Musicans file freedom of information request over music and toture

[jc4prez]

From the New York Times:

Musicians Protest Tunes Used in Interrogations

By Bernie Becker

 

This time at least, musicians Tom Morello and Trent Reznor want the music turned down.

 

Mr. Morello, formerly of Rage Against the Machine, and Mr. Reznor, of Nine Inch Nails, are among a group of musicians who have joined the National Campaign to Close Guantánamo and are supporting the group’s efforts to declassify records dealing with the use of music in detainee interrogations.

 

Previously declassified records and other reports have already documented some of the uses of loud music, including the playing of recordings by Nine Inch Nails and Rage Against the Machine. With the help of the National Security Archive, this group hopes to learn more about the use of music as an interrogation technique by filing Freedom of Information Act requests on Thursday with a host of government agencies — including the Defense Department, C.I.A. and F.B.I.

 

Mr. Morello, R.E.M. and The Roots said in statements that they were outraged that music had been used in interrogations and called for the closure of the detention center at Guantanamo. Other musicians backing the effort include Pearl Jam, Jackson Browne and Rosanne Cash.

 

“We have spent the past 30 years supporting causes related to peace and justice – to now learn that some of our friends’ music may have been used as part of the torture tactics without their consent or knowledge, is horrific,” R.E.M. said in a statement. “It’s anti-American, period.”

 

A White House spokesman indicated that loud music was one of the techniques tossed away during a policy shift on interrogations announced shortly after the president’s inauguration. And according to The Associated Press, a C.I.A. spokesman said, when the music was used, it was not employed “for punitive purposes — and at levels far below a live rock band.”

 

Aaron Harison of Keep America Safe — the recently formed group that accuses President Obama’s administration of “turning away from the policies that have kept us safe” — said the group would not comment on the new move.

 

Jayne Huckerby of the International Human Rights Clinic at the New York University School of Law, which represents two former detainees who faced music as an interrogation technique, said the Thursday filings could increase the understanding of the “psychological impact this had on the individuals that were subjected to it.”

 

“We’re far away from understanding” the extent music was used in interrogations, added Ms. Huckerby, who also pointed to a United Nations finding that the “sounding of loud music for prolonged periods” violated its Convention Against Torture.

 

According to Ms. Huckerby, Mohamed Bashmilah, one of the detainees represented by her group, has indicated that both “excruciatingly loud western rap and Arabic music” and “deafening music” were used while he was detained. Recordings by Metallica, Britney Spears and even from Sesame Street have also been employed as interrogation techniques, according to previous reports.

 

Kate Doyle, senior analyst for the National Security Archive, said that previous filings had not concentrated specifically on the use of music in interrogations.

 

“We expect to obtain documents that name bands and songs that were used in detainee interrogations,” she said. “The very small handful that we’ve already seen came up accidentally during requests that we’re not targeting music.”

 

Still, it’s hard to say how long it will take before Thursday’s filing produces any documents. Some of the petitioned agencies, Ms. Doyle said, have a history of being more responsive than others to information requests.

 

The filing comes two days after a group, the National Campaign to Close Guantanamo, released its first advertisement, which criticized Congress for standing in the way of efforts to close the detention center.

 

Curious what people thought about this. Its disturbing to think how many people were enjoying this music while it was being used for such awful purposes. I can't even began to imagine how I would feel if I created something to express myself and then found it being used in such an awful way.

[nodep5]

From the New York Times:

 

 

Curious what people thought about this. Its disturbing to think how many people were enjoying this music while it was being used for such awful purposes. I can't even began to imagine how I would feel if I created something to express myself and then found it being used in such an awful way.

 

I should leave this alone, because I have found that we all view the world in our own way and that rarely does differing opinions make a bit of difference. That being said, I disagree (or don't understand your comment). I think there are a lot of grieving families worldwide that would find it insulting if someone insinuated that the potential perpetrators of horrific acts having to listen to mildly loud music was in some way torture. In some ways it saddens me that I imagine most will strongly disagree with my view, but oh well.

[jc4prez]

For one do not not speak your mind because you don't believe your view is popular. Anyone who attacks for thinking differently rather then talking is a fool. I for one wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion and that is fine. For example you mention grieving families but fail to make a connection with those being tortured and those grieving. But this isn't the important thing. I was not trying to have a conversation about US policy, if I was I would have placed this in another forum.

 

The question I have is over how art is used by others who did not create it. Regardless of what you feel the intent of US foreign policy, I'm sure you make the connection that the musicians intent and the use of this music are not one and the same. This is what I wanted to discuss. I also wanted to discuss the use of art as weapon.

[nodep5]

For one do not not speak your mind because you don't believe your view is popular. Anyone who attacks for thinking differently rather then talking is a fool. I for one wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion and that is fine. For example you mention grieving families but fail to make a connection with those being tortured and those grieving. But this isn't the important thing. I was not trying to have a conversation about US policy, if I was I would have placed this in another forum.

