Bracing For The Flames I Say, I Do NOT Believe That It IS Prisoner Abuse

[DistressedAmerican]

to desecrate religious symbols of detainees!

I have heard the term "religious abuse" used to describe the Koran flushing and other similar incidents. In my book that simply does not rise to the level than I'd describe as ABUSE.

Let me say that I do not favor or condone the conduct.

Clearly the damage it does to our international reputation is huge. It far outweighs any possible intelligence benefit that could come out of it. So, don't flame me as a supporter of the practice!!!

There are plenty of things that are being done to these people which clearly DOES constitute abuse and it sickens me. That includes inflicting pain and physical harm on detainees, staging mock executions, stress positions "water boarding" and the like.

We should not tolerate desecration the Koran! But, that is not because it constitutes "abuse"! It is because it is completely counter productive!

It is disrespectful. But it does not rise to the level of prisoner abuse in my opinion.

OK flame away!

[Pacifist Patriot]

1. No flames. I just disagree with you.

If I were a prisoner and someone took my chalice pendant away from me and spit on it I'd feel abused.

The Quran is not the same thing as the Bible to Muslims. It would be more like flushing Jesus down the toilet. It is the Logos, the Word of God.

From a non-Muslim perspective I could see your point of view. Personally, I think it crosses a line that doesn't need to be crossed. Prisoners are human beings with inherent worth and dignity. Making a mockery of their sacred and spiritual beliefs is unnecessary and disrespectful.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. I agree...

that it may or may not be "abusive" depending on how "abuse" is defined, but it certainly is unnecessary.

These people are detainees, and many are not even accused of anything but simply waiting to be questioned in case they might know something of value. That, in itself, is as abusive as it gets.

Extreme interrogation techniques which may include various forms of "torture" and dehumanizing the questionee are unnecessary and counterproductive in most cases, perhaps all, and certainly uncalled for in Gitmo.

The only reason for this that I can see is that the guards and TPTB are having fun with these guys. They look at the prisoners as animals, but treat them worse than they would treat their dogs.

[fob]

2. You're wrong.

nt

[DistressedAmerican]

4. Why? n/t

[Renew Deal]

8. Here's why

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1472990&mesg_id=1474240

[fob]

26. I'm sure if you think your statement through, you'll realize why.

Beside that the entire reason they set up Gitmo was to get around US laws and basic human rights.

[Warpy]

3. Remember the UPROAR over "Piss Christ?"

That was the conceptual art that had a crucifix in what was supposedly a beaker full of urine. The fundies went BALLISTIC, and I do seem to recall that they got the exhibit shut down.

While I don't claim to understand it, I do know how deeply that sort of thing cuts a believer. Yes, it's abuse. The Koran is about the only comfort those guys have been given. They are all passionately attached to it.

I see it as a stupid, self defeating tactic on the parts of the questioners, simply because it is considered such an outrage in the Islamic world. I hope none of those guys ever go to Saudi Arabia. They'll be beheaded for it.

And that is how seriously it should be taken here. It's abuse. It's unconscionable. And it's stupid.

[CJCRANE]

42. Even in that case

there is still an argument in the artist's favour in that the artwork was his property.

In the case of prisoners it is conventionally against the rules to damage a prisoner's personal property.

[LynnTheDem]

5. If you had a daughter who loved her stuffed kitty you had given her when

she was a little girl, if she had throughout her life sought comfort from that little stuffed kitty because of the meaning it held for her,

and if I knew exactly how deeply she loved that stuffed kitty, knew she would cling to that stuffed kitty and treasure it until her dying breath

and if I, in front of her, ripped the head off that little stuffed kitty and stomped on the rest of it until it was nothing but bits of fluff,

would you call that abuse?

I would.

One person's junk is another person's entire treasure.

[TeeYiYi]

34. I agree with your scenario which brings up a question . . .

. . . If your daughter was arrested and taken to Gitmo, would she be allowed to take her kitty with her? Should she be allowed?

Just curious.

TYY

[Goldmund]

45. Great fucking post.

[DistressedAmerican]

47. I Would Be Far More Concerned About Her Incarceration

iin the first place. I for the record find it hard to believe that your daughter deserves to be locked up (not that I an saying these folks do or do not, just being funny)!

We would have to rephrase your scenario like this to address my real concerns: If she was also being beaten, raped and tortured, would this be your biggest concern about the conduct?

