone who is well-educated and knowledgeable on the subject. Sad thing is integrity has little to do with truth, the average person will have been conditioned to answer in a certain way, his answers will be the truth as he knows it.

The answer he wants you to come up with is: that there is no comparison between an average person and someone of his caliber, that his knowledge and expertise are priceless in that he can come to a more reasoned conclusion and that his integrity in sticking to his beliefs would actually mean something.

But of course there's always the - "he's arrogant and thinks that it's beneath him" answer.

So my english teacher was pissed. .___.; Not at me, but the other teacher. I showed her the email and she told me she was taking this to the dean >_<

She said it was really irresponsible and rude of him to hold me up until the last minute for this paper. So she's giving me an extension and helping me find someone else to interview. She doesn't want Fpod doing it, lol. She wants a professional.

So Fpod is off the hook.