 

The question I have is over how art is used by others who did not create it. Regardless of what you feel the intent of US foreign policy, I'm sure you make the connection that the musicians intent and the use of this music are not one and the same. This is what I wanted to discuss. I also wanted to discuss the use of art as weapon.

 

 

Fair enough, It struck a chord, sorry.

 

As far as your question, I think what people do with art (esp music) is out of the artists (musicians) hands once it is put into the world. This goes back to the whole issue of is Marilyn Manson responsible for some teenager comitting suicide arguement. If someone isn't profitting I can't see where an arguement would stand.

 

Now in fairness, maybe I would have more empathy for this particular issue if it wasn't being pushed by the three musicians listed above. But that is a personal bias thing.

[bjorn_skurj]

The irony of Rage Against the Machine being used in this way is deep. I can totally understand why Morello and the others are pissed, and wish them the best of luck in their endeavors.

[jc4prez]

I'm sure we have some lawyers on here so maybe someone can answer. Is this a breech of fair use? Granted no money is being made but is this any different then a restaurant subjecting patrons to smooth jazz (which they need a license to play).

[MattZ]

I didnt look into this at all, but based on a quick glance at what you posted, it looks like a FOIA request. All that means is that they are looking to have information disclosed publicly. That's it. This is about exposing information that is otherwise not being disclosed.

 

There is no way that I can possibly imagine the musicians making any worthwhile argument, legal or otherwise, that would actually dictate how their music is played, when it is played, or how loudly it is played. Fair use is a concept used to defend against copyright infringement. If this music was purchased legally, I dont see what this is other than a lot of headlines with no teeth. I suppose the artists might hope that by exposing the practice, the authorities would be shamed into stopping? Maybe I don't understand your fair use point? Or maybe I need to read more about this and not just shoot from the hip.

 

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Gobias Industries]

I suppose if I made a record and people were using it to deliberately using it to torture other people, I'd be pretty pissed. On moral grounds. I mean, music is made to be enjoyed. It's not supposed to be some weapon used to hurt someone. I guess that's the point. There is no legal way for it to stop, but the artist deserves their share of respect for what they labored a shitton to make...so sort of Matt's point.

 

Luckily, the music I record is too soft to be played too loudly.

[jc4prez]

I didnt look into this at all, but based on a quick glance at what you posted, it looks like a FOIA request. All that means is that they are looking to have information disclosed publicly. That's it. This is about exposing information that is otherwise not being disclosed.

 

There is no way that I can possibly imagine the musicians making any worthwhile argument, legal or otherwise, that would actually dictate how their music is played, when it is played, or how loudly it is played. Fair use is a concept used to defend against copyright infringement. If this music was purchased legally, I dont see what this is other than a lot of headlines with no teeth. I suppose the artists might hope that by exposing the practice, the authorities would be shamed into stopping? Maybe I don't understand your fair use point? Or maybe I need to read more about this and not just shoot from the hip.

 

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

its is only a request, I was just curious if their were any legal implications. This isn't simply buying a record and playing it for a friend, its using it to "help" your business.

[Moss]

The irony of Rage Against the Machine being used in this way is deep. I can totally understand why Morello and the others are pissed, and wish them the best of luck in their endeavors.

 

So true.

[MattZ]

its is only a request, I was just curious if their were any legal implications. This isn't simply buying a record and playing it for a friend, its using it to "help" your business.

 

Gotcha. So you are analogizing it to a restaurant playing music while its patrons eat? And restaurants have to pay royalties to play the music? I hadn't thought of it that way. It's an interesting way of framing the issue, but I don't know if it really holds up in this context.

 

Either way, if this is a FOIA request, it's just a request for information. Will be interesting to see what, if anything, the artists do after this.

 

What about a strip club? You start down a slippery slope when you start to question who/when/how the music gets played.

[Rusty Shackleford]

And if the whole world’s singing your songs

And all of your paintings have been hung

Just remember what was yours is everyone’s from now on

[jakobnicholas]

Would there be the same outrage if Garth Brooks' music was blasted loudly?

Would Oprah have been equally offended if they had forced the prisoners to listen her show over and over?

If a Top-40 station was played, would every artist of every song played on the station have a right to be outraged?

If Jay Z found out that ESPN broadcaster/wife-cheater Steve Phillips was making love with his mistress to his music, should Jay Z state his disgust with that?

If a doctor performs abortions while listening to John Denver, should Denver's estate demand the doctor play something else?

 

 

 

I have no answers, just questions.

[jc4prez]

Gotcha. So you are analogizing it to a restaurant playing music while its patrons eat? And restaurants have to pay royalties to play the music? I hadn't thought of it that way. It's an interesting way of framing the issue, but I don't know if it really holds up in this context.

 

Either way, if this is a FOIA request, it's just a request for information. Will be interesting to see what, if anything, the artists do after this.

 

What about a strip club? You start down a slippery slope when you start to question who/when/how the music gets played.