I doubt it. That is my point. There are far worse things going on at these facilities than the flushing of a Koran.

We should all be incensed over the whole ugly mess. I just think that this is obscuring much worse crimes!

[LynnTheDem]

53. But if just doing that to her kitty would be abuse, what about doing that

to her kitty WHILE she was demoralized, all alone, rotting in Gitmo???

HOW much WORSE would that be then???

At home if I did that to her, she'd have family & friends who could comfort her & tell her the meaning of the kitty is still there in her heart and her mind...

But in GITMO??? Every little thing that happens to people in such situations; alone, terrified, no idea if the world outside their cage even still exists, it magnifies a hundred-fold every tiny little crumb of comfort...and every act of cruelty...done to them.

If it's abuse were I to do that to someone here and now, then for sure it's abuse were I a jailor at Gitmo and did it to anyone there.

You're trying to quantify levels of abuse. you can't, it's not possible. To me, the bible and the Q'uaron being abused wouldn't affect me at all, other than to scare me by the realization that these jailors will stop at nothing to try & scare me.

People have gone to their deaths refusing to recant their beliefs.

Whatever you & I may think of their beliefs, those beliefs are THAT VITAL to those people. The same applies to many people concerning the bible or the Q'uoran.

Whatever the person involved truly sees as horrific and abusive, that is IN FACT horrific and abusive.

[CBGLuthier]

6. Ever heard of psychological torture

To a true devout Muslim it rises to the level of mental torture.

So it IS abuse, even if the Koran is meaningless to you.

[izzybeans]

7. Your right. It's the same kind of iconoclastic act as the Taliban's

destruction of the statue of Buddha. It's an act of power, and in this case, a cowardly one. It may not be abuse but it only reinforced the function of the iconoclast, who fuels the angers on both sides. However I don't doubt the prisoners were probably being abused right alongside the flushing of the pages.

Turn on sarcasm: Great job Rummy! Nice armed forces you've got there.:sarcasm:

[izzybeans]

13. I'll add that I wish and hope it could be classified as abuse. Our leaders

have turned our armed services, once again, into something on par with the most dispicable regimes.

[whistle]

9. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, right or wrong

[DistressedAmerican]

29. That Is The Single Nicest Rejection Of My Comments I Have EVER Received

here on DU! I wish more people could understand what you just said around here. There'd be a hell of a lot less animosity!

I agree to disagree!

Thanks!

[allemand]

10. Human Rights Watch disagrees with you.

U.S.: Religious Humiliation of Muslim Detainees Widespread

On December 2, 2002, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld authorized a list of techniques for interrogation of prisoners at Guantánamo, which included “removal of all comfort items (including religious items),” “forced grooming (shaving of facial hair, etc.),” and “removal of clothing.” Each of these practices is considered offensive to many Muslims. These techniques were later applied in Afghanistan and Iraq as well.

The purpose of these techniques, Human Rights Watch said, is to inflict humiliation on detainees, which is strictly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. (...)

“If the U.S. government wants to repair the public relations damage caused by its mistreatment of detainees, it needs to investigate those who ordered or condoned this abuse, not attack those who have reported on it,” said Brody.

Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which sets out minimum requirements for the treatment of persons in armed conflicts, requires detainees to be treated humanely without adverse distinction based on religion or faith. Outrages upon personal dignity are prohibited, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

More:
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/05/19/usdom10981.htm

[spunky]

22. I think what they are describing is different.

“removal of all comfort items (including religious items),” “forced grooming (shaving of facial hair, etc.),” and “removal of clothing.”


Flushing a Koran down the toilet and denying a prisoner the right to have HIS or ANY Koran in his possession for worship is not quite the same thing. And I find forced grooming and removal of clothing to be far worse and of a different catergory. In that case if the grooming or lack of covering is contrary to the person's religion, then it reflects on him to his god in a more direct way than someone else flushing a koran down the toilet. Now, if they were making the PRISONERS flush the korans, I'd feel totally differently.

Not saying its okay, and it does make us look even worse to everyone else, but as far as torture goes, its a gray area for me.

[allemand]

31. It isn't torture, but it is against the Geneva Conventions.

ARTICLE 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/e160550475c4b133c12563cd0051aa66?OpenDocument

This is clearly a case of "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment".

[spunky]

38. I see your point, clearly the point in doing it would be to

humiliate and degrade. I'm just not sure that I believe that making someone watch you desicrate their religious item is/ought to be humiliating or degrading. Of course, I'm not certain it matters what I find humiliating or degrading. Humiliation and degredation are in the eyes of the beholder I suppose.

[frylock]

39. geneva conventions?!?

that is soooooooooo September 10. :eyes:

[wuushew]

11. You are semantically incorrect

Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument :

(Edited to please post #17)

[Pacifist Patriot]

15. Excellent point.

[DistressedAmerican]

17. #2 Is The Definition That Applies

The first definition refers a coloqoloquiism like saying "I can't freaking get algebra. It is torture!"

I don't think that is the use of the word we are discussing here.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. But is it torture as defined by law?

With a definition as broad as that, simply detaining them could be construed as torture, as it could cause mental anguish.

[wuushew]

30. I would argue it does

under U.S. law and or the Geneva Conventions

Section 2340. Definitions


As used in this chapter -
(1) ''torture'' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) ''severe mental pain or suffering'' means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) ''United States'' includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.

(U.S. Code, Title 18, Sect. 2340)



I really hope you are not cheer leading for the Bush admininstrations contention that detainees exist in some sort of extra-legal limbo where we can do what ever we choose to them. Why are all the DLCers defending torture?

[DistressedAmerican]

32. This makes no contrary case to what I have said.

Where in does it say ANYTHING about desecration of religious items? Unless flushing a Koran equates to "the administration of mind altering substances".

All of these definition are based on physical harm or the threat thereof.

Please point out what I am missing...

Section 2340. Definitions


As used in this chapter -
(1) ''torture'' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) ''severe mental pain or suffering'' means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) ''United States'' includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.

(U.S. Code, Title 18, Sect. 2340)

[wuushew]

36. What do you think mental pain is?

A bad headache, doing to much acid?

[DistressedAmerican]

37. It Is Clearly Defined In Part 2 as:

the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) ''United States'' includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.


How do you read that differently?

[spunky]

33. No one is defending torture. I think what some people are trying to say

is that this is a drop in the pond compared to the real torture being meted out on these prisoners.

I mean, if I were a devout Christian and I saw someone who didn't believe flush a bible down the toilet, I'd think to myself "he's going to hell for that" not "I'm going to hell for that."

This is, in my opinion, worst in how it makes us look to the rest of the world.

[DistressedAmerican]

41. That Is Exactly It! I Made It Quite Clear I Neither Condone

torture nor this act.

Is it not possible to have a rational discussion on DU anymore without being accused of freepery?

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. The statute you posted doesn't describe what was alleged to have happened

(1) ''torture'' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

Below is a definition of ''severe mental pain or suffering.'' The problem is that none of these apply.

(2) ''severe mental pain or suffering'' means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -


(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

Flushing a book down the toilet wouldn't do that.

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

Flushing a book down the toilet wouldn't do that.

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

Flushing a book down the toilet wouldn't do that (unless the person you are trying to torture is a book.

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

No mention of religious desecration here either.

[Iriemon]

12. It's not abuse of prisoners that is the problem

The problem is if the representatives of our country desecrate the Koran it insults and abuses the entire Muslem world, with which we need good relations if we are ever going to hope to "win" the "war" on terror.

[DistressedAmerican]

18. I Completely Agree! I Think I Made That Pretty Clear In The Original Post

We need to be winning over the Muslim world. Not further alienating it.

We should not allow the practice on those grounds!

[spunky]

16. I see where you are coming from.

I suppose I would count it as psychological abuse, because if you are truly devout in your religion, it might bother you greatly to see a treasured religious symbol treated like excrement, but it does not rise to the level of other forms of abuse being perpetrated, IMO. I mean, no matter how much you believe, it seems to me (an atheist) that on some rational, logical level you must understand it is just words on paper. The importance is in the heart and mind and universe and god (or allah) himself. Kind of like how I don't get how much churches spend on buildings. They value and treasure them, and find them very important despite the fact that they are just material vessels.

So, in a way I agree with you. It is very very wrong, but the jury is still out for me as to whether or not it is truly psychological abuse.

[RobinA]

19. I Agree Completely

It's like flag burning. The Koran is a symbolic thing, just like the flag. Flush, burn, whatever. It's replacable, inanimate matter. Affects the underlying ideas not at all.

And in this case, it distracts from the crimes against actual people being committed.

[NewInNewJ.]