 

Aren't stip clubs supposed to be paying licensing fees. I only took one entertainment law class in college and my understanding was that any business using music needed to be paying a licensing fee.I realize many business don't pay or register but I thought that was the "law". Like I said I could be wrong.

[Guest Jules]

Mr. Morello, R.E.M. and The Roots said in statements that they wereoutraged that music had been used in interrogations and called for theclosure of the detention center at Guantanamo. Other musicians backingthe effort include Pearl Jam, Jackson Browne and Rosanne Cash.

 

I find this whole thing ridiculous.

[jc4prez]

Would there be the same outrage if Garth Brooks' music was blasted loudly?

No, I imagine most Garth Brooks fans support the war on terror.

 

Would Oprah have been equally offended if they had forced the prisoners to listen her show over and over?

No, Oprah supports the war on terror.

 

If a Top-40 station was played, would every artist of every song played on the station have a right to be outraged?

 

Yes.

If Jay Z found out that ESPN broadcaster/wife-cheater Steve Phillips was making love with his mistress to his music, should Jay Z state his disgust with that?

Only if the music was downloaded via a file sharing site.

 

If a doctor performs abortions while listening to John Denver, should Denver's estate demand the doctor play something else?

 

This is only reasonable analogy. Except for the fact the torturers were breaking the law, where as performing an abortion is not illegal.

[MattZ]

Aren't stip clubs supposed to be paying licensing fees. I only took one entertainment law class in college and my understanding was that any business using music needed to be paying a licensing fee.I realize many business don't pay or register but I thought that was the "law". Like I said I could be wrong.

 

Yes, but is your problem that the govt isn't paying licensing fees? Or that the govt is doing it in the first place? I assume it's the latter, not the former. And if it's the latter, I am pointing out that you are starting down a slippery slope.

[jc4prez]

Yes, but is your problem that the govt isn't paying licensing fees? Or that the govt is doing it in the first place? I assume it's the latter, not the former. And if it's the latter, I am pointing out that you are starting down a slippery slope.

 

Well, my problem is like you said the latter. I realize though that are government is not to interested in stopping their policy of torturing suspects. So if their is a way through our current laws to throw roadblocks up we as citizens should be doing it. Again like I said I'm not a copyright attorney so I don't even know if a license for "play" can even be denied. Even if it could the government would simply go out a record their own tracks to torture people, I'm sure Ted Nugent is just waiting for the call.

 

My real point is this is a disgusting abuse of not only human rights (on part of those being tortured) but of the artists involved. If I had recorded one of the songs being used in this matter I think it would forever change my view of the art I had created. I could even see this effecting listeners.

[Good Old Neon]

 

If a doctor performs abortions while listening to John Denver, should Denver's estate demand the doctor play something else?

 

Perhaps, if the doctor was literally attempting to use Denver’s music to cause an abortion – but, as far as I know, that’s impossible.

[bleedorange]

I wonder which Nine Inch Nails album was being used. Listening to With Teeth was pretty torturous.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I tend to think that if an "artist" has recorded songs that can actually be used to torture people, they kinda had it coming.

 

For instance, if Mike Mills didn't want his music to be used against prisoners, he shouldn't have recorded Shiny Happy People.

[bjorn_skurj]

Would there be the same outrage if Garth Brooks' music was blasted loudly?

Would Oprah have been equally offended if they had forced the prisoners to listen her show over and over?

If a Top-40 station was played, would every artist of every song played on the station have a right to be outraged?

If Jay Z found out that ESPN broadcaster/wife-cheater Steve Phillips was making love with his mistress to his music, should Jay Z state his disgust with that?

If a doctor performs abortions while listening to John Denver, should Denver's estate demand the doctor play something else?

 

 

 

I have no answers, just questions.

1. Maybe - ask Garth.

2. I would imagine so.

3. Yes.

4. I doubt Jay-Z would be disgusted by that particular scenario.

5. I think just playing John Denver anywhere near a pregnant woman would cause the baby to want to die and not come into a world where such sonic nightmares exist.

[nodep5]

Don't Pearl Jam, REM, NIN, Tom M from Rage have some music to record or something to keep them busy. Oh this stuff just rings of pompousness. I do appreciate the geo policitcal views of my rock stars, I'd just rather hear their music.

 

I mean this is truly kind of ridiculous as someone already pointed out. (not to compare the next few sentences to torture) but I have probably taken a dump to a pearl jam song before, would they appreciate that? Once it is out there, it is out there. If I want to mow the lawn wearing boxers and cowboy boots with a budweiser in my lawn mower's cup holder while listening to "everybody hurts" on my ipod, who can really stop me.

[MattZ]

Certainly there is a difference between using music/art to torture someone else and what you've suggested, which is activities you've engaged in while listening to the music.

[Moss]

Certainly it's an oppurtunity for these artists to weigh in with their moral outrage and that's why they are doing it, but I see a big difference between torture and strip clubs or some of the other examples. Are we incapable of drawing the line somewhere anymore?

 

I don't know if it should be a law or anything but certainly the artists have the right to be outraged. It's torture for god's sake.