24. I think most of us get upset over book burning

as we have seen the rightwingers do . I would be highly offended if someone destroyed my bible, or any of my books,because of politics.It is abusive to me.

[DistressedAmerican]

25. Thanks You! You Put It Better Than I!

[Pacifist Patriot]

35. The Quran is symbolic to you.

It is the living breathing word of God to Muslims. I have to go with the individual above who posted the definition of abuse. This would cause great distress.

I agree that there are far greater crimes that are being perpetrated, but that shouldn't diminish the anguish brought about by this unnecessary act.

[Zhade]

20. Sorry, you're wrong. See post #10.

It's a violation of international law, actually, for captors to intentionally humiliate or degrade a prisoner's dignity.

I usually agree with you, but not here.

[DistressedAmerican]

28. I Don't think So. See Post #22

[Roland99]

21. I disagree. I don't think most people can distance themselves from...

our own culture.

One has to put one's self in the mind of someone from Afghanistan. Just because we consider ourselves more "enlightened" or more technologically advanced or whatever doesn't give us the right to belittle other cultures, no matter how illogical their belief systems may seem.

Now, I'm not defending the RMEs (Radical Muslim Extremists) like those we fought against in Afghanistan.

[DistressedAmerican]

27. Where Did I Ever Say It Was Alright.

I made it quite clear that I find the practice unacceptable.

[Roland99]

43. I didn't. I was disagreeing with your viewpoint that it is not abuse.

[demgurl]

40. It really does not matter what you think.

It also does not matter what I think. No matter what you or I espouse on this board, it does not make a difference to Muslins around the world for it will not change their minds.

A Muslin half way around the world will not say, "Oh, Distressed American thinks I should feel this way so I will."

Our beliefs do not matter a hill of beans to people who feel we have fraudulently started a war, illegally occupied their country, killed their brothers and sisters, and tortured those who are innocent. Someone over here can say it is only paper or that is not abuse but opinions are just that.

These people hold the Koran above everything else. They even have rituals to preform before reading the Koran. They are the ones rioting. They are the ones calling a jihad against us. They are not saying it does not matter. This could even put the troops, and ultimately us, in even more danger. The Muslims are all over and could come together to surround us and take out our troops. This could cause a whole new uprising here in the States.

I do believe this is abuse and not just because it fits in with the definition of what abuse is. I think it is abuse because my common sense tells me it is. I look at the signs. Let's look at them together:

I am not the one crying 'abuse' so I must look at it in terms of what the 'abused' are saying. All of them think it is abuse as well as an insult to a whole religion - a religion filled with fanatics who are only too glad to go to war for what they believe. Since it is not only the prisoners crying out 'abuse', I must then assume that the Muslims feel this way and can only guess that it must be true. I do not think these worldwide outbreaks of violence are just because some people are bored.

I also think it is abuse because of what I have heard in the news.
I have heard that the US shipped prisoners to Gitmo just to get around human rights clauses. I have read some of the things that Rummy has written about why can't they do this or that longer.

I have heard Janis Karpinski say that 80% of the people at Abu are innocent. Some of the people at Gitmo were transferred from Abu. Janis even said that when they were not getting the results that the military wanted from the prisoners, people were transferred from Gitmo to make sure they got results. I can only infer, from that, that people at Gitmo are highly trained in the 'skill' of torture. The torture did not start at Abu until these MI (military intel) people showed up to teach them how it is done.

The military has studied how to make these people talk. This is why they used fake menstral blood, anal sex, etc...for torture. They know what works.

I try to add all of this up. When I look at it I see that people in Gitmo were 'outsourced' because they knew how to get results, the prisoner who complained is at Gitmo, the Muslim world has been very up in arms about this. Trying to be objective, the only thing I can see is that it is torture.

But you know what, it really does not matter what I think. Those forces conspiring against the US right now do not care whether you or I believe it is torture. Our opinions will not convince them not to do another terrorist attack and perhaps declare a holy war on all of us for years to come. Due to this I am now afraid to travel and declare I am American. The jihad will last for years and the rest of the world will not fall in line quite as easily as the sheeple.

To you it is not torture, to me it is. To them, it does not matter what we think.

[DistressedAmerican]

44. I Wish People Would Stop Acting Like I Said We SHOULD

be doing these things. I made it QUITE FREAKING CLEAR that I am oppossed to the act. Stop trying paint me as advocating the action!

It is offwensive and counter productive. It does nothing but inflame sentiment against the west (and rightlfully so).

As to whether anyone cares what I or other DUers think, I guess none of should bother expressing opinions here becaus no one really cares what the hell we think anyway?

Come on. I am under no illusion that my post here matters one wit to the Muslim world, or Bush, or other DUers for that matter. Should I just not bother then?

Why do you bother if that is your main outlook on the site and the threads posted here? What keeps YOU coming back if our opinions do not matter?

[demgurl]

51. I am sorry if it seemed I was saying you said we should....

because you clearly said, in bold, that you do not think we should. I guess I thought I was addressing the question as to whether it is abuse. You did say, in the headliner of your OP, "I Do NOT Believe That It IS Prisoner Abuse".

I think what we have to say on most subjects so very important. Without this place, I would go crazy. Just note that I did not state that everything we say is not important. I just think that what we say on this one matter will not be important as far as the ramifications of our actions against these prisoners.

I had a small bit of pent up rage against some other folks who posted on different threads about this. They said it was only paper and how could it be torture. They were very ignorant since obviously the Muslims all think this is an outrage and torture. This type of arrogant attitude (not specifically speaking of you) is what caused us to be attacked in the first place. This attitude of 'we do not think it is torture so it is not' is giving a huge 'fuck you' to the rest of the world.

Well, you and I are not going to attack the troops and so our opinions on whether it is torture or not do not matter. It is the opinion of those who would hurt us that matter. * really is a uniter, he is bringing together all of the Muslim world!

I guess what I am trying to say is that a lot of the time our opinions do make a difference. We join together and can really get things done. We are amazing. I think on this one subject that the bigger picture says our opinions do not matter.

This has nothing to do with your OP, but rather about the * regime : When we were young and took someone else's toy, sometimes they would cry at the top of their lungs. Our parents (if they were good) would tell us to give the toy back and to respect other people. The * regime needs to step back and respect other people's ideals, possessions, etc.... I guess this is a simple idea that was never taught to them.

So, just to make things clear, I would like to say that I never stated we should all stop posting. I never said our opinions on anything else does not matter. I never said we should all disband and I never said I hated this place and I usually do not speak in such negatives.

And you know what, you expressed your opinion and I expressed mine. We can talk about it here but I was trying to point out to EVERYONE that there is a much more important thing we should look at here. We need to realize that no matter what spin is presented, the * regime is starting a religious war that could truly hurt all of us. I think that sometimes talking about our own points we sometimes miss the big points here. One of the big points is that we are in the middle of the Muslim world over there and we could be pounded even more than we are here.

Another point is I never did say not to post I said that if you or I think it is not torture it does not matter to the person being tortured. If I am standing over a man and gutting him, while he is alive, you and I can sit there all day saying it is not torture to us but I dare say that that man would say it is torture.

My biggest point is that the man said it was torture, the Muslim community says it is and the international community says it is. The best proof of torture is that they say it is torture and the Red Cross has reported it as such in the past.

I do agree that according to our standards it is not torture but I do not think those soldiers were flushing the Koran down the toilet because they ran out of toilet tissue. They knew the harm it would cause.

I am truly glad that we agree that no matter what the reason was for this, it should not be done. I am sorry if you thought I was attacking you. I really did not mean to. Part of the reason I said it does not matter what we both think is so you would know I was not personally attacking you. I am sorry it did not work the way I had hoped. Please accept my apology.

[noiretextatique]

46. you might feel differently if you were a muslim prisoner

not a stretch to assume his opinion would probably be a vastly different than yours.

[Karenina]

56. Could have something to do with

that assumption of the privilege of "definition?" ;-) :evilgrin: :hi:

[noiretextatique]

61. ah...indeed

and like fish swimming in water.... :hi:

[Richard D]

49. Here's why it's so bad . . .

If people are tortured in Gitmo and other locations, the rational (wrong of course) is that it's OK because they are terrorists. Once the Quaran is pissed on, what's being pissed on is not anymore just the prisoners, but the entire religion and the entire population of Muslims in the world.

[DistressedAmerican]

50. I Fully Agree That It Is Bad! Made That Quite Clear...

I never made any rational about them being or not being terrorists. It is offensive and should stop.

[CBGLuthier]

52. And the rats never touched Winston Smith either

So I guess he wasn't abused or tortured.

It doesn't matter what it is, if person A can cause "terror" in the mind of person B by exploiting their beliefs or fears then it is abuse.

Is it as bad as the other crimes? No. But that wasn't your argument. Your argument is that it was not abuse.

And you are wrong.

[Tinoire]

54. Totally disagree

Many times we agree but on this one my friend, we're gonna have to diverge. LynnTheDem excellent example is close to the one I was going to give.

The kind of torture you inflict by destroying people's few links to who they are, what they are are in my eyes, more cruel than physical torture.

Amputating someone's soul is an unforgivable crime.

If you kidnapped me from my homeland in your illegal war against a noun (this time, instead of drugs, it's terror), bound me, blind-folded me and threw me on a plane going I knew not where



an American No-Man's land where no laws apply




caged me like an animal



in a small tent



Torturing me, tormenting me, treating me like a sub-mensch to be menstruated upon



to be covered with excrement and mocked

and all I had to comfort me, to remind me of WHO I AM, of WHAT I AM, of my past, of my future, of my spiritual self - the only thing you couldn't take away from me, was the Koran of my youth, the Koran of my life, the Koran of my God, a Koran that brought me comfort, a Koran so Holy that from youth I was not allowed to touch it without first ritualistically cleansing my hands... and you defiled it

I would kill you with my bare hands for amputating my soul.

[mogster]

58. It is a harrowing experience

One of the ugliest things you can do to a human being.
The ugly thing about the Abu Ghraib pictures isn't the dead people, it is the desecration of the living.

Peace

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. Abuse doesn't have to be physical

It can be psychological as well.

It's likely that a lot of the prisoners being held at Guantanamo are not guilty of anything except being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and they've been held for four years. The Koran is their only reminder of home and their only spiritual comfort.

(Imagine yourself held without charges in a cage halfway around the world for no particular reason. Imagine then how little it would take to torture you psychologically.)

ON EDIT: And Tinoire said it much better than I did.

[im10ashus]

57. You are asking for a flame!

IMHO! You should know better. The desecration of religious symbol, and I am non-religious by the way, is not tolerated under the Geneva Convention. We can agree to disagree, but I think you started this to look for attention.

[DistressedAmerican]

59. Whatever! What Do You Know Of Me Of My Motivations?

I do not look to get flamed. However, I sometimes have opinions that I know people will not necessarily be thrilled about here. Should I never express them for faer of the flames? Please!!!

[H2O Man]

60. When the people who

came up with the various things to do to drive the Islamic detainees over the edge, they knew exactly what they were doing. They were not concerned with if people like you and I would be offended. They were sure that the things they came up with would be very offensive to the Muslims in their custody. They did not realize the people doing the tortures would get caught, or that the greater Islamic community would find out.

It really doesn't make any difference if you think it is torture, or just stupid, or mildly offensive, or if you think it's a giggle. It only mattewrs what the Islamic people think of it.

[spunky]

62. Isn't there a difference between insulting and torture?

I mean, for anyone to urinate, flush, burn or otherwise desecrate a symbol you hold dear is certainly insulting. The question I think DistressedAmerican is trying to raise here is where this line between insult and torture is drawn.

It is a slippery slope, and I hope no one thinks I am defending any of the practices at Gitmo, BUT, do we or do we not accept that at least some of these detainees may have actual pertinent intel on terrorism?

I'd say that they can't all be guilty of something, but likewise they can't all possibly be innocent either.

So, if we agree that there is info here that may save lives, then certainly we agree that there has to be some way of "breaking" these people without torturing them, not unlike what American police do to "break" American citizens who are suspects of a crime.

So, that means the question(s) at hand are 1) where is the line drawn? Answer: Geneva Convention. 2) What constitutes psychological torture, because I don't believe the Geneva convention is specific enough to decide this case. 3) Would flushing a Koran count?

What is wrong with debating this? I mean we must decide on what we feel are acceptable interrogation methods, for if we don't and they aren't interrorgated, they can NEVER be released.


Eh, just my rambling final thoughts. I'm sure I've left stuff out that I meant to say. And I hope no one thinks I am condoning anything, nor am I saying what we are doing at Gitmo in general is correct. But I do believe that the questions raised here are somewhat in the eye of the beholder. And that is why they must be discussed and why there, IMO, is nothing wrong with DistressedAmerican starting this thread.

[Karenina]

63. Fish

meet water.
Water, fish.